By Prof. Protus Nathan Uzorma
Last week I published the part one of this article and my phone was inundated with calls and questions that bothered on my choice of words regarding Owerri zone. However, I wish to sincerely apologize for any disparaging and derogatory expression and or expressions that may have vilified, negated and slurred the good image of Owerri zone through my thought-provoking article. I do not mean to insult Owerri people by invoking the common adage or maxim by which their joyful, friendly and accommodating adroitness and hospitality are known for. Owerri people are wonderful people and I have great respect for them. We have so many illustrious sons and daughters of Owerri extraction that are making not only Nigerians but the entire world proud in their various fields of endeavours. I have written this in the spirit of love and justice and I also use this medium to appease and mollify all spirits in Owerri zone to please accept my sincere apologies.
Following the above, I must continue to speak my mind with regards to injustices that are done to different geo-political zones in Nigeria. I’m still talking of Owerri zone in Imo politics. The science of rectificatory justice is the science that has equity as its object. It also means equity, fairness, fair play, just or being considerate in its various aspects. Even as old as the human society is, Aristotle who lived in the 4th Century AD, remarked the inevitability of equity and rectificatory justice in the social ream.
It was the above conviction that propelled Edmund Burke to infer, “Justice is itself the great standing policy of civil society, and any eminent departure from it, under any circumstances, lies under the suspicion of being no policy at all”. Justice is power and this power is truth in action. In my opinion, the search for equity, must follow certain and systematic process that is intertwined with fact. We all know that facts are series of events and an event is series of actions while an action is a happening. It may be a conduct by expression, consent, implication, acquiescence or ‘condonation’ by an individual. Action and non-action constitute a person’s reaction to a given circumstance no wonder Webster’s New Encyclopedic Dictionary defines Equity as “Justice according to natural law or right; specifically, freedom from bias or favouritism…”
Equity is the oil that greases and lubricates justice because it is an inspired philosophy of social justice; its characteristics include the tentacles of validity in syllogistic deductions and conclusions. It asserts and maintains that any state of oppression, repression, exploitation or suppression is not synchronous and is therefore out of focus of naturalism. For John Kennedy, “The achievement of Justice is an endless process”. It is Justice that renders to each one what is his and does not claim another’s property which informs why St. Augustine concludes, “The soul has four virtues whereby, in this life, it lives spiritually, namely, temperance, prudence, fortitude, and justice. The fourth, justice is which pervades all the virtues.”
Equity is the basis of honesty. In equity and justice our honesty make us deal fairly with friends and foes without causing an unbalance that creates envy, violence and revenge no wonder Aristotle say “If a man is interested in himself only, he is very small, if he is interested in his family, he is larger, if he is interested in his community, he is larger still”. Confucius {550-478 B.C.} the Chinese sage, was asked if he knew a secret for happiness. He answered that he did not know any. Then another of his disciple asked, “Do you know any secret to ruin a country?” “Yes” Confucius replied. “When its rulers do not accept criticisms, equity and justice”.
Aristotle in Book 5 of his (Nicomachean) Ethics[i] noted that “equity and justice are neither absolutely identical nor generically different”. Equity for him is superior to legal justice but not to justice as being a different genus. “Thus, justice and equity coincide, and although both are good, equity is superior. What causes the difficulty is the fact that equity is just but not what is legally just: It is a rectification of legal justice”. Aristotle further defined an equitable man, (a virtuous elite, an equitable politician and political office holder aspirant) as, “one who chooses and does equitable acts, and is not duly insistent upon his rights, but accepts less than his share, although he has the law on his side. Such a disposition is equity”. By rectificatory justice, Aristotle meant remedying an inequitable division between two parties by means of a sort of arithmetical progression- the mean relative to us (or to a particular situation and circumstance). Consequently, he ruled that “in arithmetical proportion the equal is a mean between the greater and the less”.
Equity is an inter-human concept; it is a disposition that corrects anomalies or wrong situations. Consequently, a just man is one who does and prefers balanced acts, knowing his rights but does not insist on it; instead, gives in to the mean, to what is virtuous at a particular instance- The mean relative to us. Equity thus is an objective and realistic concept that is employed or sought for; for the correction, rectification or remedying of an inequitable sharing between or among parties. Without equity as rectificatory than distributive justice, (which favours merits and rights, survival of the fittest and might is right), concentration of goodies will be overloaded or excess in some places while rare and deficient in others.
Imo State was created in 1976 with the view of maintaining equity and balance among political units (ethnic groups) in the Federation, and since its creation till today, several internal political segments have been created for developmental and equity purposes. Based on these intentions, a political conscience or internally agreed morality is generated for the reasons of equality in power rotation and sharing, and Imolites unanimously agreed to impose it on themselves, and this is the equity charter, which is thus a non-constitutional matter.
This presentation is to consider the context of the destabilised equity charter for power shifts and rotation in Imo State since its creation and especially since 1979 when democracy began in Imo as a political entity. It will attempt to reflect on the history of power-sharing in democratic Imo, the breaches that came along the way but with the vision of restoring the pre-existing charter in rectificatory manner.
According to Martin Luther King Jr., “Cowardice asks the question, is it safe? Expediency asks the question, is it politic? Vanity asks the question, is it popular? But conscience asks the question, is it right? And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because his conscience tells him that it is right.”
On February 3, 1976 amidst mixed feelings: Anxiety, joy, fears, speculations and desperation, the Muritala Muhammad-led Military Junta carved out Imo State out of the former East Central State of the Federation. Imo State then comprised of the present day Imo and Abia, as well as some parts of Ebonyi State; in accordance with the nationwide Broadcast that stated the component Local Governments of the new State. It was evident that apart from the war devastated General Hospital, Alvan Ikoku College of Education, Imo Hotels, the Modern Shoe Factory and the Leather Industry (owned by a private company), there were no investments visibly made by both the defunct Eastern Nigerian Government and the later truncated East-Central State.
It would be recalled that on March 14th, 1976, Lieutenant Commander Godwin Ndubuisi Kanu, the Federal Junta appointed first Military Governor of Imo State, moved from Enugu to Owerri. Ever since his appointment as the Military Governor of the new State, Imo, on February 3, 1976, he was in Enugu for consultations with the then Military Governor of the former East Central State, Col John Atom Kpera who became the Anambra State Military Governor. And just a day he moved from Enugu to Owerri, on March 5, 1976, Commander G.N. Kanu announced his first set of civilian commissioners, which means that while consultations were going on between Col Kpera and Commander Kanu, so many scenes, activities, manipulations and lobbying were taken place.
I remember vividly then as a Catholic, that it was on St Patrick’s Day, Wednesday March 17, 1976; exactly six weeks after he was sworn in as the Military Governor of Imo State that Lt Commander G.N. Kanu made his maiden broadcast
[ii] to Imolites. His State Broadcast was titled, “All Hands on Deck”, (a real Naval and Military terminology and conception of synergy). In it, he stated his readiness to heal the post-war social wounds and thrall Imo forward.
In the speech, he remarked that “regrettably” Imolites “had marked time for so long since 1976”. He noted the lack or absence of dialogue and proper understanding between the former State Government and the governed, which resulted in great pressures of “being subjects without the compensating satisfaction of being properly governed”. He attributed some of the latent frustrations of the State, which were as a result of “the uneven distribution of government amenities which led to a situation where some areas were over endowed with government patronage while others stagnated in backwardness”.
According to AJN Nzeribe, in retrospect, Imolites then “saw in the creation of Imo State, the widening of the gates of opportunity; not as a disenchantment and outright frustration. They saw it as a fulfilment of a dream State and society in which insecurity and gross inequality should cease. They would struggle to transform the State capital into a great capital worthy of its great name. It was in these words that the first Military Governor of Imo State, invited all and sundry to play their parts in the exciting venture.”[iii]
In its existence as a political entity, Imo State has witnessed an epochalised leadership, which proceeds from its national leadership. From its creation in March 1976 to December 1980, the State witnessed the administration of four chief Executives. Each has his own method of administration and power-sharing formula. This period as well had both military and civilian governments and elapsed in 1983, when the lengthiest Junta rule pioneered the State and managed power-sharing according to the Military Administration’s choices and discretions.
Thus, as a self-ruled political entity, Imo has elected and shared power amongst its citizens in 1979-1983 (Chief S.O. Mbakwe’s regime), 1992-1993 (Chief Evan Enwerem’s regime), 1999-2007 (Chief Achike Udenwa’s regime), 2007-2011 (Chief Ikedi Ohakim’s regime), and 2011-2019 (Chief Rochas Okorocha’s regime) 2019 to date 2024 Gov. Hope Uzodimma. The grand questions here are: How has power been shared among the various arms of government in the State? How has it been rotated among the component political zones of the State? Has it been equitable and constant? Watch out for Part three of this article.