CONTINUED FROM LAST WEEK
A lecture delivered under the auspices of the Nigeria Union of Journalists, West Nigerian Branch, on 14th June, 1958.
I would like to seize this opportunity to congratulate the members of the Western Region Branch of the Nigerian Union of Journalists for their wisdom in launching the Press Week and for the success which has attended their activities thus far. I also want to thank them for calling upon me to play some part in this memorable event. The objects of the Nigerian Union of Journalists as contained in their Constitution are as follows:
- a) To work for the advancement of Journalism in Nigeria
- b) To promote the status of its members and defend their interest with regard to salary, conditions of employment and tenure of office.
- c) To deal with matters concerning professional conduct of its members.
- d) To foster the spirit of professional consciousness among its members.
These objects appear to me to be highly commendable. In Nigeria, journalism is still a comparatively young and immature profession; and considering its importance to any enlightened community or society, as I will try to show later in the course of this lecture, any programme which is instituted for the purpose of advancing and fostering the interest of this profession deserves to be encouraged and supported by all. There is, of course, an element of trade unionism in the objects of the Union. The Union is out not only to work for the advancement of journalism in Nigeria and to foster the spirit of professional consciousness among journalists, but also to defend the interests of their members with regard to salaries, conditions of employment and tenure of office. This object is equally commendable.
It has been said that a hungry man is a angry person. In the case of a journalist it is in the interest of the public whom he serves that he should be well-fed and contented. For it is in the natural order of things that a hungry journalist will be more prone than others to dip his pen in gall. It is gratifying that though the Union clearly recognises that man cannot live without bread, yet by implication, it places sufficient emphasis, in its objects, on the sage saying that man does not live by bread alone.
Today, the Press enjoys a position of considerable importance throughout the world. In Britain it is known as the Fourth Estate of the Realm. The other Estates – the First, Second and Third Estates of the Realm -: are respectively the Lords spiritual, the Lords Temporal, and the Commons. In Constitutional Law, an Estate is an order or class having a definite share as such in the body politic, and participating either directly or indirectly in the Government. The system of representation by Estates emerged in Western Europe during the 13th century. Before then the old Feudal Council consisted only of the Clergy (the Lords Spiritual) and the Territorial Nobles (the Lords Temporal). As a result of the gradual but sure disintegration of the Feudal System, a new class of people began to emerge who did not belong to the two classes already mentioned. This class of people were the well-to-do town dwellers who made their wealth from business and other non-agricultural enterprises. The masses of people who are now known as the Commons did not then belong to that class. The commons as then understood consisted of the well-o-do class to which reference has been made.
The term ‘Fourth Estate of the Realm’ came into use in the early part of the 19th century, and was at first applied to the lower class of people – the common people now known as the Commons. But this term was later applied to the Press.
It is worthy of note that about the same time that the term Fourth Estate of the Realm, came into use, a series of Parliamentary reforms were initiated in the United Kingdom which eventually culminated in the grant of universal suffrage to all adults in that country. The first step in this series in the United Kingdom was the Reform Act of 1832. Even this Act, which was considered to be revolutionary at that time, only gave franchise to one out of twenty-two citizens as against one out of two at present. But the reforms which was sponsored by the Liberals, then known as the Whigs, was considered so radical that the Duke of Wellington, a leading Conservative of his day, felt obliged to declare that, in view of the reform, henceforward no gentlemen would be able to take part in public affairs. Subsequent events have however falsified this prophecy.
It will be seen that in the original conception and understanding of the phrase, the Fourth Estate of the Realm was closely, intimately and inseparably identified with the masses or the common people. I would like to emphasise and underline this point at this stage, as it has important bearing on some aspect of our discussion at a later stage.
‘It may not be generally realised by those of us of the present age that the Press has not always enjoyed the influence and importance which are today accorded to it; nor has it always enjoyed the freedom which is now considered as one of its inherent rights. The position of eminence which the Press Occupies in the world today has been a matter of protracted evolution. In our part of the world we are fortunate to be heirs to the achievements of an illustrious journalistic ancestry.
From 1623 when the first paper, the ‘Weekly News’, was published, newspapers in Britain were subjected to different kinds of restraint. Censorship was imposed: any view which was not in keeping with the opinion held by the ruling classes (i.e. the Clergy and the Nobility) was regarded as heretical, unorthodox, and seditious. Newspapers were forbidden to say anything about Government. The law of libel was extremely harsh and was enforced with exceeding severity by the Star Chamber. Classic in this respect is the dictum of Scroggs C.J. in Carr’s Case in 1680. He said, ‘If you write on the subject of the Government, whether in terms of praise or censure it is not material, for no man has the right to say anything of the Government.’ Heavy stamp duties were also imposed on the grant of a licence to publish a new paper.
After the abolition of the Star Chamber in 1641 and the lapse of the Licensing Act in 1695, the Press became theoretically free. But the freedom of the Press about which we speak so much today became a reality after 1830 – that is 200 years after the appearance of the first newspaper.
The function of the Press is principally to disseminate news and to pass judgment, when it so desires, on matters of moment or topical interest by means of printed words, illustrations, cartoons, caricatures or other visual symbolizations.
Before the advent of newspapers, the dissemination of news. had to be done by word of mouth. This was by its very nature extremely slow and narrowly circumscribed. The news which was transmitted from mouth to mouth was more often than not grossly distorted. One important feature of oral news was that it was transient and impermanent. Consequently, it is comparatively ineffective. It must be pointed out in this connection, however, that oral news could be effective in a most dangerous sense. False rumours passed on from mouth to mouth, and distorted and exaggerated in the process of transmission, could be the precursor of grave situations and consequences such as were witnessed in Ibadan Division recently.
But not so with printed news and criticism. A newspaper by its very nature enjoys much wider circulation than oral news, even in those old days of the 17”h century when communication was very poor indeed. The news, criticisms and eulogies contained in a newspaper are again by that very nature permanent. What is more, they impress themselves more on the minds of the people who read them than we word of mouth does on its hearers. Printed news has an air of veracity and authenticity which news transmitted by word of mouth ever does not posses. Written criticisms are more pungent and incisive because, being written, they are deliberate, and carefully considered an couched.
In those days, therefore, when the ruling classes were either tyrants or absolute monarchs who did not derive their authority to rule from the people, a newspaper which was invariably written and published by some of the oppressed lower classes, became something of a terror and menace. To borrow the words of Wickham Steed, the newspaper became in those days as it does still today. ‘The bugbear of tyrants’ . Napoleon Bonaparte, one of the most intrepid warriors in history and who was himself an authoritarian ruler, was reported to have said: ‘T fear three newspapers more than a hundred thousands bayonets.’ That being so, the tyrants of those days, and their counterparts down the ages, employed various devices to stamp the Press out of existence. As I have already said, it was a long drawn battle but eventually the Press won; and in all democratic countries the Press today enjoys the same freedom as is accorded to every citizen. The foundation for this freedom we laid by the famous dictum of Lord Mansfield in 1784 in the case of the Dean of St. Asaph. He said, ‘The liberty of the Press consists in printing without any previous licence, subject to the consequences of the Law.’ The principle enshrined on this dictum was re-echoed by Lord Chief Justist Russel of Kiliowen in 1900 in the case of Gray in the following words: ‘The liberty of the Press is no greater and no less than the liberty of every subject of the Queen.’
At this stage, 1 want to enumerate and emphasise three important characteristics which the Press appears to me to have acquired in the course of its evolution. Firstly, the Press, apart from being a disseminator of news, is the most potent medium by means of which the masses of people ventilate their feelings and views on any issue of the day.
Secondly, and in consequence of the first characteristic, the Press has always been and still is inseparably identified with the masses. Lastly, the freedom of the Press is no more and no less than the liberty of the citizen. In other words, the measure of the liberty of the Press is the quantum of freedom enjoyed by the citizen, and vice versa.
Now in what way can the Press be of service to the State? It will be necessary in order to answer this question, first of all, to examine what tile nature, functions and the organs of the State are. According to some authorities a State is an independent political society, the members of which are united together for the purpose of resisting external force or foes and suppressing internal disorder.
In ancient times, and until the early part of this century, these two primary objectives were considered ample for the ends for which a State was ordained. But times have changed, so much so, that in a democracy, any Government which sets out to achieve just these two objectives will not be in office for long. In addition, it must provide amenities of various kinds for the people. It must initiate and execute schemes for educational and social services; it must launch economic programmes which are designed to prevent unemployment, and raise the standard of living as well as increase the prosperity of the people. In short, the general well-being and the happiness of the people are among the primary functions of an enlightened modern State.
In a democracy, the State must, in addition to all these, guarantee to its citizens liberty and justice. Every citizen no matter his state in life must be free to do and say what he likes subject only to the laws of the land. In a free society the Laws of the land are governed by certain golden principles which, in the English Legal System, are epitomized in the well-known phrase the ‘Rule of Law’. These principles are: (I) that every citizen is entitled to his remedies at law for wrongful acts, against any other citizen or legal persons, regardless of the rank and position of the latter; (2) that ‘no man is punishable, or can be lawfully made to suffer in body or goods, except for a distinct breach of law established in the ordinary legal manner before the ordinary courts of law; and (3) that all men are equal in the eye of the Ijaw, that is to say ‘no man is above the law, but that every man, whatever his rank or condition, is subject to the ordinary law of the realm and amenable to the jurisdiction of the ordinary tribunals’.
There are certain exceptions such as the immunity of judges, prohibition of action against a Trade Union as such in respect of torts committed by its members, parliamentary privileges, and diplomatic immunity. But a detailed examination of these exceptions, which I do not wish to undertake this evening because it is irrelevant, will show that they are indispensable for the due preservation of the liberty of the citizen.
There are three main organs through which the State performs its functions. These organs constitute what is popularly known as the Government and they are: the Legislature, the Judiciary and the Executive. The Legislature is the law-making and policy-making organ; and it consists of persons called Legislators who, in a democracy, are elected by the people called the electorate. The Judiciary is the organ which enforces the Law in such an impartial manner as to ensure that every citizen – be he a labourer or Minister – is very conscious of his inescapable subordination to it. The Executive is, as its name clearly signifies, the executive organ of Government. It consists 1) of Ministers who initiate legislations and policies for the consideration of the Legislature; (2) of Officials who, under the surveillance of Ministers, execute such policies as have received the imprimatur of the Legislature; and (3) of the Police and the Army who assist both the Judiciary and the Executive in ensuring that the decrees of the Courts are obeyed and the directions of the Executive are complied with.
Thus far I have outlined to you the functions of a State and the Organs which mankind has designed through, undoubtedly, a long process of trial and error, for the discharge of those functions. The satisfactory discharge of the functions depends on the efficacy of the Organs, which in turn depends on the form of a particular Government. If the Organs are defective the functions will only be feebly, partially or badly discharged to the annoyance, disquiet and discomfiture of the people.
There are two forms of Government well-known in these modern times: Dictatorship and Democracy. In a dictatorship all the organs of State are stifled and stultified because they are concentrated in the hands of one single man. He appoints as judges only those who will do his behest – right or wrong. He rules his territory by decree and without parliament. He administers the affairs of the people under his jurisdiction in accordance with his own capricious desires and will. The masses of the people are denied freedom of speech or any form of freedom the exercise of which is likely to conflict with the Dictator’s ideas or whims. The Dictator may attain office by various means including democratic ones. But he remains in office only by ensuring that the people are thoroughly subservient to his will, and inarticulate. The first casualty, therefore, in a totalitarian regime is, invariably and without a single exception to my knowledge, the Press. If the latter is free, it will continue to articulate the wishes of the people whose cause it has always espoused, and such articulation must necessarily undermine the position of the Dictator.
In a Dictatorship, therefore, such newspapers as are allowed to exist are totally unworthy of the noble tradition of a free Press. They are muzzled and censored; and they become staunch allies of the Oppressor. In a Dictatorship the Organs of the State are defective. Consequently, the functions which they are expected to discharge are only performed in a most indifferent. and arbitrary manner. Amenities mayor may not be provided; when they are, they are hopelessly inadequate and are fashioned after the taste of the unquestionable ruler and master. Justice and liberty are vigorously suppressed; and the citizens are reduced to the status of slaves. In this evil regime the Press is absolutely incapacitated from playing its traditional role in the State.
In a Democracy, the position is different. The Judiciary is independent of the Executive and the Legislature. The Executive and the Legislature, on the other hand, derive their power and authority to rule from the masses of the people.
An independent judiciary is one of the bulwarks of the liberty of the citizen and hence of the Press. A Judiciary which is subservient to the Executive and the Legislature will be bound to administer the law with partial affection for those in authority and to the prejudice of the governed. It is, therefore, a matter of the utmost and intimate concern to the Press whose freedom depends on that of the populace that the Judiciary should be free, independent and impartial, and remain so. Any glaring and unmistakable sign of defection must be promptly and vividly ‘spotlighted’ by the Press.
It is perhaps not generally recognized among our journalists in this country that ‘criticism of the conduct of a judge in a judicial proceeding is permissible’. The only limitation – and it is an important limitation – is that the criticism ‘must not be such as to be calculated to obstruct or interfere with the due course of justice or to amount to personal scurrilous abuse of the Judge as a Judge’.
I must admit that warn that criticism of the conduct of a Judge in a judicial proceeding is an exceedingly delicate journalistic operation which only the most adept, the most polished, and the most sophisticated and constructive in the profession must ever dare to essay. The line, between criticism of the conduct of a Judge and personal abuse of the Judge, is very thin indeed. Besides, except in the very rare case of outrageous abuse of office, Judges and Magistrates must be left alone to perform their duties according to their right without interference or unwarranted imputations by the Press. Indeed, there is a good deal to be gained by proclaiming the dignity and impartiality of the Bench. In any case, nothing must be done gratuitously to shake the confidence of the people in that dignity and impartiality. To the extent that these attributes are detracted from, even so much will the liberty of the citizen and of the Press suffer impairment and derogation.
In regard to the Legislature and the Executive, the Press is on a surer, more solid and less holy ground.
‘Without democracy,’ says Laski, ‘there cannot be liberty.’ In other words, if the Press wants to maintain its freedom which is inextricably interwoven with that of the citizen, it must stand unequivocally and irrevocably on the side of democracy. If this proposition is accepted, it is the bounden duty of the Press to ensure that the Legislative and Executive organs of the State derive their authority from the masses, and that the latter are in a position to review and, if need be, reassign their mandate periodically.
In this connection I want to quote Laski again: ‘The right to franchise is essential to liberty; and a citizen excluded from it is unfree. Unfree for the simple reason that the rulers of the State will not regard his will as entitled to consideration in the making of policy … There is no other way in which his wants, as he experiences those wants, will receive attention.’
It is clear from what I have said that in a Democracy the Press has an important role to play, namely to ensure with unflagging vigilance that the principles of democracy and the Rule of Law are maintained absolutely inviolate. There are certain attributes, however, which the Press must posses in order that it may be able to render this service with wholesome, penetrating and lasting effect.
In the matter of dissemination of news the Press must ensure the accuracy of its information before it passes it on to others as gospel truth. It is a well known dictum of journalism that ‘Facts are sacred’. Freedom to know is the first among all freedoms. An ignorant and ill-informed person cannot be his neigbours. To know the truth, and to disseminate untruths to the ignorant, or to disseminate news careless as to whether it is true or else, is the most heinous of all sins in a Democracy. The people as well as the Government might be misled as a result; and untold adverse consequences might ensue. Truth and liberty are twin sisters – where there is Truth there is Liberty. The first attribute of the Press in the service of the State is truthfulness or, in journalists parlance, accuracy of reporting.
The Press, in order to render a beneficial service to the State, must of itself be sufficiently knowledgeable. An unsophisticated Press is much worse than the fool in the Chinese proverb ‘who knows not and knows not that he knows not’. In order that the Press may be effective in the discharge of its functions it must be held high in the esteem of educated and enlightened persons. An uninformed, ill-informed or semi-educated Press will be a laughing stock and an object of contempt. If the Press loses its prestige it loses its efficacy and potency as well. The second attribute of the Press, therefore, is knowledge.
The duty of the Press is not only to inform entertain, but also to instruct. To be instructive is to be knowledgeable, well-informed, accurate and constructive. It is the easiest thing in the world to demolish what others have built, or to point out the defect in what others have done or propose to do. The Journalist who indulges in destructive criticism brings the odium and derision of the persons affected on himself and on the newspaper he represents. The third attribute of the Press, therefore, is constructiveness.
To disseminate news accurately and to criticize pungently demand that the Press should possess sufficient courage and impartiality to play a role which may please some and displease others. There are those who would like to have certain news suppressed which in the interest of the public should be given the widest publicity. There are acts of the people or of the Government which certain papers will not criticize lest they should cause offence and thereby lose circulation. Democracy demands, however, that the truth should be told always, and that charlatans and saints should be called by their proper names. The fourth attribute of the Press, therefore, is courage and impartiality.
In a country such as ours, where the masses of the people are largely untutored in the art and concept of a modern State, and where Democracy is still in its inchoate stages, a free Press such as we have in this country today has a unique role to play. There is need – urgent need – to educate the masses about their civic responsibilities and about the rights to which they are entitled as citizens of a democratic State. There is a tendency on the part of many people to expect that the amenities for which they clamour and which they deserve may be provided without any sacrifice either of time, energy or money on their part. They must be told in certain terms by the Press that amenities and all the other good things of this world are the products of the sweat of our brows. There is no other means of making them available. Government measures in this respect must, therefore, receive the unqualified though critical but constructive support of the Press.
In parts of the country, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly and other fundamental human rights are being trampled under foot and suppressed. The Press is endangering its own freedom by winking at these evils. Any newspaper that values its freedom and believes sincerely in the liberty of the citizens of this country must wield the cudgel heavily, fearlessly and relentlessly against the oppressors and the budding dictators in our midst.
Newspapermen must always remember that without democracy there can be no liberty, that the right to franchise is essential to liberty and that this latter right is the rock foundation on which the congenial superstructure of democracy can be firmly erected. The Press in Nigeria does neither itself nor its noble ancestry any credit – indeed it is doing a veritable and pernicious disservice to the masses of our people – by prevaricating, hedging and quibbling over the issue of denial of franchise to millions of our people in certain parts of Nigeria.
The young plant of democracy is already suffering violence at our hands in the name of unity, harmony and concord. If this plant were destroyed (which God forbid) we might have unity of some sort: but we would have neither harmony nor concord.
I do hope and pray that in this pioneering, momentous and historic period in the life of our great country the Nigerian Press will prove itself worthy of its great heritage by fighting ceaselessly, unyieldingly and uncompromisingly on the side of Democracy and the Rule of Law.
POLITICS AND RELIGION
A lecture given to students at the Adventist College of
West African, Ilishan-Remo, all 27th January, 1961.
As a politician, the object of my daily vocational pursuit is politics. But the forum on which I speak this afternoon is that of an Institution of Higher Learning, sponsored by one of the famous Christian organizations in the world. I thought, therefore, that it might be appropriate, from the points of view of myself and yourself, for me to address you on ‘Politics and Religion’.
There are many popular misconceptions about politics. I will relate only some of those of them that have come to my knowledge, and will also endeavour to show that they are nothing but misconceptions.
We all have heard it said times without number that ‘politics is a dirty game’. The description of politics as a game is a felicitous one, and it looks as if it is a contradiction in terms to daub a game as dirty. Speaking generally, any game at all, other than a game of chance, is good. But the manner of playing it may be clean or dirty, all depending on whether or not the players observe the rules for playing the game which mankind has laid down in conformity with universally accepted standards of decency and ethics. In other words, whether the game of politics is clean or dirty will depend wholly and solely on the manner in which a particular set of politicians play it.
Those who hold that politics is a dirty game have reasons for their contention. But we will presently see from these reasons that it is the manner of playing it that they have in mind and not the game itself.
First among the reasons is that politicians are in the habit of criticizing – indeed attacking, abusing and vilifying – one another both in private and in public. A proper understanding of the nature of politics will show that criticism is indispensable to the game of politics and that abuse, attack and vilification are its inescapable incidentals.
Politics is the science or the art of the management of public affairs. It is now a far cry from the primeval days when the entire members of a society tried to take part in the management of their affairs. In modem times a breed of people called politicians have emerged who claim to have the necessary qualifications for the efficient management of public affairs. Except in a totalitarian community where sectarian views and ideas were regimented or forcibly suppressed, these politicians
naturally form themselves into groups called parties each with different ideas of its own and divergent methods of realizing those ideas. In a democratic society, it is open to the people to entrust the management of their affairs to one or more of the parties for a stipulated period of time. The party or parties thus chosen become the government, and more properly the trustees of the people, enjoined for their term of office to administer the trust with absolute prudence, probity and public-spiritedness.
It will be seen from what I have said that the final arbiters of whether the ideas and methods or policy and programme of a political party are relatively superior to, and likely to be more beneficial than, those of others are the electorate, the voters. In order to enable them to reach a verdict which is fair to the contenders and most likely to be in the people’s own best interests, they must have all the facts placed before them. The qualifications of each political party and of the individual candidates canvassing for votes on the platform of such a party must be established to the satisfaction of the voters.
It is natural and legitimate for political parties to say the best they ever can about themselves and about the candidates they are sponsoring and to criticise one another most vehemently. The aim of healthy criticism is to spotlight defects and to prescribe means for removing them if that is possible. When the contending political parties do this honestly and conscientiously, the electorate are best placed to make a choice which will rebound to the benefit of all.
In private life, before we entrust our personal or business affairs to anyone, we take step to inquire into his qualifications both as to competence and character. Such an inquiry as this is done in private, because what is at issue is a private concern. But the competence and character of politicians must of a necessity be examined in the full glare of public limelight. Because what is at issue is the welfare of the community or nation. In the management of private affairs, a gross mistake would only affect the fortunes of one man or a family or a small group of persons. A serious error of judgement in the management of public affairs might adversely affect the lives and fortunes of millions of people. For this reason, there is need for the competence and character of public men to be subjected to severer and stricter scrutiny – and that mainly in public – than those of persons engaged in private concerns.
Abuse or vilification in private or public life is to be deplored, because it stems from a mind which is depraved and warped. But the community which a politician seeks to serve is art amalgam of saints and sinners, with a sprinkling of the former as against an over-abundance of the latter. The gentle rebuke and occasional eulogy of the one may be fascinating, but the constant tauntings of the other must be accommodated.
Politicians are born not made; and anyone who has not the stomach for the railings of the masses and is only interested in their occasional hosannas, has no right to enter into public life. Another reason given in support of the charge that politics is a bad game is that good politicians are few and far between. The general run of them are irredeemably mundane: materialistic, atheistic, immoral, ruthless and unscrupulous. All the great religions as well as the lesser ones recognize the absolute need for a government among men. We all do. Furthermore, we realize that only a small number of people should be entrusted at any given time with the apparatus of such a governn1ent. If the persons thus chosen are bad, it is not because politics is bad. The fault is in the politicians, in the members of government, rather than in politics or government per se.
The last of these popular misconceptions which I consider worth mentioning in this talk is that Politics and Religion do not mix. Indeed, there are not a few who hold the view that Politics is so essentially materialistic and Religion so fundamentally spiritual that it is difficult for a man to be a successful politician and a good Christian at the same time.
I want to admit, without the least hesitation, that Politics is essentially materialistic and that Religion is fundamentally spiritual. But it cannot be gainsaid that living man is a combination of matter and spirit.
If a man is to live a full life and be the real image of God which he is intended to be, his Body — that is his brain and brawn – must not only be well-developed and healthy, but must also function in harmony with and under the control of his spirit or Soul. The Soul is ageless and pure, and does not need any development. But the Body must be trained, developed and disciplined to acknowledge both the existence and the supremacy of the indwelling Soul.
In the process of bringing out the best that is in man, and of enabling him to live a healthy and happy life, the agencies of Politics and Religion must work in close and harmonious co-operation. The eradication of ignorance, disease and want is a matter of the utmost concern to Politics as well as to Religion. As a matter off act, in the early days the education of the young and old, and their health and general well-being were more or less the exclusive preserves of Religious Bodies and their offshoots and allies – the Charitable Organisations. In those olden times, the primary functions of Government (for the purpose of this talk I am equating Government with Politics) are the preservation of peace among the subjects at home, and the resistance of external foes. It is in modem times that Government has its functions beyond the limits of bare security for individual citizens, to include their education and health; and their welfare and happiness.
In other words, Religion recognized from the beginning of times that unless the brain of a man is developed by education (secular and religious), and his body by physical exercise is well as by the nurture of good and adequate food, and by the comfort and self-respect of simple and neat clothing and shelter, man would be much more brutish and degraded than the lower animals. For His great purpose on earth, however, God needs the finest possible instrument, which is to be found in a healthy body and an enlightened and sane mind. For this reason, Religious Bodies down the ages have catered and still cater, in so far as their limited resources permit, for the material as well as the spiritual well-being of man.
The purpose of Politics is first and last the material well-being of man. The purpose of Religion, on the other hand, is to do this or to ensure by persuasion that this is done, and to cater in addition to the spiritual welfare of man. In many modem States, what we see is not a separation of Politics from Religion but a division of labour between them.
From what I have said, it will be seen that in modern times and in a democratic society, the functions of Politics are complementary to those of Religion. I have used the phrase ‘in a democratic society’ advisedly. For in its attempt to evolve the best means of catering to the welfare of man, mankind has employed various devices. Some have turned out to be good whilst others are simply infernal. Examples of those that are in current use may be given: Democracy and Dictatorship; Capitalism, Socialism and Communism.
The terrestrial part of man is inherently selfish, tyrannical and corruptible. The ethereal part of him – that is the Soul- is pure, just, incorruptible, uplifting and ennobling. Consequently, man is constantly subjected to internal conflict in which either the Body or the Soul must win. In the short run victory may go to the former, but in the long run it is the latter that tends to be on the ascendant.
It must be borne in mind that Communism or Marxism-Leninism which, in regard to the methods by which its declared ideas are attained, is atheistic and evil has dominated the minds and lives of more people than believe in Christ, and in the respect for human dignity which Christianity enjoins. This obvious ascendancy of an evil political system over the moral and ethical tenets of Religion. On the contrary, it is proof positive of the utter lack of spiritual discipline and of complete moral bankruptcy on the part of political leaders all world over, and of want of dynamism and afflatus, and of exemplary leadership, on the part of Religious Bodies. Contemporary political circumstances demand that Religious leaders must recapture and relive the great and noble ideals and the militancy of those inspired and immortal Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists who had the divine courage to proclaim the truth as God gives it to them to know the truth, and to call cant, humbug, political murderers, and brutes and devils in human flesh, by their proper names.
Apart from both being complementary, it will be seen from what I will say presently that the best in politics derives from and is firmly rooted in religious ideals. Four examples are enough to establish this assertion.
First, one of the aims of Religion is to teach a man to love his neighbour as himself and to do unto others as he would like them to do unto them. We are also taught that God is no respecter of man. All are equal before Him. It is a fundamental principle and an accepted practice under a good government that all citizens are equal in the eye of the law, enjoying and rendering reciprocal rights and duties. Negatively, every citizen is forbidden, under pain of legal sanctions, from so conducting his affairs that he becomes a nuisance or a menace to his neighbours. Positively, under law he must so live his life that he is at peace at all times with his fellow men.
Second, in all great religions, women are treated on the basis of equality with men. Our Lord Jesus Christ is the most outstanding exemplar in this respect. Today, politicians all over the civilised world are eloquent in their advocacy for equal treatment for all persons irrespective of sex. In doing so, they are merely reflecting in public life the unparalleled example of our Lord.
Thirdly, many of the Fundamental Human Rights, particularly the three Freedoms of Conscience, of Religions. Many Prophets, Saints and Evangelists have suffered pain or death because they dared to exercise their freedom of conscience and of expression. It was for this noble and imperishable cause that John the Baptist was executed, that our Lord Jesus Christ was crucified, and Mohamed for a while fled his home in Mecca. Many great names in Politics drawing their inspiration from Religion also suffered or died for the same cause. It was for this cause. that Socrates was sentenced to drink the hemlock and to death.
Fourth, in my considered and settled opinion, the best political ideal for mankind is Democratic Socialism which is founded, among others, on the principles of the well-being of the individual, and brotherhood among all men irrespective of creed, colour and race. The fundamental concept of Socialism is: ‘From each according to his ability and to each according to his need.’ This concept has its root in the teachings and practices of great Religions through the ages.
Thus far I have endeavourd to show that Politics is not only complementary to Religion but also that the most beneficial political system derives its strength from the tenets and practices of the great Religions.
“Except under Communism where Religion or Belief in God is suppressed, and unless we wished to revert to Theocracy which has long been out of fashion, Government (and hence Politics) and Religion must exist side by side working hand in hand for the good of man. The tragedy of these modern times is that in some case, there is so much lack of understanding among some religious leaders that they are intolerant of some of the manoeuvres of politicians. In other cases, religious leaders have allowed themselves to be completely subordinated to governmental institution to the extent that some Religious Organisations are mere arms or projections of the Government.
Religious leaders need not be intolerant of politicians or of their manoeuvres for vantage position. Our Lord lived in an age of political intrigues and tyranny of the worst kind. Yet He did not hesitate to say in reply to his tempters, ‘Render unto Caesar the things -which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s. There-is more meaning to this famous saying of our Lord’s than a brilliant display of wit or a shattering out-manoeuvering of His adversaries. He does mean that His hearers should obey God as well as Government which is the constituted authority for the management of material human affairs. But since the earthly authority is ordained by God, it is easy to infer that where Caesar’s behests are manifestly repugnant to the injunctions of God, the latter must be made to prevail whatever the consequences. A Christian must, however, seek by Christian methods to make the will of God sovereign and supreme in the society where he lives. The aim of Religion is the dissemination of truth – truth about the Will of God for the guidance of man. To know the truth and to uphold it is the only sure avenue to freedom and happiness.
It follows that in order that it may discharge its functions, a Religious Organisation must be independent of Government and its patronage and must never be subordinated to its dictates or whims. Otherwise, the sole compass by means of which the masses of believers must be guided in their spiritual pursuits on the confused and stormy ocean of life becomes thwarted and unreliable. A Religious Organisation should never allow itself to be regarded as the mouthpiece and instrument of the powers-that-be. If did it would sink or swim with the Government concerned; and in any case it would no longer be well-placed to tell the truth as it knows it. It is incumbent upon Government and politicians to conduct their affairs in strict accordance with religious teaching and ethical standards. ‘Nothing is politically right which is morally wrong,’ says Daniel O’Connell. Therefore, when politicians do the right they can rest assured that they will be covered in a favourable manner by the non-partisan detached and fearless pronouncement of religious leaders of undoubted uprightness and godliness.
CASE FOR IDEOLOGICAL
ORIENTATION
In any theatre of life with which he is identified, everyone of us has an orientation.
The Christians, the Moslems, the Hindus, the Buddhists and other religious bodies, profess belief in God. But their respective orientations, that is their doctrinal bearing in relation to their professed belief in God, differ. As individuals or as a class, the Christians are distinguished from the Moslems in their religious orientation. The same goes for other religious sects.
All businessmen believe in profit-making. But the orientation of different types and classes of businessmen also differ. For instance, the orientation of the insurance broker to profit-making is different from that of a confectionery manufacturer.
Similarly, every politician loudly and vehemently protests that devoted and selfless service to the people, by promoting their welfare and happiness, is the be-all and end-all of his earthly endeavours. But again, the ideological orientations of individual politicians or of the political parties into which they normally group themselves, are divergent – sometimes very widely so.
If perchance you come across a human being who is unable to tell his particular bearings relatively to one or more of the innumerable points of life’s compass, you would not hesitate to write him off either as a child, an idiot, or an aimless wanderer. In the same way, if you meet a politician who is unwilling or unable to declare and, as precisely as possible, describe his position in relation to the cardinal points of political compass, you will feel strongly tempted to denounce him as a fraud, a total misfit, or a hopeless drifter.
Two things appear, therefore, to be indispensable to all self-respecting individuals or groups of persons. In everyone of their chosen fields of endeavours, they must have an ultimate goal after which they strive, and they must have a correct and ascertainable orientation towards that goal.
In my opening sentence, I said: ‘In any theatre of life with which he is identified, everyone of us has an orientation.’ After the brief remarks which I have made, I am now in a position to amplify the opening sentence and say that every person who wants to enjoy the respect and confidence of his fellow men must have an orientation. What I have just said of’ every person’ applies with more than equal force to a politician, a party or a nation.
I hasten to point out, however, that the position which a person, a political party, or a nation occupites, at any given time, relatively to the points of compass need not be static. Indeed the position may change and shift depending on the prevailing circumstances. What must never change, save in exceptionally grave circumstances, are the objectives and destination which a politician or a nation sets out to achieve, and the essential characteristics of the chosen means for the attainment of the ends in view.
It is customary for every political party, whether in Nigeria or elsewhere, to profess belief in the welfare of the people, and to proclaim its determination to work for this end. It must be borne in mind, however, that the orientation of a political party of the capitalist school is at variance with, and sometimes antithetic to, that of the socialist school. Besides, the word ‘welfare’ is a relative term which has been grossly misapplied at different times in human history, and contemporaneously in different places. The. word has, for instance, been used in our own times to apply to people living under conditions of tyranny and freedom.
When a simple word like ‘welfare’ can be applied in such an extremely malapropian manner, then it is, in the interests of the people, imperative that the ends which political parties have in view should be clearly indicated, and the principles by which the means should be animated and guided fully stated. It is only when this is done that the destination as well as the orientation of the party towards it, will be known to the people. Furthermore, for the attainment of some given ends only certain means must be used. You cannot, for instance, arrive at a westward haven by pursuing a southerly course. For the reasons which I have thus far outlined, the Action Group of Nigeria, on the eve of Nigeria’s Independence in 1960, issued a Manifesto, entitled ‘Democratic Socialism’. Down the ages, several political isms have vied with one another for popular acceptance: feudalism, anarchism, capitalism, syndicalism, socialism, Trotskyism, etc. Only two of these isms have survived the age-long contest and are at all worth considering in this lecture.
Capitalism is an economic system which is founded on the principle of free enterprise and the private ownership of the means of production and distribution. The protagonists of capitalism claim that its essential characteristic is economic freedom. The producer is free to produce whatever goods he fancies; but the consumer is equally free to buy what he wants. There is a market mechanism, under this system which brings the producer and consumer together and tends to equate the supplies of the one to the demands of the other, and harmonise the whims and caprice of both. It is this same market mechanism which determines what prices the consumers pay to the producers as well as what share of the total output, in cash in kind, goes to each of the four recognized factors of production – i.e. Land, Labour, Capital, and Organisation. It is further claimed for this system that every person is capable of watching his or her own interest, and that whatever injustice may appear in the short run to have been done by the operations of the market mechanism, in the long run his mechanism tends to bring about a state of equilibrium between the producers and consumers as well among the factors of production, and to give to each of them a just and adequate treatment and reward.
I do not think it is necessary, at this point of time, and especially to this scholarly audience, to set out the theoretical arguments against these claims. It is enough to assert that economic history has shown that the market mechanism, otherwise known as the mechanism of supply and demand, is a blind and utterly impersonal social apparatus, within the framework of which the strong, clever, and unethical few have, more often than not, taken undue advantage of the many who are weak.
Capitalism is at its best when it is planless. But in these modem times, the laissez faire type of capitalism is now restricted mainly to most of the underdeveloped countries in Africa and Latin America, But in many parts of the so-called Western Democracies, the State has been intervening to smooth some of the rough and inhuman edges of capitalism. Anti-monopoly laws which in practice, it must be admitted, have proved ineffective, trade union law, minimum wage law, factory legislation, tax laws, death duties, finance measures, social and insurance laws – all these and more are some of the means by which many modem states have stepped in to regulate and humanize capitalist activities.
By these means the state, in a capitalist society, has to some extent helped in directing the operations of the market mechanism in all its ramifications, and in particular in regulating the distribution of national income among the factors of production in order to ensure a state of affairs which is nearer to equity and equilibrium than is the case under a laissez faire capitalist system.
Negatively, socialism is opposed to capitalism. But positively, it is firmly rooted in the principles of public ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange and of economic planning. One of its cardinal aims is that every labourer – be he a professor, lecturer, teacher, minister of religion, minister of state, civil servant, lawyer, doctor, engineer, farmer, road worker, or carrier – shall get his or her due hire, and that no one, however powerful or specially circumstanced, shall get any more than that. Socialism seeks to bring the ennobling principles of ethics to bear upon the operation of economic forces. Consequently, it may be said that the overriding aim of socialism is to bring about an economic commonwealth in which the needs of all, regardless of birth and station in life, as opposed to and distinct from the profit-making desires of some, will be satisfied. In other words, under socialism, the aim is that capacity shall have its adequate reward, but also that those who, for any cause, are incapacitated from, or have not yet grown up enough to participate in, productive activities shall not, on that account, suffer misery.
I am not a Marxist myself. But what Marx says in this connection and which is true, is well worth bearing in mind by those who plan for the welfare of the people. ‘Under the capitalist system,’ says Marx, ‘the economic nexus between man and man is wholly dominated by naked self-interest.’
To even up, I would like to refer to what Adam Smith says on the same point from an opposite standpoint. Says he: ‘every individual is led by an invisible hand (that is self-interest) of promote an end (that is the common good) which was no part of his intention. To sum up in well-known socialist slogans, the aims of socialism include social justice, equal opportunity for all, respect for human dignity, and the welfare and happiness of all, regardless of creed, parentage, and station in life. In other words, under socialism the nexus between man and man is wholly dominated by equality and fraternity and by the needs of the under-privilege.
There are two kinds of socialism: revolutionary socialism and democratic socialism. Revolutionary socialism is what is generally known as communism. Its aims are the same as those of democratic socialism. But the orientation of the communist is different from that of the democratic socialist. This difference in orientation consists in the divergent methods of approach to the realization of socialist ideals. The communist believes that the political power of the State as well as the economic power of the capitalists should be seized by revolutionary actions; and that in their places ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ should be established.
It is common knowledge that the capitalists, who are invariably in control of a capitalist state, will not yield ground to the communists without the stiffest possible resistance. The communists, on the other hand, are inflexibly determined to break any such resistance at all costs. Result: the prelude to the advent of communism in the countries where this system is practiced has always been a bloody revolution.
On the other hand, the democratic socialist believes, and sincerely so, that the ends of socialism can be attained by democratic means. The essence of democracy, however, is the consent of the majority, which shall be expressed freely, and without any form of coercion. Since the comer-stone of socialism is the convention of private ownership of the means of production, distribution arid exchange, to public ownership, if follows that under democratic socialism such conversion cannot be done wholesale in one fell swoop. It also follows that every conversion, when made, shall be accompanied by the payment of fair compensation.
There are those who believe that revolutionary socialism is preferable to democratic socialism. In the one case, the action is said to be quick, and the new era is ushered in, in all the sectors of the economy, without much delay. In the other, processes of debate, persuasion, and negotiation are considered cumbersome and slow, and easily liable to sabotage by the capitalists who are very agile and ruthless in bargaining, and who will have no qualm of conscience whatsoever in perverting the electorate, if need be, against the latter’s own best judgement and interests.
All those who have read their history aright will agree that the bringing about of revolutionary socialism can also be a protracted as well as a bloody business. What is more, the inevitable consequences of the venomous hate, violence and carnage which preceded the advent of revolutionary socialism are, in my humble opinion, so horrible and sickening that they should never be generated by mere doctrinaire imitations or propensities. The point must never be overlooked by the protagonists of revolutionary socialism, that it was the appalling condition of the masses, in the face of a fabulously rich and tyrannical few, which existed in the countries of Russia and China where communism now flourishes, that provoked a violent rebellion. This should not at all be surprising. For as Bacon says, ‘rebellions are caused by two things: much-poverty much-discontent; rebellion of the belly is the worst’. It must be frankly admitted, therefore, that the communist revolution in Russia and in China is historically justified. It was plainly ‘the rebellion of the belly.’
Speaking for my party and myself, I hold the view that the conditions of the masses in Nigeria, though very bad in some parts of the Federation, are not yet so degrading as to provoke a rebellion or violent revolution. In the circumstances, it is the considered view of my party that the ideals of socialism can be realised in Nigeria by waging a battle of words and wits, rather than by engaging in a clash of steel and an exchange of bullets. By adopting these democratic means, the struggle against the evil forces of capitalism might be protracted, and victory might be somewhat long delayed. But, in Nigerian circumstances, I think it is better so.
It is for all the reasons which I have given that my party has opted for democratic socialism. In the words of our Manifesto it is our resolve to: ‘Build a democratic socialist society founded on the three principles of national greatness, the well-being of the individual, and international brotherhood. To achieve this socialist society,’ the Manifesto continues, ‘we must release the latent energy of our entire people, we must get rid of the dead-weight of feudalism, aristocracy and privilege. We must overcome the wastefulness and distraction of tribalism and social injustice. We must remove the crippling effect of a backward and over-dependent economy. We must go forward into the mainstream of modern civilization and world knowledge.’ In concrete terms the socialist ends which my party sets out to achieve may be spelt out in detail as follows:
1). The State will enter many sectors of the national economy now held by foreign investors.
2) In the public sector of our national economy foreign aid will generally take the form of foreign loans to the state, in place of foreign private investments.
3) Nigerian businessmen will be encouraged and assisted by the State to take over some fields of economic activity now monopolized by foreign investors.
4) Nigerian private or State agencies will gradually have greater control over joint enterprises with combined foreign and Nigerian private capital.
5) The growth of the private sector will be channeled within certain limits so that it does not lead to huge concentrations of capital in a few hands.
6) As economic agents, the Nigerian farmers will be allowed to grow, but with limits similar to those within which Nigerian businessmen operate.
7) Workers of all grades will enjoy the full fruits of their labour, and legislation for a fair national minimum wage will be enacted.
8) The interests of self-employed person will be protected and the greatest possible returns will be obtained for their labour.
9) Education will be free from kindergarten to University
10) The productivity of the peasant classes will be increased so that their standard of living may be raised.
11) Unemployment will be abolished, that is to say, it will be possible for ever able-bodied person to be gainfully employed.
12) There will reorganization of landholding, where necessary
13) There will be increase in housing facilities, and simultaneously legislation will be introduced for the control of rents where and when desirable.
- There will be expansion in health services to enable all persons, whatever their age, to have free medical treatment.
- A scheme for social insurance will be introduced, and specifically old age pension will be paid to persons above certain age, who are willing to accept the benefit.
It must be emphasised that none of the ends can be attained without planning, without selfless devotion and severe discipline on the part of those who are elected to formulate and execute policies and programmes, and without sacrifice of time, energy and money on the part of the Nigerian citizens. I do not need to expatiate on the last two factors. They are obvious and speak for themselves. I only wish to stress to the student members of this audience a point which they already know, that a beggar nation can only invite contempt to itself. If we are intent on building a strong and self-respecting Nigeria, sacrifice of life may sometimes be required from us in addition to that of time, energy and money.
Under communism, planning is totalitarian; the individual counts or little if at all; it is the state that matters; whilst the motive for profit-making is completely disregarded and stifled. On the other hand, under democratic socialism, planning is done by a popularly elected government which attached the greatest possible importance to the welfare of the individual citizen. The profit-motive is not fully suppressed but where it is given scope it is controlled and harnessed for the common good. Since the public and the private sectors of the economy exist side by side in a democratic socialist state, any planning must of a necessity have three prongs. Firstly, the private sector must be controlled, directed and channeled by the Government by means of appropriate laws and regulations. Secondly, in the publics sector, the government must so organize and manage its own business enterprises as to ensure, with maximum efficiency and efficacy, the attainment of its objectives. In addition to existing public-owned undertaking, Government must by legislation, coupled with negotiation where necessary, acquire new business for which fair compensation need not, however, be paid down in cash as is erroneously believed in some quarters. The shares held by owners of the nationalized enterprised may be exchanged for government bonds which will yield fixed interests to the private owners. If this is done, it will not be necessary, as has been argued, to divert monies which could have been used for other development purposes to paying compensation for the nationalized undertakings. Thirdly, the government must deliberately employ the budget for the purpose of influencing the direction of the country’s economy for the benefit of the masses. Budgetary measures can be used to stimulate productive activities in times of depression, to promote the production of certain classes of goods which would not otherwise have been produced, to encourage the siting of industries in areas where they are socially (though not necessarily economically) desirable, and so on and so forth.
Paradoxically enough, it has been most strenuously urged, in quarters where democratic socialism is also professed, that the ideals which I have before stated are too lofty, and that since most of them are unattainable in the immediate present, they should be consigned to the limbo of Utopian dreams.
It is the habit of my party to talk about anything unless it is practicable. We think that all the ideals which I have previously mentioned are practicable, but even if they are not immediately attainable, it appears to me unimaginative and unpatriotic to discard them on that account. No individual or nation can make any progress worthy of note and good report, unless there is a lofty height, a noble objective, which the man or the nation constantly and perseveringly strives after.
It has also been seriously suggested that the best way to advance the interests of our country is to tackle one problem at a time and as it arises, and that we would only be perplexing ourselves by formulating a series of objectives and of methods of achieving them, all of which are bound to raise knotty problems of their own. I must say that it is only the mediocre and the fool that can afford to live but one day at a time, without taking as much as a peep into the future. The wise and the prudent, too, cannot live more than one day or even than one minute at a time. But whilst he is busy coping with the problem of the day, he also aspires to see beyond the curtain that divides today from the morrow, projects his legitimate and conscientious desires into it, and makes concrete plans for the realization of these desires. .
I have said on previous occasions, that granting an enlightened and dynamic leadership, the wealth, and the more equitable its distribution among the factors and agencies which have helped to produce it, the greater the outflow of the nation’s influence and power. I think I have said enough to demonstrate that it is under a democratic socialist system that our national resources can be exploited to produce sufficiently large wealth for the well-being of our people, and for the promotion of our national greatness and international brotherhood. On this score, it now remains for me to say that the outflow of our nation’s influence can only be advantageously canalized by the kind of attitude we adopt towards the other nation of the world in general, and of Africa in particular.
After a very careful consideration, my party is of the opinion that the foreign policy of Nigeria should, in the main, be independent and should be guided by the following principles:
1) The promotion of economic relations with all nations of the world.
2) Co-operation with all nations of the world in so far as they respect the ideals for which we stand
3) Respect for the sovereignty of other nations and non-interference in their domestic affairs
4) The settlement of international disputes by peaceful negotiations directly or through the agency of the U.N.O.
5) Lasting world peace through non-involvement in military pacts, discontinuance of the armament race, and the evacuation of military bases on foreign soil.
6) The immediate and complete freedom and sovereignty of all those African States which are at present only nominally independent (a) by the abrogation of any military or defence pacts or ties as well as of all rights and privileges appurtenant to such pacts or lies and (b) by the elimination of undue economic or technical dependence on any alien country.
7) The setting of a target date or dates in the very near future of the complete liberation of all colonial territories wherever they may be on the Continent of Africa
8) The immediate termination of the existence of any military base in any part of Africa and the evacuation of all occupation troops on the Continent whether they are attached to specific military bases or not.
9) The mobilisation of all the forces at our command to assist the immediate extermination of apartheid in South Africa and the restoration to the African in South Africa of his natural birth-rights.
10) The outlawry of any form of discrimination or segregation against the black peoples in particular and Africans in general, in Africa and in other parts of the world.
11) The maintenance and defence of the dignity of the African (particularly black African), and of the sovereignty of any independent African State against derogation or violence from any quarter whatsoever.
12) The promotion of a community of interests among all the peoples of Africa and the eventual establishment of a political union or confederacy (whichever is practicable in the prevailing circumstances) among African States.
13) Non-involvement of all African countries in the present East-West power politics and struggle as well as non-partisanship in the Arab-Israeli dispute and conflict.
Within the compass of a lecture such as this, I think I have sufficiently set out the ideas of my party, and its orientation towards these ideals.
But the position in Nigeria today as to the ideals of the ruling parties at the Centre and hence of the country, and their orientation towards such ideals, if any, appears to me to be thoroughly confused. The cause of this confusion is not far to seek. The Federal Government lacks definite ideals or objectives and is devoid of ascertainable orientation. From the jumble of Government’s words and actions, however, two things stand out unmistakably: at home its ideological orientation is laissez faire capitalism, and in the external sphere it is subservience to the Western Bloc.
After independence, Nigeria’s ship of state has, so to say, been launched on an uncharted sea. The imperialist’s eaten tracks are no longer good for us, because we had fought for independence in order that we may be free to cut our own path to greatness and success. I owe it a duty to the following concluding declarations. The Federal Government is, in my candid opinion, much less precise, about our position on the high seas, at any given time in relation to the ship’s compass; and it has, by words and actions, cast grave doubts on its professed skill in the twentieth-century art of politico-economic navigation and seamanship.
FREEDOM FOR ALL
First Presidential Address at Owo on 28th April, 1951.
Gentlemen,
The pleasant duty of introducing the Action Group has been entrusted to me.
On the 21st March this year, the Action Group was introduced to the public through the Press, and its aims and objects were clearly set out.
Since then the Action Group has been unfolding itself and fulfilling its aims and objects more by action than by words. The most eloquent tribute to the growing strength of this young organization is that all those who are gathered here this morning – accredited representatives of the entire Western Region – are members of the Action Group.
The aims and objects of the Action Group have not only been published as I said, but are contained in the Draft Constitution, copies of which have been forwarded to you. I will not, therefore, take your time by repeating them.
There are, however, two items in the aims and objects which I should like to emphasise, since they are the very basis of the Action Group. I refer to items (1) and (3). The two are complementary and they read as follows:
1) To bring and organize within its fold all nationalist in the Western Region, so that they may work together as a united group, and submit themselves to party loyalty and discipline.
2) To prepare and present to the public programmes for all Department of Government, and to strive faithfully to ensure the effectuation of such programmes through those of its members that are elected into the Western House of Assembly and the Federal Legislature.
The attainment of these two aims implies identity of adherence to basic principles, and identify of methods in the application of the principles.
If any group of people fail to agree as to basic principles and as to the methods to adopted in applying those principles, it is impossible for them to work within the same fold, and to submit themselves to party loyalty and discipline.
The basic principles which have brought the members of the Action Group together are summarized in the following motto:
LIFE MORE ABUNDANT
FREEDOM FORALL
It is our belief that the people of Western Nigeria in particular, and of Nigeria in general would have life more abundant when they enjoy.
- i) Freedom from British Rule
- ii) Freedom from Ignorance
iii) Freedom from Disease and
- iv) Freedom from Want.
In our view, the rule of one nation by another is unnatural and unjust. It is maintained either by might or by the complete subordination, through crafty means, or the will and self-respect of the subject people to the political self-aggradisement of the tutelary power. There can be no satisfactory substitute for self-rule. Therefore, British tutelage is to be denounced without any reservation. In principles, it is indefensible. In practice, it has been characterized by extreme planlessness and disregard for the vital interests of the people.
After almost 100 years of British Rule, our land is still riddle with unspeakable ignorance, disease, and want. An ignorant and poverty-stricken people are the easiest preys to political enslavement and economic exploitation. Diseases of all kinds follow in the wake of ignorance and want.
The basic principles which, therefore, have brought us together within the fold of the Action Group may be stated in the following- words.
1) The immediate termination of British Rule in every phase of our political life
2) The education of all children of school-going age, and the general enlightenment of all illiterate adults and all illiterate children above the school-going age.
3) The provision of health and general welfare for all our people.
4) The total abolition of want in our society by means of any economic policy which is both expedient and effective.
Having agreed on these basic principles, it becomes necessary to take the next step, namely: to agree as to common methods in the application of those principles. This is a very important step; because, even though people may agree as to principles, if they don’t agree as to methods of application it would not be possible for them to work together.
It is in order to evolve these common methods of applications it would not be possible for them to work together.
It is in order to evolve these common methods that some members of the Action Group have been commissioned to prepare papers not only on Government Department subjects but also on the organization problems of the Action Group. It will be our duty at this Conference to declare our irrevocable adherence to the principles already enunciated and to fashion out from the papers which are already submitted on various subjects what our common methods of applications shall be.
Once we have succeeded in doing these two things, the fulfiment of our aims and objects is well-nigh achieved. All that we would need in addition would be persistence and consistency in the pursuit of our principles, and resolution and discipline in the execution of our common methods of application.
I would like to say that this, in my humble opinion, is the first time in the annals of Nigeria that a political party is reared on a really scientific basis. For if all the leading members in the Action Group have more or less identical conceptions as to the principles which shall guide their activities, and jointly evolve common methods of applying those principles, it is my firm conviction that the organization will be successful and lasting.
Only we must make sure about two things, namely: that our principles are just, and that our methods are practical. For nothing defeats their own ends, so easily as unjust principles and impractical methods of approach.
With these few remarks, I believe I have succeeded in portraying to you the rock-sure foundation on which the Action Group is erected. We are here in this historic Conference to reinforce and to add to the superstructure already built, by the pledge of the leaders inhabiting the two Zones of the Western Region. It is true we speak different language; but it does not require any laborious research to discover that, broadly speaking, we originated from a common stock; and that in any event our political and cultural associations have been as close relations. And above all, we are Nigerians whom both Nature and Constitution have joined together. It is within our power to remain together.
In the first release of the Action Group it has been made abundantly dear both in item (5) of the aims and objects and in the body of the release that it is not the intention of the Action Group to embark on Regional politics exclusively. It is sheer necessity that has compelled us to decide to get together to put our own house in order.
As an earnest of our good faith, the subjects on which policy papers have been prepared are not confined to Regional subjects but cover Central subjects as well.
Furthermore, the Action Group is not meant to be an adhoc or temporary organisation. It has come to stay and it will live forever.
We have promised, and we mean to abide by our word, that if a countryside organisation acceptable to all is established, we would not hesitate to become the Western Regional Working Committee of such an organisation. But it is clear now from all accounts that such an organisation will not emerge before the general elections under the Constitution.
It must, therefore, be our hope and our endeavour that as soon as we have duly consolidated and strengthened our position throughout the Western Region, we should, in cooperation with nationalists in other Regions, influence the formation of a countrywide organisation on the same realistic and scientific lines as the Action Group.
I have no doubt that we all know that the realisation of all our ‘aims and objects depends chiefly on our having a substantial majority in the ‘Western House of Assembly. With unity, determination and hard work, it should not be difficult for us to get all our candidates elected into that Assembly. We are not fighting for seats in the House of Assembly because we desire power for its own sake. We believe that, in a partial sense though, the new Constitution affords us an opportunity to be better service to our people. We are a party – in fact the only party in Nigeria with definite ideas and practical programmes for the – advancement of Nigeria towards early freedom and prosperity. Our enemies and detractors are already at work. They are seeking to dwarf our stature in order to delude the public that they are taller than we are. They are also seeking to divert us from our noble and constructive courses into the barren land of petty strife and fruitless controversy.
I believe I am voicing your sentiments, when I say that we do not grudge other parties their professed popularity and excellence. But it is mean and cowardly, and an evidence of weakness and utter demerit, for any group of people to attempt to commend themselves to the public by the negative process of belittling and condemning others. Strong, courageous, resourceful and self-confident people are never afraid of rivals or competitors.
It is not an easy matter to resist the temptation of being dragged down the drains of bitter recriminations and press war. But if we are to attain our objects we must resolve to pursue our course unflinchingly without paying the slightest heed ‘to the envious, and the asses that bray’.
What our people want to know above all things else is not the defect or incapacity of this or that organization, but the plans and programmes which we have for improving their lots and the relative merits of such plans and programmes.
Such plans and programmes we have; and what is more they are plans and programmes we have; and what is more they are plans and programmes which could be put into execution within a period of five years.
Our line of action is therefore clear. Whilst our enemies and detractors busy themselves with abusing and decrying us, we should direct all the machinery of our publicity towards the propagation of the excellence and the relative superiority of our programmes and the suitability of the men who will be put forward to execute them.
In this way we would succeed in commending ourselves to the public by our sheer merits and our merits only. This in my view is a nobler attitude; and if we remain true to it we are bound to succeed where our detractors fail.
THE JUST SHALL LIVE BY FAITH
The message sent to the Western Regional Conference at the Action Group held at Ibadan on 6th July, 1963.
When this Conference was inaugurated on I O” March, 1961, I had the pleasure of addressing you personally. But believe me when I say that, though in gaol, it is still a pleasure for me to address you vicariously.
According to our Constitution, another Conference should have been held more than a year ago. But the stirring and perplexing events which began since the Jos Conference of February last year have engaged the full attention of most of the Leaders of our Party.
I am happy, and deeply grateful to the Regional Secretary, Chief 1.A. O. Odebiyi, that this Conference has been arranged in the face of distractions of a new order and complexity.
I do not intend to send a Presidential Address to you. All I am doing here is to send you a message of good wishes, and to add a few words of advice for the guidance of the Western Regional Branch of the Action Group of Nigeria.
Those of you who have found time to attend this Conference, as well as millions of others who do not attend, but remain loyal to our great Party are the happy warriors in the fight for the triumph of Democratic Socialism. It is from the bottom of my heart that I send to you and those you represent my very warm and fraternal greetings.
There are important points on which I would like to touch in this message.
In the first place, whilst the Conference now in session represents the Yoruba portion on the Western Region, all of you must bear it in mind, now and always, that you are nothing more and nothing less than an inseparable segment of a nation-wide organization which has branches not only in every part of Nigeria but also in countries of Europe and America, and in many parts of Africa.
Consequently, the welfare of the ethnic groups in the other Region of Nigeria is as much of paramount interest to the Action Group of Nigeria as is that of the Yoruba people.
Anyone who tries to limit the interests and activities of our party within the confines of Yoruba land is a traitor to the cause to which the Action Group is solemnly dedicated:
Within the past few days, a good deals of words and ink have been expended in propagating the unity of the Yoruba, as if the Yorubas are disunited.
Time was when there was real disunity among the Yorubas. But since the birth of Egbe Omo Oduduwa in London in 1945, this objective has been relentlessly pursued and accomplied.
Those who, however, believe in the unity of the Yorubas, of the Ibos, of the Hausa, etc., must never rest on their oars. But the line has been drawn, and must be kept indelible, between a Cultural Organisation like the Ibo State Union, Ibibio State Union, Egbe Omo Oduduwa. Etc., on the one hand, and political parties like the Action Group and the NCNC on the other.
It is my considered view that what is lacking among the Yoruba people is NOT Unity but FIDELITY among Yoruba Leaders.
The Ibos or the Hausa are in no way more united than the Yoruba.
But what makes it appear that they are more united, is the simple fact that there is greater FIDELITY among the Ibo Leaders and Hausa Leaders than there is, if at all, among the Yoruba Leaders.
It has been suggested, with unabashed falsity, that the Yorubas are being relegated to the background in the affairs of the Federal Government, partly because the Yorubas are not united, and partly because the Action Group has not participated in the affairs of the Federal Government like the NCNC and NPC.
It is erroneous to equate the Action Group of Nigeria with the Yoruba people, or to regard our party as being a Yoruba organisation. Furthermore, whilst the Action Group does not participate in the Federal Government since January 1960, some outstanding Yorubas have been in the Council of Ministers since the last Federal elections. There are others in the NPC. These persons are as loyal to the cause of the Yoruba people as those of us in the Action Group. .
The other day when some Yorubas in the North complained of discrimination against them by the NPC Government of the North, we were told that the sufferings of these Yorubas were due to the unfriendly attitude of Yoruba leaders to NPC, and the promulgation of Democratic Socialism by Yoruba intellectuals.
But quite recently the Ibos in the North made similar complaints in stronger terms; and yet the Ibos are well represented on the Council of Ministers.
It follows, therefore, that the cause of discrimination against the Yorubas in the North are to be found in some phenomenon other than the absence of the Action Group members on the Council of Ministers.
It must be recalled that the Action Group did participate in the Federal Government from 1957 to 1959; and it would be interesting to know what the Yorubas gained especially because of this participation.
In connection with this first point, I urge it very strongly upon all of you that it is too late in the day for any professed or true Nigerian patriot to speak in terms of Yorubas as if they are separable in their destiny from other ethnic groups in Nigeria. It is imperative for the success of the onerous task of nation-building that any political party that is worth its salt should not openly think in terms of Nigeria as a whole but also in terms of international brotherhood.
In winding up this first point, I charge you to cultivate FIDELITY and FELLOW-FEELING among yourselves, eschew any acts of treachery among yourselves, work for the unity, welfare and greatness of Nigeria, and promote brotherhood among Africans in particular, and among other people of the world in general.
In the second place, the ideology as well as the identity of the Action Group of Nigeria must be preserved at all costs.
In spite of more than one year of crushing oppression, our great Party has been growing from strength to strength. It is well known that our party is much stronger today than it was at the beginning of the Emergency in 1962, thanks to the loyalty of many leaders and the unabated devotion and fanatism of the masses of our members and supporters.
The ACTION GROUP is a household word throughout the length and breadth of the Federation. It is a name to conjure with. Besides, the deal – Democratic Socialism – for which the Party stands has become engraved in the hearts of millions of youths and adults.
You should, therefore, regard as fatal allurement any suggestion that the name ACTION GROUP should be changed either now or in the future, especially when such suggestion emanates from quarters obviously hostile to our continued existence.
It is true that since 29th May last year, there have been persistent rumours that the power-that-be would find a pretext to ban or proscribe our illustrious party.
I do not rule out this possibility, because in the post-independence Nigeria anything can happen – however unjust and outrageous. If such an eventuality were to take place, we would be automatically compelled to adopt another name. But until then, I take my place for better for worse on the side of ACTION GROUP OF NIGERIA and its electoral symbols – THE PALM TREE in the West, East and the Federal Territory, and the BROOM in the Northern Region.
It is my charge to you that you should all do likewise.
There is room for as many political parties as some people may choose to establish. But we must remember that for upwards of THIRTEEN YEARS, we have nursed the Action Group to a very sturdy and mighty growth. Furthermore, our Party enjoys an international reputation of a very high order. It would not only be folly but plain suicide to contemplate, in the present circumstances, a voluntary change of the name ACTION GROUP.
In the third place, the field organization of our party must undergo a radical re-organisation. In the past, it was the Headquarters that supplied the Local Organisations with the financial wherewithal to run their affairs. Henceforth, the position should be reversed. Each Ward of Constituency should not only be autonomous financially, but should contribute its quota to the Federal Organisation coffers.
It is extremely gratifying to me to note how the Youths have risen to the occasion by fending for themselves in all their activities. Certain constituencies are already financially self-supporting.
It is my charge to you that from henceforth, you should depend wholly and solely on yourselves in regard to the financing of your Local Organisations. Wherever there is a Will, there is always a Way.
In the fourth place, in the past there had not been sufficient adherence to the provisions of our party’s Constitution. On the occasions on which we had departed from the provisions of the Constitution we found ourselves on an uncharted sea where the unscrupulous members beguiled us into a haven of strife, dissension and sharp practices of a most infamous character and magnitude.
It is my charge to you all, and in particular to your officers, that in the conduct of the affairs of our party, the provisions of our party’s Constitution should be strictly observed and adhered to. No extraneous body, however elevated socially or politically not provided for in our Constitution should ever again be allowed to meddle in the affairs of our party.
Amie! says: ‘Order Is Power.’ It is, therefore, my further charge to you that discipline, in accordance with the relevant provisions of our Constitution, should be promptly enforced on any offending member, however high or low he may be in the Party hierarchy. Wherever order or discipline is absent, levity, complacency, or naked opportunism, of a necessity hold sway.
In the fifth place, questions have been asked about, and many of you would like to know, what my opinion is on the recent political manoeuvres among members of the Western House of Assembly. Quite frankly, I want to assure you that I keep open mind. Past experiences dictate caution and reserve on my part; more so as the manoeuvres so far as they can be committed into writing consist of vague generalizations and profound ambiguities.
I am resolved not to commit myself one way or the other unless I feel satisfied that concrete proposals have been worked out by the negotiating panel, which will redound to the best interests of the entire people of Western Nigeria in particular and of Nigeria in general.
It is, for the time being, my charge to you that your Executive Committee should select a Sub-Committee which should be empowered to carry out such negotiations as are necessary. In the sixth place, I understand that the agenda of the Conference includes ,(a) Republican Constitution, (b) Census and (c) Implications of the Creation of the Mid West State. In my considered opinion, the issues of Republican Constitution and Census are of a country-wide nature. It is, therefore, my advice to the Conference that final decisions on these two matters should not be reached but should be left to a meeting of the Federal Executive Council, which will be convened at an early date.
‘Implications of the Creation of the Mid West State’ is a subject within your competence, and I pray that your deliberations on it may be fruitful and prove beneficial to the people of the Mid West and of Yoruba West.
In the seventh place, it is clear from the little I hear and read that Nigeria is on the brink of an economic precipice. As for Western Nigeria, it has for some time now been bogged down in an economic quagmire. Those who are responsible for the present economic ills of the country and of Western Nigeria are very loud in putting the blame on innocent people.
In August last year, I made genuine and strenuous efforts to help in arresting the baleful trends which were then gathering swift momentum. My motive was misunderstood, and I was spumed. In any case, the hounds of persecution were only then just loose: they were insensate, blood thirsty, and determined to refresh themselves with my blood.
True, I am in gaol; and though in spite of this, all manner of evil things have been falsely said and written about me even by those who are regarded as custodians of truth and justice, yet by the Grace of God I continue to enjoy a peace of mind which only faith in Jesus Christ can bestow. Says Paul: ‘The Just Shall Live By Faith’. At the same time, the hounds which were let loose against me last year, have now begun to dog the steps and plague the lives of their proprietors with the same murderous blood-thirstiness. Be that as it may. What should interest us in this connection is the fate of the common man under the present dreadful and cheerless circumstances.
The ranks of people with empty or half-empty stomachs are increasing daily by the hundreds. Many a youth sees the future as a long vista of bleak and hapless journey. They look with expectant yearning to the power-that-be, but they receive no favourable response.
Why? Because the existing powers in the land are much more preoccupied with devising ways and means for the destruction of their political opponents than with catering to the best interests of the millions who are hungry but are not fed, who have not but are not supplied.
From the present position of our party, there is very little we could do, in a practical manner, to alleviate the prevailing despondency.
It is my charge to you, therefore, that we should pray most fervently for the return of prosperity to our land.
It must be borne in mind, however, that where oppression, terrorism, impiety, cowardice, and gross perversion of justice are enthroned as in now the case in Nigeria in general and in Western Nigeria in particular, there can be neither peace nor prosperity.
Those who issue a call for prayer for the return of peace and prosperity to Western Nigerian must first of all ensure that the evils which I have just mentioned are deposed, and in their places Justice and the Rule of Law are enthroned.
It is then and not till then, could there be tranquility in the hearts of the ruling caste in Western Nigerian, and peace, progress and prosperity amongst its entire populace.
I wish the Conference God’s guidance, and every success. My comrades-in-prison send you very hearty greetings. Long Live The Action Group of Nigeria!
And Forward With Democratic Socialism, under which every citizen will contribute according to his ability and be benefited according to his needs!!!
IT ISN’T LIFE THAT MATTERS
I must say with respect, and this may have to be taken up with a higher tribunal, that I do not agree with your Lordship’s verdict, and the premises on which it is based.
For upwards of 30 years, I have been in politics in Nigeria; during this period I have operated in various important theatres in the life of this great Federation. I have, with others, fought against British imperialism with all my might, and with all the talents that it pleased God to give me.
Together with other nationalists, some of whom are with me and many of whom are not with me here, we have successfully thrown out British imperialism and enthroned Africans in positions which, 20 or more years ago, they never dreamt of occupying. I have been an unyielding advocate of a Federal Constitution for Nigeria. I have all along, with other leaders of this country, been a very active and constructive participant in all the constitutional conferences which have taken place since 1953, and which have ruminated not only in the attainment of independence but in the production of a Constitution of which Nigerians are very proud. This Constitution is now being gradually violated.
I have also fought against anything which savours of injustice. It is thus an irony of history that, as one of the architects of Nigeria’s independence, I have spent almost half of Nigeria’s three years of independence under one form of confinement or another.
Since 1957 I have fought, as your Lordship remarked, with vigour against the feudal system in the Northern Region and for its eradications. I have also fought to prevent the spread of this evil political system to other parts of Nigeria.
During the same period I have strongly advocated the breaking up of the Northern Region into more states in order to have true federalism in Nigeria, to preclude the permanent subservices of the people of Nigeria to the autocratic ruling caste in the North, and to preserve peace and unity in the country.
In short, I have always fought for what I believe, without relent and regardless of consequences to myself. I have no doubt, and I say this without any spirit of immodesty, that in the course of my political career, I have rendered services to this country which historians and the coming generations will certainly regard as imperishable.
Naturally, Sir, in the course of my long, turbulent and active political life, I have attracted to myself a sizeable crop of detractors and political adversaries. Similarly, I have in the course of this long career seen both triumphs and setbacks; and I have met them with equal mind.
Peter, not Peter the Apostle, but Peter the hero of Hugh Walpole’s novel entitled ‘Fortitude’, said: ‘It isn’t life that matters but the courage you bring to it.’
After life had done terrible things to Peter he heard a voice that said to him, among other things: ‘Blessed be all sorrow, hardships and endurances that demand courage. Blessed be those things: for of these things cometh the making of a man.’
In the words of Peter, therefore, my Lord, I declare (not that I have heard a voice): Blessed be your verdict; and I say in advance; blessed be the sentence which your Lordship may pass on me.
I personally welcome any sentence you may impose upon me. At this moment my only concern is not for myself, but that my imprisonment might do harm to Nigeria for three reasons.
First, the invaluable service which I have hitherto rendered and which I can still render will be lost to the country – at least for a season.
Second, there might be a heightening of the present tension which has lasted for 15 months, and has done incalculable injuries to the economy of the country.
Third, for some time to come, the present twilight of democracy, individual freedom and the rule of law, will change or might change into utter darkness. But after darkness – and this is a common-place – comes a glorious dawn.
It is, therefore, with a brave heart, with confident hope, and with faith in my unalterable destiny, that I go from this twilight into the darkness’, unshaken in my trust in the Providence of God that a glorious dawn will come on the morrow.
CALL TO REDEDICATION AND RECONSTRUCTION
A Statement made at the meeting of the Federal Executive
Council at the Action Group of Nigeria held at Ikeja VIP
on 18th December. 1961.
Only twelve days now stand between us and 1962. As we are about to enter the new year, it will not be out of place if we do a national stock-taking of the past year, and make some resolutions for the new year.
What then are the credits and the debits for 1961?
On the credit side, the judiciary, as typified by the Federal Supreme Court and the Regional High Courts and Magistrates’ Courts, is the most outstanding item on this side of the account An impartial, fearless and incorruptible judiciary (wherever it exists) is the most formidable bulwark of the citizens against certain forms of tyranny in Nigeria has, on the whole, prove to be impartial, fearless and incorruptible. In the context of our Constitution, it has also demonstrated to all of us and to the entire world, that it is a completely dependable guardian of the more important provisions of that Constitution, especially those of them that relate to fundamental human rights.
Also on the credit side, the following items are worthy of note, namely:
1) The countrywide acceptance of the idea which I outlined in Okrika in January this year and elaborated in an address delivered at Agbor in February to the Mid West Regional Conference of the Action Group, that Nigeria should before long become a Republic;
2) The appointment of Nigerians to fill some of the top posts in the Nigeria police Force, and the elevation of two Nigerians to the rank of Lt. Colonel in the Army;
3) The achievement (at least so it seems to an outside observer like myself) of closer relations and better understanding amongst all the four Governments of the Federation;
4) The lifting of the ban on communist literature following criticisms by Action Group Leaders and other nationalists;
5) The launching of three Universities – that is the Universities of Ife, Lagos and Kano – in addition to the two existing ones – that is the University College Ibadan, and the University of Nigeria, Nsukka;
6) The opening of the Bauchi Railway Extension; and
7) The public ownership of the National Shipping Lines and the Nigerian Airways Corporation.
I do not pretend that the above items are exhaustive. But I do firmly hold that such other items as there may be are either trifling or unedifying. For instance, I regard the recent visit of the Prime Minister to the USA on the invitation of President Kennedy as mere diplomatic routine. Speaking for myself, I cannot see anything edifying in allowing Nigeria to be used as an imperialist catspaw for convening the Monrovia Conference; nor in the secondary, feeble role we played at last Commonwealth Conference, on the issue of South Africa’s expulsion from the Commonwealth. Dr. Verwoerd himself complained bitterly to the Press about those who unyieldingly hindered his country’s readmission to the Commonwealth. At no time did he mention the name of Sir Abubakar.
Now let us take a look at the debit side of the account. Democracy is now pining away on its death-bed in the Northern Region, where it has been mercilessly assaulted and violated by the NPC; it is in full retreat in the Eastern Region; and at the federal level, it is already being made to suffer from gross misuse and utter lack of nurture. Bribery and corruption are rampant; and the malignant canker-worm which they constitute is gnawing fast at the central core of the nation, to which the common run of Nigerian citizenry should look for inspiration and exemplary conduct. Every day that dawns adds many more to the already swollen ranks of the unemployed. There is a growing trade recession throughout the country. In the face of mounting unemployment, and of a sudden slump in trade, our Governments are hard put to it to make ends meet, so much so that the Eastern Region Government has announced its intention to cut down heavily on its expenditure on social services. I make bold to assert, with all sense of responsibility, that in this Year of Grace, 1961, a vicious circle of economic depression is already set in motion, and, unless we do something drastic about it now, we are in danger of an economic crisis of grave proportions early in 1962. The Federal Government, whose primal duty it is to stimulate the nation economy and boost the finances of the Regional Governments, is itself running the’ affairs of the country most inefficiently and on a deficit. The financial picture of Nigeria in 1961 is that of a ‘debtor’ and beggar’ nation. On the African scene, we have lost rather than gained in prestige. Whatever may be the outward pretence to the contrary, the truth is that African nationalists have come to regard as an illusion and mirage the high hopes and confidence which they cherished towards us before our attainment of independence. The dynamic and militant leadership which they had hoped that independent Nigerians would give has not been forthcoming.
It is futile, senseless, and prosaic to cry and strike a balance, in a numerical fashion, between the debit and the credit sides of this account. The realm of political economy, which is the subject-matter of this address, is far removed from that of accountancy where THREE always exceeds TWO by ONE. In the province of politics and economics, many subjective and imponderable factors are always at work. With the result that the answer to THREE minus TWO may be far in excess of ONE or may even be ZERO.
Let us acknowledge our shortcomings and admit that the items on the debit side of our account are too grim and gloomy, and should be substantially reduced in the coming year. If we are to be this, we need money, we need idealism, and we must be resolved to acquire both in a large measure in 1962.
In our search for money we must be downright realistic, and must scrupulously avoid any temptation to rationalization or to a plea of alibi.
The first realism of the situation which we must face is that every one of our four Governments is in the grips of financial crisis. It is imperative that we should direct all our energies to finding answers to this problem. On the other hand, it will be a disservice to the nation for any leader to dissipate his efforts in devising a means of escape for his part in bringing about the present difficulties. I have no doubt that the Federal Minister of Finance is already devoting a good deal of time to the construction of his escape routes. He has blamed the financial ills in the East and the West on the former regimes in these two regions. Expressly, he has stated in the House of Representatives on the 20th of November, 196 I, and I quote his exact words, that:
‘The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (that is myself) handed to the present Premier (that is of the Western Region) a half-submerged wreck which the Premier is desperately trying to salvage.’
I spoke immediately after the Minister, only to debunk some of the economic heresies to which he gave vent. But I deliberately refrained from commenting on his statement which I have just quoted, for a number of reasons. First, I do not at any time consider myself answerable to the House of Representatives for my conduct in the Western Region, as one-time head of the Region’s Government. Second, I hold the considered view that the name and affairs of a Regional Government should never be brought into debate in the House of Representatives either for eulogy or obloquy. Consequently, I personally have never spoken there in praise or criticism of any Regional Government, and have persistently tried to enjoin a similar attitude on my fellow-parliamentarians. It is most unfair to bring the affairs of a Regional Government into debate in the Federal Parliament, partly because the Regional Legislature and not the Federal Parliament is the only proper forum for such an exercise. For instance, whether or not there was a half-submerged wreck in the Western Region which its present Premier inherited and which he was desperately trying to salvage was an issue which no one, in the House of Representatives, other than myself could tackle without notice. And as I said before, I am in no way answerable to the House of Representatives for my past participation in the administration of the Western Region, or my official connection therewith, in the House of Representatives. Any such defence would only evoke more venomous attacks, and in due course we would all find ourselves defending and counter-attacking one Region and another. The first and the last duty of the members of the Federal Parliament is to devote their attention to dealing with issues which affect the Federation as a whole and not just one segment or region of it. Third, I am quite satisfied that the Federal Minister of Finance was merely drawing on the figment of his imagination. This satisfaction of mine stems not only from the fact that the finances of the Western Region were sound when I banded the affairs of its Government to my successor, but also from the clear and unequivocal appraisal of the true financial slate of affairs by the new Premier himself. In February 1960; the Western Region Government made a substantial reduction in rates throughout the Region. This reduction was so substantial that it is now costing the Regional Government about £1.6m per annum in subsidy to Local Governments. In concluding a statement which he made. to the Press on this rate reduction, the Hon. Chief Akintola said:
“The measures (that is tax reduction measures) now approved are possible because of the wise and eminently commendable manner in which the finances of the Region were managed under the leadership of my distinguished predecessor, Chief Obafemi Awolowo.’
The Federation of Nigeria is one body politic. Whatever adversely Affects any member of that body is bound to incommode the rest of the body. The Action Group of Nigeria, as a country-wide organization, treats with the utmost concern any problem whatsoever which may affect any of the Regions and the entire Federation. I call upon all political leaders to unite in meeting the crisis that looms ahead, and desist from a fruitless search for scapegoats.
The second realism which we must face is that the Federal Government’s approach our problems lacks principle, vision and enlightenment. I have spoken on this matter a good deal of late, and I do not wish to repeat in extensor what I have persistently drummed in everybody’s ear. I would like to be permitted however, to recapitulate briefly what I have advocated on this score, and to say something in defence of my advocacy.
I have advocated that our economy should be nationally planned and that such planning should be guided by the ideals of Democratic Socialism. Specifically, I have advocated the public ownership of certain industries and the studied encouragement of Nigerian entrepreneurs, within the ambit of a national plan, to take their rightful place in the development of the country.
It has been said by my opponents in criticism of me, that I have taken these standpoints only after my party lost the last Federal election. In order to rebut this charge and to show that the views which I now express have been consistently held by me some years before 1959, I make the following extracts from my Indian Report and from two of my past speeches.
In my report on my Indian Tour which I submitted to my colleagues, and circulated to all the then Ministers in the other three Governments of Nigeria, dated 11th December, 1952, I observed as follows:
‘It has been said by someone whose opinion deserves notice that a Government which entered into trade would flop. I disagree with all my might. Indiscriminate trading by Government is not only unwise, but might prove to be the worse form of inroad into the liberty of the citizens. But trading and industrial activities for Government in certain selected fields, and under certain circumstances, are indisputably beneficial not only to the national economy but also to the national security.
‘In regard to introduction of foreign capital, it is my humble but considered opinion that a subject and poor but potentially rich country like ours would be taking enormous and almost suicidal risk to throw its door open to foreign investments without stringent safeguards. We would most probably enjoy a measure of comparative prosperity in the immediate present, but we would eminently succeed in mortgaging our future in the way of economic initiative and freedom. It has been wisely stated that political independence and economic spoon-feeding go ill together. Too much dependence economically, it requires drastic and even revolutionary political action to attain economic independence.
‘Under this heading, I do not wish to attempt any detailed proposals. All I wish to do is to make suggestions about the setting up of machinery by which the Nigerian Government and the three Regional Governments could work out satisfactory and generally acceptable proposals for the economic development of the country.
‘Therefore, I suggest the immediate setting up of a Nigerian Planning Commission, and of a Regional Planning Board for each Region.
‘The main functions of the Planning Board would be
- a) to make a survey of the economic resources of the territory under its charge, and make plans and recommendation about the best’ form of their utilisation; and
- b) to institute measures for the execution of such of its plans and recommendations are approved by the Planning Commission.
‘On the other hand the functions of the Planning Commission would be:
- a) to co-ordinate and harminise the plans submitted by the Planning Boards,
- b) to determine locations of industries,
- c) to lay down categories of industries as is done by the Government of Pakistan,
- d) to regulate the manner in which foreign investors would be permitted to engage in industries, and
- e) to devise means by which indigenous industries would be stimulated, financed, and protected.
‘The supreme aim of the Planning Commission and the Board would be to revise the economic status of the peasant class, to achieve a balanced economy, and to bring about an all-round prosperity for the people of Nigeria.’
‘The Action Group believes that free enterprises should be encouraged and fostered within such limits as will be laid down by law, but it advocates the public ownership of basic industries. It is not necessarily opposed to the importation of foreign capital but insists that such capital shall be introduced into the country only on the basis of partnership with, and active participation by, the people or the Government of the country. Keeping thee principle in mind, the Action Group dedicates itself to fashion out and pursue any economic policy that will ensure prosperity and contentment to the citizens of Nigeria.’
In an address entitled ‘Statement of Economic Policy’ which I delivered to the Western Region Executive Committee of the Action Group at Ibadan on 27th May, 1954, I made the following remarks:
‘At this stage, I will now restate what I know to be our policy on this question of industrialization and foreign capital.
- We are determined to raise the productivity of our fanners by the introduction of scientific methods of cultivation and conservation of soil fertility, etc., and expand our output of farm produce by this means and by the establishment of Government-owned plantations.
2 We are determined to diversify our agricultural economy by the cultivation of a larger variety of crops than at present in order that we may cease to be dependent on one or two items of export products.
- We will embark on industrialisation on a limited scale in so far as it is compatible with the two objectives above stated.
- We will welcome foreign capital so long as it enters into Partnership with indigenous capital provided either by Production Boards, the Government or the people, in such a proportion that at least 51 per cent of the total capital is vested in us.
- Wherever possible and advisable we will seek to control the whole capital ourselves and make use of the skilled labour and organization which foreigners alone can at present provide.
- In the future we will seek to nationalize such of the existing industries controlled in this country by foreigners as we deem expedient in the national interest. But such nationalization will be accompanied by adequate compensation.
“In short, the aim of the Action Group is, for the present, to arrest the tendency of our industrial activities being concentrated in the hands of foreigners, and, in the long run, to ensure that all major industrial activities are either vested in the state or in our fellow countrymen.’
Having shown by the above quotations that I am by no means a post-1959 convert to Democratic Socialism, may I now once again urge it upon the Federal Government to adopt in theory and in practice that ideals of Democratic Socialism, and to appoint forthwith a National Economic Planning Commission with one hundred per cent Nigerian composition, which will produce a five-year plan for the nation on the basis of these ideals. Well-meaning and expert expatriate, with the correct ideological background or training, and with no vested interests in Nigeria may be invited from time to time to advise the Commission. If merit is the decisive factor in appointing the members of the Commission, I have no doubt that it will succeed in producing a Plan worthy of Nigeria and under which the resources of our land will be exploited mainly for the advancement of the masses of our people.
The third realism which we must face is that the difficulties of the Regional Governments arise primarily from an unusually prolonged depression in the prices of our export commodities. From lack of courage in exploiting every avenue of raising funds; and secondarily from a misguided rivalry in prestige spending. It does not appear that the Federal Government attaches much importance to our commodities. It is these commodities that give us the wherewithal for paying for our overseas purchases. Yet throughout the Economic Mission mounted by the Federal Government little attention was paid by the Mission to giving a strong fillip to the volume and prices of our export products. The Federal Government must now make an all-out plan for boosting the sales of our export crops and for getting much better prices for them. On the other hand, the Regional Governments must never again fight shy of calling upon the people to pay for the benefits they receive or clamour for.
The truth is that those who are able (and there are millions of them) are not being made to contribute enough or at all to the Government coffers in accordance with their individual ability. I shall have more to say on this point later. But it will be helpful for all of us to remember the following figures. According to reliable statistical data prepared in 1957, Nigeria only employs 5 per cent of her gross national products on current public expenditure, as against 15 per cent in Ceylon and 12 per cent in Ghana and Tanganyika. We can only spend as much as we care or have the courage to demand from the people. But is clear from these figures, other things being equal, that our Governments are assuredly very far from getting enough financial contributions from the people.
At the same time, it must be emphasised that the capital and recurrent expenditure on the State Houses in Kaduna and Enugu could have been usefully saved, and the numbers of the Missions we have sent abroad in the outgoing year could have been fewer, and their sizes much smaller.
The fourth realism is that by injudicious political manipulations, we have (all of us without exception) succeeded, albeit unwittingly, in breeding the haves and the have-nots fast becoming more and more mutually antagonistic. Before the two classes harden, in their prejudices, beyond non-violent readjustment, we must embark on the dual operation of leveling down and leveling up.
The fifth realism we must face is that if, at this point of time, we are intent on evoking any patriotic response from the masses for the need to make adequate and additional financial contributions to the Government exchequers, those of us who have the privilege to lead the nation must not only purify ourselves in the eyes of the public, but must also show be example that we too can give the lead in self-sacrifice whenever the circumstances so demand.
Having set out the realisms as I see them, I now proceed to make a number of concrete proposals in addition to those which I have already made in the course of this statement. In the course of my contribution to the debate on the Supplementary Appropriation Bill, during the last meeting of the House of Representatives, I had declared as follower.
‘The present time calls for austerity, if we are to get over our financial difficulties, and promote the welfare of our ‘people.
This is the keynote of the purely material aspects of my proposals. As it has been our privilege to give the lend in big spending, so it must be our honour to set a noble example in what real austerity in the facer of financial crisis truly means.
It will not be proper for me to give the details of what form or forms these austerity measures should take. That is a matter for the Federal Executive Council to consider and determine. But I consider it my duty to warn that our admonition and appeal for sacrifices would sound hollow and hypocritical in the ears of the public, unless those of us who occupy a position of leadership have first of all made the highest possible sacrifices.
The Eastern Region Government is to be commended for its bold efforts in tackling its financial problem. But it has gone about it the wrong way. It abolished Infant I, pegged its UpE scheme to Infant II and Standard I and II and raised school fees in Standards III and IV from £3 10s. od. To £5. os. Od. per pupil, and in Standards V and VI from £5. os. Od. to £8 os. od. The Action Group which has criticized these regressive and crushing measures has been accused of playing politics, and of breaking faith with the agreement reached at the National Economic Council that taxation should be taken out of the arena of politics.
In the first place, the present imposition of school fees is not taxation, because it does not conform with – any of the principles of an enlightened tax system.
In the second place, the agreement referred to has not been made known to the public. At all events, the Action Group and I myself are still to be informed of the said agreement and its precise terms. In any case, I want to assure the Eastern Government that, if an agreement is reached that taxation should be taken out of the arena of politics, they will find the Action Group a very active collaborator in implementing its terms. From the time I took office in the Western Region in 1952, I have consistently advocated this very course in vain. In vain, because the NCNC which is the party in power in the East was implacably bent on playing politics with taxation, with the unsavoury consequences which now stare all of us in the face. I am not at all happy about the present state of affairs. But I am glad that whether we are Jews or Gentiles, Greeks or Barbarians, we now see quite clearly that playing politics with rates and taxes is a most dangerous game. If the NCNC had responded to my repeated calls for unity of purpose in the matter of taxation, and if it had not had reasons to believe that its financial returns from other sources would say good perhaps the Western Region Government would not have reduced rates as substantially as it has done with a resultant heavy financial burden on the Regional exchequer. Similarly, the Eastern Region Government would not have been pressed to the wall as it now is. In the case of the East, the answer to the problem is not increases in school fees. Indeed, I do conscientiously advocate that school fees should be abolished in Primary schools in the Eastern and Northern Regions, and that some other avenues should be explored for raising the funds required for meeting the expenses on Primary education. This exploration should be done by all the Governments of the Federation acting in correct and taking their respective parties into full confidence to what and what are proposed to be done. Those of us who by the Grace of God are placed in a position of leadership must be Prepared right now to grasp the nettle. If we unite in doing so, and if, in addition, we set a worthy example and a marat on pace in probity, unselfishness and self-sacrifice, the people will follow, all too readily, in our footsteps.
There is a short poem whose author I do not now remember, but which I pass on to you for its intrinsic value. It runs:
‘The Past is a story told;
The Future may be writ in gold.’
Animated by the sage message of this poem, we should, as we enter the New Year, resolve to make 1962 a glorious epoch in Nigeria’s history.
For the year 1962, therefore:
1) We should resolve to make democracy work in Nigeria at all levels of government activities;
2) We should resolve to unite in combating, with all the constitutional resources at our disposal any attempt on the part of any Government or party in power to encroach upon and invade the liberty of the individual’
3) We should resolve to exterminate the cankerworm of bribery and corruption, and to evolve effective plans to this end;
4) We should resolve to produce a five-year development plan which will bear the stamp of the genius of Nigerian brains and patriotism, and which is designed for the speedy abolition of disease, ignorance and want, and for the introduction of a new era of abundance for all;
5) We should, in particular, resolve to close, so far as it lies in our power and is compatible with socialist ideals, the yawning gap between the haves and the have-nots;
6) We should resolve to raise the prestige of Nigeria as an economically self-reliant and political dependable nation, to whom the other countries of Africa can look for succor and merited leadership; and
7) We should resolve to rededicate ourselves for the great task ahead, and to co-operate with all those of our fellow-citizens who see the need and are determined to work for a radical reconstruction of our society.
If we are to succeed in carrying out these resolutions, we must have idealism as our impregnable armour. The idealist is not, as is erroneously believed by some impractical Indeed by adhering to fundamental principles, he is fully armed with unimpeachable yardsticks and criteria by means of which all practical issues are justly and equitably determined. His guiding and dominant motive in his approach to all private or public affairs is self first, self second and self last. The bane of our society is the monstrous growth in 1961 of unabased opportunism. We must resolve to destroy the monster right now, if we are to save this nation from imminent peril.
INDEX
Africa Unit, 1
Agricultural Development, 63
Anglo-Nigerian Defence Pact, 26
Akintola, S.L.A., 145, 213
Ashby Commission, 65
Awokoya, Hon. S.O., 142
Balance of Payments, 70
Call to Rededication and
Reconstruction, 209
Cameron, Sir Donald, 80
Charter of Freedom, 76
Creation of More States, 146
ECH, 62
Economic Development, 123
‘Economic Development of
Nigeria, The’, 102
Education, 158
Enahoro, Hon. Anthony, 143
FBI, 65
Financial Cross-roads, 46
Freedom for All, 195
Glory of a King, The, 94
Good Government, 121
Ideological Orientation, 184
Ighodaro, Hon. S.O., 143
I1e-Ife, 45
Independence, 151
Independent Nigeria, 9
Industrial Rule, 79
It Isn’t Life That Matters, 206
Lugard, Lord, 79, 80
Macpherson, Sir John, 145
Malan, Dr., 38
Mens Sana in Corpore Sano,164
Motion for Self-government, 164
Nationalisation, 58
NATO, 2, 14
NCNC, 148, 201, 219
Nigerian Shipping Company 56
NPC, 19, 148, 201, 202 ,210
OAC, 8
Odebiyi, Chief J.A.O. 200
Okotie-Ebob, Cbief Festus, 75
Ondo, 45
Owo, 45
Pbilosopby for Independent
Nigeria. 9
Political Memoranda. 79
Politics and Religion. 117
Public Finanee, 43
Public Finance. 123
Public Relations and Other
Matters, 129
Rapid Economic
Development, 51
Social Services, 121
Speech in Defence of Chief
S.L.A. Akintofa,136
Street Beggar Economy, 35
The Press, 166
Thomas, Chief Bode. 145
UK, 31
UNO, 23
Valedictory Summing-up, 118
Verwoenf, Dr. 2
Bertha M. Clay: LOVE’S GOWEN REIGN
Bertha M. Clay: A WOMAN’S TEMPTATION
Bertha M. Clay: BEYOND PARDON
Bertha M. Clay: IN LOVE’S CRUCIBLE
Bertha M. Clay: LOVE WORKS WONDERS
Bertha M. Clay: MARRIED FOR THE BEAUTY
Bertha M. Clay: A HEART’S BITTERNESS
Bertha M. Clay: ANOTHER MAN’S WIFE
Bertha M. Clay: TRIFLING WITH LOVE
Bertha M. Clay: ON WINGS OF LOVE
Bertha M. Clay: FORTUNATE LOVERS
Bertha M. Clay: SUNSHINE OF LOVE
Bertba M. Clay: LOVERS’ CONFLICTS
Bertha M. Clay: THE WOMAN WHO WON
Bertha M. Clay: THE SECRET LOVERS
Bertha M. Clay: LOVERS’ KNOTS
Bertha M. Clay.: NOT EASILY JEALOUS
Bertba M. Clay: LOVE’S HIDDEN PERIL
Bertha M. Clay: DIVIDED LOVES
Kole Omotoso: TO BORROW A WANDERING LEAF
Bayo Adebiyi: THE BROTHERS
Fola Oyewole: RELUCTANT REBEL
Oladapo Yemiian THE BEARDED STORY TELLER
Dillibe Onyeama SEX IS A NIGGER’S GAME
Dillibe Onyeama JUJU
Louis Johnson NO MAN’S LAND
Thomas A. Kempi THE IMITATION OF CHRIST
- Von Schmid THE BASKET OF FLOWERS
- Barclay A LIFE OF CHRIST
- Ramsey: THE HOLY SPIRIT
- Chapman: SHORT RV BIBLE FOR STUDENTS
- Carey: LAST PLANE FROM ULI
Dan Wooding and Ray
Barnett: UGANDA HOLOCAUST
- Nwachukwu-Agbada NO NEED TO CRY
Temple Omare Boyo: SOMOLU BLUES
Akoli Fenuku: A FATAL CHOICE
Sola Oloyede: THE WAREHOUSE GANG
Sola Oloyede: I PROFESS THIS CRIME
Mary Essex: MY LOVE
Lilian Woodward: FOLLY OF LOVE
Yvonne Gordon: LESSON IN LOVE
Grace Goodwin: LOVE IS THE KEY
Angela Gordon: LOVE HAS MANY FACES
Vera Craig: LOVE IN WARD TWO
The above books are obtainable from all reputable bookshops. For direct orders, add 30k per copy for postage and packing for up to 9 books. Orders in excess of 10 books are sent free of charge.
Send your order to:
Fagbamigbe Publishers,
II Methodist Church Road,
P.O. Box 14,
Akure,
Nigeria.
While every effort is made to keep prices low, it is sometimes necessary to increase prices at short notice. Fagbamigbe Publishers reserve the right to show and charge new retail prices on covers which may differ from those advertised above.
CONTINUES NEXT WEEK
ALSO READ: Content creators in Nigeria now eligible for Facebook monetisation
Source: