By Prof. Nathan Protus Uzorma
In Aesop’s fables, the philosopher (Aesop) told a story of the lion and the wild Ass thus, “A lion and a wild ass went out hunting together, the latter was to run down the prey buy his superior speed, and the former would then come up and dispatch it. They met with great success, and when it came to sharing the spoil the lion divided it all into three equal portions. ‘I will take the first’. Said he, ‘because I am king of the beasts; I will also take the second, because as your partner, I am entitled to half of what remains, and as for the third-well, unless you give it up to me and take yourself off pretty quick, the third, believe me, will make you feel very sorry for yourself”. The above story by Aesop however reflects the true position of how political power is shared in Imo State. Brief historical cum political inference shall justify my assertions.
The concept and reality of power-sharing and equity charter, is not an Imo State problem alone, it is universal amongst the entire States of the Federation; it is a National and Federal trend and trait. In the Federal level, from October 1, 1960-1966, 1979-1983, 1992-1993, 1999-2007, 2007-2011, 2011-2015, 2015 – 2019, and 2019-2023 the Nigerian Presidency, Vice Presidency, Senate Presidency as well as the Speaker House of Representatives, etc., have been rotated amongst the component socio-political divisions in the country.
Such power sharing formula and charter has also existed in Imo State since the inception of democracy in 1979-1983, which had polarised Imo State into 3 political segments for sharing-power among the 3 arms of government. The 3 political units: Owerri, Orlu and Okigwe have had as Governors: 1979-1983 (Okigwe Zone), 1992-1993 (Owerri Zone), 1999-2003; 2003-2007 (Orlu Zone), 2007-2011 (Okigwe Zone) and 2011-2015 (Orlu Zone) 2015 – 2019 (Orlu zone), 2019 – January 2020 (Owerri zone), from 2020 – 2024 and probably 2027 (Orlu zone). A rundown of this tenure-leaderships shows that for these 29 years of democratic governance in the State, Okigwe Zone has ruled 8/30, Owerri 2 ½ /30 and Orlu 20/30. This shows that Okigwe zone has headed Imo State Government for 36% of the duration so far past and present, Owerri 9 ½ % and Orlu for 75% or more respectively. Even a blind man who has no auditory impediments or vice versa would see, hear and observe the obvious disparity and inequality in the power-shifts. It is likened to the Nigerian 64 years of self-rule, which had the Northern Nigeria heading the Federal Government for many years and the Southern Nigeria for less number of years.
In these regimes, power-sharing were accordingly slated amidst the 3 arms of government in the State. 1979-1983: Chief Samuel Onunaka Mbakwe (Governor, Okigwe Zone), Chief Amahala (Deputy Governor) and Dr Okechukwu Okibedi (IMHA Speaker, Orlu Zone). This power-sharing model was inaugural for the latter 3 senatorial zones though Imo, Abia and parts of the today Ebonyi State made up the then Imo State; as Owerri, Aba, Umuahia, Okigwe, Orlu, Afikpo, were provincial headquarters.
This power-sharing model returned during the 1992-1993 short-lived civilian government of Chief Evan Enwerem (Governor, Owerri Zone), Dr Douglas Acholonu (Deputy Governor, Orlu Zone) and Hon Maxwell Duru (IMHA Speaker, Okigwe). At the return of democracy in Nigeria in 1999, Chief Achike Udenwa ruled from 1999- 2007 (Governor, Orlu Zone), Chief Ebere Udeagu (Deputy Governor, Okigwe Zone) and Hon Leo Agwuocha Chukwukadibia (IMHA Speaker, Owerri Zone). In 2007, the Imo State Governorship went to Chief Ikedi Godson Ohakim (Governor, Okigwe Zone), Dr Mrs Ada Okwuonu (Deputy Governor, Owerri Zone) and Hon Goodluck Nana Opiah (IMHA Speaker, Orlu Zone). (2011-2015), produced Owelle Rochas Anayo Okorocha (Governor, Orlu Zone), Chief Jude Agbaso/Prince Eze Madumere (Deputy Governors, Owerri Zone) and Hon Benjamin Uwajumogu (IMHA Speaker, Okigwe Zone). 2015 to 2019 Gov. Rochas continued with Prince Madumere as his deputy while Rt. Hon. Acho Ihem (Okigwe zone) was the speaker. In 2019 to 2023 and 2024, the same process of zoning was maintained.
A sociological school of thought opined that man is a product and a maker of history; as such, history makes man and while man remains a maker of history. Consequently, every human activity is historic. The present distortion of the equity charter in Imo State in my opinion is a brainchild of history. For instance, as a child, I remember the deriding song, “Obodo niile emepechelaa ofodu Okiwe n’Orlu,… This deriding song is a historic reality that as at the creation of Imo State, provincial towns of Okigwe, Orlu, Ohaozara, Afikpo, etc., were in very deplorable states, Okigwe and Orlu sectors were worse, while Umuahia, Owerri and Aba were blossoming.
Such reality put to song, was never satirical and could thus prod a people to awakening; even to a long-term perspective planning (to use Anthony James Catanese’s words). Similarly, shortly after the war and losses of Imolites’ housing properties especially in Port Harcourt, many displaced victims moved to Towns like Owerri, Aba, Umuahia where accommodations were possible but rendered difficult by the middle-man who became gainfully employed (as agents). Their source of income was the “kola” and those who failed to take advantage of their services and type of agency-arrangement were openly told, to move out of the area if they do not like it.
Chief AJN Nzeribe (in his Emergent States in Nigeria: The Challenges of Development. The Imo Experience: 1976-1986), noted that “the arrogance of a typical home bred Owerri house agent or middle-man while discussing in a beer parlour over the plight of new arrivals in the town could succinctly be summed up in the following words: Onye si naala Owerri ari ya mma, ya kwara lee”.[i]
Comments of these sorts as said earlier, nudge the concerned to alertness; are nonetheless challenges that result to positive outcomes in nearest future. Today, after the massive loss of properties of Ndigbo after the war in places outside their homelands and ethnic lands, every dick and Harry seek to develop their lands and thus seize every opportunity meant for the even-development of the entire state to develop their lands in the name of dividends of democracy.
Since after the 1999 era that marks the end of Junta in Nigeria and in which many civilians thrilled during the Military regime, the inception of democracy has made politics, the shortest means for rapid community development and the amassment of wealth. And since who plays the piper dictates the tone, political office holders are conceived as “Our opportunity to develop our area; the more “we are in-charge”, the more dividends of democracy”. Notwithstanding whether it denies others of what suppose to reach them.
This mentality justifies the constant quest for transfer of higher institutions in Imo and Anambra States by every Governor on seat, to his area, as well as the other valuable structures existing before or supposed to exist in his or her regime. Funnily, could these justify why Okigwe and Orlu Zones who were previously backward in development, have gibbered momentum out of many years of democracy in the State? This mentality may be one out of the many factors that lead to the emergence of godfatherism in the State. Godfatherism (or Babanigbejo as Prof Olufemi Taiwo calls it), is often personified, even though the valence in virtue of which he comes by the influence he has and the power he exercises is not limited to any single factor.
The godfather may personify ethnic privilege in a situation in which membership of a given ethnic or national group bestows unearned or unmerited benefits. Yet, despite the numerous valences involved in his emergence the common denominator is that the Babanigbejo deploys other than rules to secure advantages for his clients (who may be an individual, a group or political unit) as well as for himself. Let us see then how this godfatherism affects the equity charter in a political unit like Imo State.
The former Governor of Enugu State, Dr Chimaroke Nnamani during a public lecture in Babcock University, Ogun State, defined godfatherism as an attempt by the elite to create a godfather zone- a region for select few- to escape the rigours of proper democratic mobilization and mass participation. This definition has some implications. It is in se centred on a democratic polity and reveals an elitist statue (that creates a cabal) and an oligarch, while its modus operandi contains manoeuvring manipulations of democratic charters, processes and de rigueur for true democracy. True democracy according to Loius Nkemdilim, is the people’s government based on fair and equal treatment for everyone and their right to take part in making decision concerning them. This definition of democracy is practically out of the question in Imo State.
Generally, electioneering in Nigeria is capital intensive, and this has led to the emergence of: The godfather phenomenon and political fiancierism or sponsorship, (which practically becomes the proprietorship of the State and the one that blows the piper); of political plinths and cult-personality whereof certain cold wars come, which often end up in schisms and inter-party defections, brutish politicking, electoral violence and political assassinations. Being the sole proprietor or the owner of the Government of the political unit in question (State, Senatorial Zone, Federal Constituency, State Constituency, Local Government Area, Ward, etc), the godfather inter alia rises at will and chooses whoever he or she deems fit for governing the very political unit for his or her proper politico-economic advantage. R.A. Joseph described this process of using government positions to pursue personal or group interests as prebendalism, a political trait that has ruined every facet and unit of the country’s political vitality. This spontaneous and individualistic uprising often does not concur with the general equity-charter or economy of power shifts, as he or she employs every possible measure in order to assure success in his or her venture.
According to John O Odey, the godfather’s activities frustrate every facet of the socio-political and economic growth and stability of the political unit where he has cultivating interests, and because he holds or knows his whereabouts within the key holders of government positions, whatever he does or engages in is covered, accepted and swallowed even when it is very bitter and nauseating. The godfathers and elitists materialism are for him mere activities of sycophants, through whose activities peace and order, stability and equity are muzzled before and during elections in the country. Researchers world over have come to the common opinion that large economic returns are the accoutrement of every political godfather. Thus, Katznelson and Kesselman’s question: Who gives political contributions, has swift responses in the Nigerian political language: The accumulative oligarch, the comprador bourgeoisie, the affluent business men that vest their economic might into politics for commercial and deference gratifications.
Money is a political maternal milk; consequently, political funding is bilateral in that both the financier and the sponsored concurrently pursue same political goals, formulate concomitantly same teleological strategies and being divided, each group (of the sponsor and the sponsored) has considerable leverage on the other in a procedural interchange. This leverage has consequences on the very political unit in question. For instance, when a society that operates a pluralist party system has several candidates featured for elections, the tendency of getting multiplied competitions which severity proves virility and goes in tandem with the masculine political tonality, the rule of survival of the fittest becomes the acceptable norm and the concepts of equity and justice in power-shifts and sharing become nominal. This is because the plutocracy and oligarchic tendencies turn the political arena into a coterie of financiers who given together become caucuses that determine the course of events within the political unit; not minding any form of traditional agreement in existence in the political unit. This certainly leads to Anthony James. Catanese’s The Devil Theory of power elite dominance of state and local politics and planning to the exclusion of all other special interest groups, (which is absurd in modern democracies as practised in Europe and America, and now envisioned in most developing countries, notably our country Nigeria).
What concerns us most here is how to solve the constant destabilization of the equity charter by godfatherism in Imo State and in the Federation at large. How should Imolites and Nigerians face the godfather challenges today, vis-à-vis the equity charter? Prof Olufemi Taiwo promptly reminds us today that the modern political environment or society has bent to process than outcome in politicking, and remarks that trusting your Leader, Godfather, Ethnic Group or Chief may not be best to secure a State’s or Nation’s advantage.
The godfather phenomenon has direct link with procedure. That is why “godfathers thrive in environments in which people, in this case, politicians, don’t think that they can trust the process that guides, authorises, and selects winners in the enterprise that they participate in to yield outcomes that are favourable to their interests”, especially after investing on the godson. Thus, there is almost a contradictory relationship between the Babanigbejo (godfather) phenomenon and due process. The legacy of this tragedy shows itself more in the lack of trust in the play of rules. This is because if those that play the rules end up getting short shrift, it is not likely that trust in the efficacy of the rule-following will be enhanced.
Consequently, a whole culture is created in which generations are socialized into believing that they cannot obtain any benefits except by their linkage to godfathers. The fact as Taiwo sees it is that in the modern dispensation, process is absolutized in such a way that substantive justice is sacrificed for procedural justice. By so doing, what we practice in the contemporary Imo State is not a democracy or any political system that has been appropriately matched with any pre-existing sorts. Watch out for part four of this article.