All The NewsOpinionPerspective

How Gowon Took Nigeria into OIC

8 Mins read

By Femi Abbas

“The Truth (like light) has come and falsehood (like darkness) has vamoosed; surely, falsehood is meant to vamoose in the (magnificent) presence ofthe Truth”. Q. 17:81

Monologue

This article is not appearing in this column, today, for the first time. It had been published before as a presentation of naked facts against the incessant falsehood with which  Nigerians have been perennially fed through untenable propaganda shamelessly mounted by certain Nigerian media irritants who are well known for exhibiting gulible bigotry.

Facts are as much constant as they are sacred. 

Points to Note

Four major and fundamental points should be well noted in this article for historical records as well as for posterity. And, the four points are quite verifiable.

1. The Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) was established in 1969 with Nigeria as a foundation member.

2. Contrary to the wide spread misinformation in Nigeria, it was General Yakubu Gowon, a Christian Head of State, and not General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, a Muslim Head of State, that took Nigeria into OIC.

3. Four Nigerian Presidents have attended OIC Summits so far. They are Presidents Olusegun Obasanjo (Christian), Umaru Musa Yar’Adua (Muslim), Goodluck Ebele Jonathan (Christian) and Muhammadu Buhari (Muslim).

4. About 30 African countries, none of which can claim to be an Islamic State, are, like Nigeria, members of OIC and their citizens are not in any frivolous noise of Islamization.

Preamble

This is Nigeria’s time of digital facts. And to reveal those facts as succinctly as they are and not as they are deceptively and mischievously presented in Nigeria media, is to appropriately create an indelible archive of digital facts for posterity sake. Falsehood of any form, in any place and at any time, is like a blind horse which may run berserk in its hurried bid to convey its rider to his/her presumed destination. Should that horse, in its blindness, mistake a dungeon for its rider’s destination, the trip in question may become ‘a journey of no return’.

Reminiscence

Time flies. It has been 34 years already since Nigeria’s membership of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) sparked off a wild, national brouhaha in Nigeria’s local communication den of rental criers called Nigerian media.

That unwarranted brouhaha over this country’s membership of OIC was an open evidence, either of the blatant ignorance with which most Nigerian journalists practice journalism as a profession or as a deliberate mischief of some political/business charlatans who have been perennially masquerading in the cloak of religion or both. For such charlatans, religion is a silhouette through which they can call a dog a bad name in order to hang it.

Background Information

The Organization of Islamic Conference popularly known as OIC was established in  September 1969 when General Yakubu Gowon, a Christian from today’s Plateau State, was Nigeria’s Head of State. Nigeria was then embroiled in a civil war that raged fiercely from 1967 to 1970. In his desperation to win that war, General Gowon, as Commander-in-Chief of Nigerian Armed Forces, took certain steps that later turned out to be generators of unbridled controversies in Nigerian history. One of such steps was to take Nigeria into the then newly established international Organization called OIC. Another was the ceding of Bakasi area of  today’s Cross River State to Cameroon in exchange for the latter’s support in a bid to win the civil war and to prevent the emergence of a rebellious region named Biafra as a separate country. But our immediate concern here is more about Nigeria’s membership of OIC which led to the coinage of the word ‘Islamization’ as a religious blackmail in Nigeria by certain business Christian charlatans who are parading themselves as clerics.

Gowon’s Role in OIC

While the brouhaha in Nigerian media continued to reverberate ceaselessly over the country’s regularization of her membership of OIC in 1986, only a few, well educated and civilized Nigerians, knew the role played by General Yakubu Gowon in the historical episode that ushered Nigeria into that Organization. And, as a charismatic statesman that he is perceived to be in certain quarters, one would have expected General Gowon to openly come out to tell Nigerians about his role in that controversial venture.

How It Happened

It was during Nigeria’s civil war years (1967-1970) that Yakubu Gowon, a Northern Christian General in the Nigerian Army and the country’s Head of State, approached the then Egyptian military Head of State, General Gamal Abdul Nasir, who later transformed himself into a civilian President in that country for help. General Gowon asked that Egyptian President for assistance in winning the then ongoing Nigerian civil war in the spirit of Pan Africanism which President Nasir championed along with the then President Kwami Nkruma of Ghana at that time. And, in addition to helping General Gowon with some sophisticated military wares, President Nasir also introduced him to OIC, which was established in September 1969, in the belief that Gowon could get further help from other member States of the Organization. After all, seeking foreign help internationally was not peculiar to Gowon or Nigeria as a country. The leader of the then rebellious Eastern region, Lt. Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu, also sought and got military and financial assistance from some countries like France, Germany, Portugal, Israel and others in his bid to succeed in pulling his region out of Nigeria by all means.

Thus, by participating in the very first meeting of of that Organization in 1969, Nigeria became a member of OIC from its inception.

 Nigeria’s Observer Status in OIC

For 17 years (1969-1986) after joining OIC at its inception, Nigeria remained an observer member of that Organization until 1986 when her membership was regularized.

As a Deputy Foreign Editor in the now defunct Concord newspaper, at that time, yours sincerely was one of the only two Nigerian journalists that covered that event in Fez, Morocco in January 1986. The other Nigerian Journalist that was in attendacne to cover the conference was Alhaji Liad Tella, the then News Editor of the same Concord newspaper.

Process of Regularization

Before 1986, Nigeria had been severally pressurized, by the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC), to regularize her observer membership status. That observer status had embarrassingly become a matter of suspicion to other members of the Organization. And in 1985, Nigeria was given an ultimatum of one year (1986) to either regularize her membership of that Organization or pull out of it. At that point, if Nigeria had failed to regularize her membership of OIC in the following year (1986),  she would have been disgraced out of the body and that would have amounted to a public diplomatic ridicule in the comity of nations.

The Cry of Owl

One of the loudest allegations of ‘Islamization’ of Nigeria in recent times is from a dubious, self-appointed   Christian body that names itself National Christian Elders Forum (NCEF). Besides OIC membership, that mischievous body has also severally referred to another Muslim Conference called ‘Islam in Africa Conference’ which was hosted by Nigerian Muslims in the city of Abuja in 1989. That was the year that the Nigerian National Mosque, in Abuja, was officially commissioned. Many African Muslim leaders who attended the commissioning of that Mosque were so impressed that they fortuitously proposed an annual conference under that name, which could unite African Muslims in the practice of their religion as a way of checkmating any act of fanaticism that could breed terrorism. Perhaps if that proposal had materialized, the mence of terrorism that is rampant in Africa today would have been minimized.

Christian Participation

The 1989 Islam in Africa Conference (IAC), held in Abuja was not exclusive to Muslims. Many African Christian leaders including some members of the now so called NCEF were invited and they participated in it with the expression of their opinions and advice on various religious issues in Africa. If the conference was truly aimed at ‘Islamizing’ Nigeria as mischievously alleged by NCEF and CAN, would Christian leaders have been invited? And knowing very well that Nigerian media was heavily dominated by Christian journalists, at that time, would those journalists have been allowed to cover the event?

In its solo or chorus voice, the song of ‘Islamization’ of Nigeria can be heard only from mischievous brigands who are parading themselves as religious clerics or Priests. 

The 1953 West African Synod

About 16 years before General Gowon took Nigeria into OIC, a Christian West Africa Synod was held in Ghana. Many Nigerian Christian clerics who attended that Synod did not participate in it as ordinary members but as vocal leaders. And, no Muslim was invited. Yet, Nigerian Muslims did not raise any senseless noise that could engender unwarranted religious rivalry on it by tagging that Synod as a venture of Christianization of Nigeria. Nevertheless, Nigerian Muslims are not oblivious of the problem with NCEF, CAN and some other Christian bigots in who are constantly and monotonously shouting the sour song of ‘Islamization’ of Nigeria as if they have the monopoly of such provoking noise. That the trumpeters of that owlish noise do not see it as a dangerous phantasm, which may cause un-foretold consequences, is a conspicuous  evidence of blatantly dangerous ignorance on the part of the so-called NCEF and even CAN.

Genesis of the Noise

Seven years before Nigeria’s independence, a West African Christian Synod was held in    

the Gold Coast (now Ghana) with active participation of certain Nigerian Christian leaders, some of whom are still alive today. No Muslim was invited to that Synod.

Synod is a conference of Bishops and other Christian topmost Priests at which fundamental decisions are often taken which would become the basis of Church operations in evangelism. It was at that 1953 Synod in Ghana that a resolution to use Western education as an instrument of Christian evangelization in the West African sub-region was adopted. By that resolution, any Muslim child that wanted to acquire Western education in a Christian Missionary school must be converted into Christianity in spite of his or her payment of any charged fees. The fear of the Christian conferees at that Synod was that despite all efforts made by the then available Churches to stop the spread of Islam, that divine religion kept spreading spirally to the greatest amazement of the Christian evangelists in the sub-region. And, to curb such a trend, only an evangelization policy through the use of Western education as a magnet could work like magic. Thus, incorporation of educational system into African Continental evangelism became a fundamental policy through which the trend of religious preaching in Africa could favour the growth of Christianity.

It was by that policy, which had the tacit backing of the Colonial masters, that the use of Western education as an instrument of evangelism became possible. Through that policy, Muslim youths whose parents were eager to see their children educated in the Western way had to adopt Christianity as their religion.

Objectives of the Policy

One of the objectives of the policy formulated at the 1953 West African Synod  was to indoctrinate all converted school children in a way to sow in their hearts the seed of hatred towards their parents for sticking to the religion of Islam and thereby force those parents to psychologically jettison their religion and embrace Christianity or to renounce their children who would then become the foot soldiers of Christian evangelism.

Evangelical Resolution

With such a resolution, as mentioned above, that was backed up with a White Paper which became a permanent policy of the Christian Mission in Africa, Christianity, according to the Synod’s plan, would become such a formidable rival of Islam that within just one half of a century, Islam would have been completely effaced from the surface of African continent and thereby relegated to a second class religion especially in Nigeria. Thus, most of the vocal antagonists of Islam in Nigeria today are men and women with Islamic background who fell into the dragnet of that tendentious plot of the 1953 Synod.

It is the seeming failure of that plot that is now pushing the sour song of ‘Islamization’ of Nigeria into the mouths of the Christian archers.

Their Clandestine Thought

 The front line advocates of that plot are thinking that like their Synod, Muslims too might take a decision which could be devastating to Christian evangelism in Africa.

Epilogue

Now, from all indications, the era of falsehood in religious sphere may be fast approaching its end in Nigeria as it once happened in Europe, since Nigeria’s lifestyle, as a colonial country, is based on the template of that of Britain that colonized her. And, when that happens, the monotonous sour song of ‘islamization’ being echoed almost daily with irritating reverberation will become a faint solo without any chorus.

ERRATA

In the article entitled ‘Whenever the Sultan Speaks’ published in this column last Friday, August 30, 2020, some errors were inadvertently made which need to be corrected here, for records purpose.

 The appointment of  Brigadier-General Muhammad Sa‘ad Abubakar as Sultan of Sokoto was announced on November 3, 2006 and not his installation as stated here last Friday.

 His Eminence’s installation as Sultan and his assumption of office was in March 2007.

Please, let these facts be noted for record purposes.

God bless you all

   

About author
Time Nigeria is a modern and general interest Magazine with its Headquarters in Abuja. The Magazine has a remarkable difference in editorial philosophy and goals, it adheres strictly to the ethics of Journalism by using the finest ethos of the profession to promote peace among citizens; identifying and harnessing the nation’s vast resources; celebrating achievements of government agencies, individuals, groups and corporate organizations and above all, repositioning Nigeria for the needed growth and development. Time Nigeria gives emphasis to places and issues that have not been given adequate attention by others. The Magazine is national in outlook and is currently being read and patronized both in print and on our vibrant and active online platform (www.timenigeria.com).
Articles
Related posts
Cover StoryDevelopmentOpinion

Pedestrian Bridges: Rising Symbols of Renewed Hope in Abuja

2 Mins read
  By Ogefila Bayo Adewale Every morning, parents watch their children leave for school along Abuja highways, their hearts race each time…
All The NewsCover StoryNewsPolitics

Musa Tsoken Congratulates Kalu on Daily Times’ Lawmaker of the Year Award

1 Mins read
The National Coordinator of the Asiwaju Again Renewed Hope Support Initiative 2027 and National President of the APC Initiative for Good Governance…
Abuja FileDevelopmentEconomyEnergyFinanceInside LagosOpinionPerspective

The Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: Why Capital Still Fails to Become Infrastructure

6 Mins read
  By Chidi Nwafor  In October 2023, a Gulf sovereign wealth fund quietly closed a $2 billion allocation to global infrastructure, earmarked in part for emerging-market energy and transport assets. The announcement drew the usual applause: another sign, commentators said, that institutional capital was finally waking up to the infrastructure opportunity in the Global South. Eighteen months later, less than a tenth of that allocation had actually left the fund’s balance sheet. Not because the mandate had changed. Not because the fund had lost appetite. According to two people familiar with the portfolio, the constraint was simpler and more uncomfortable: there were not enough investable projects to put the money into. This is not a story about a reluctant investor. It is a story about capital that wants to move, cannot find enough places willing and able to receive it in a form it can underwrite, and quietly waits instead. Multiply that fund by the hundreds of pension schemes, sovereign wealth vehicles, commercial banks and infrastructure funds now carrying dedicated allocations for emerging-market infrastructure, and a pattern emerges that rarely makes it into a headline: the world is not short of capital for infrastructure. It has capital in historic abundance, sitting adjacent to a historic infrastructure gap, unable to cross the distance between the two. The Comfortable Explanation  The explanation on offer at every major infrastructure summit is a familiar one. Global infrastructure investment needs run into the tens of trillions of dollars over the coming decade; committed capital falls well short; therefore, the problem is one of insufficient funding, and the solution is more of it: more pledges, more blended-finance facilities, more climate funds, more multilateral capital increases. It is a comfortable explanation because it assigns responsibility clearly to governments who under-fund, institutions who under-commit, and it offers a clean remedy: raise more. It is also, on close inspection, not what the evidence shows. Pension funds globally hold trillions in assets under management with explicit infrastructure allocations that remain structurally underweight, not because trustees have rejected the asset class but because deal flow meeting their risk and governance thresholds has not materialised at the pace their mandates assume. Sovereign wealth funds report the same pattern. Commercial banks with dedicated project finance desks describe pipelines that look full at the term-sheet stage and thin dramatically by financial close. Development finance institutions, whose entire purpose is to absorb risk that commercial capital will not, routinely report that their binding constraint is not capital adequacy but the volume of bankable transactions their teams can originate and structure in a given year. None of this fits the scarcity narrative. All of it fits a different one. Availability Is Not Deployability  Capital availability and capital deployability are not the same condition, and the conflation of the two is doing real damage to how the world thinks about the infrastructure gap. Availability asks whether money exists somewhere with a mandate that could, in principle, be pointed at infrastructure. Deployability asks something much narrower and much harder: whether a specific project, at a specific moment, has been engineered, structured, documented and de-risked to the point where an investment committee can approve it without exception. The first condition is met, overwhelmingly, across nearly every category of capital that matters to infrastructure. The second is met by only a small fraction of the projects competing for it. The result is a market that looks, from the outside, like a financing gap, and functions, from the inside, like a conversion problem: an abundance of capital on one side, an abundance of infrastructure need on the other, and an underbuilt set of mechanisms in between capable of turning one into the other at any meaningful scale. Where the Conversion Breaks  The break does not happen at the ends of the process. It happens in the middle, in the unglamorous sequence of work that turns a plausible concept into an instrument a fiduciary can sign. A promising transmission project needs a feasibility study rigorous enough to survive institutional scrutiny rather than optimistic enough to attract early interest. It needs offtake arrangements that hold up under real counterparty and currency risk, not the counterparty risk assumed in a base case. It needs environmental and social documentation calibrated to the standards of the institutions being asked to fund it, not the standards of the jurisdiction hosting it. It needs a legal and commercial structure that allocates risk in ways a commercial lender, not only a development financier, will accept. It needs a sponsor capable of executing what has been proposed, not merely capable of proposing it. Each of these is ordinary project finance discipline. None of it is exotic, and in mature infrastructure markets it happens as a matter of course, absorbed into systems built over decades: specialist advisers, standard-form contracts, established procurement norms, deep pools of transaction expertise. What is missing in the markets where the infrastructure gap is largest is not the standard itself but the machinery that meets it. Projects arrive at investment committees with ambition intact and preparation incomplete, and that gap is treated, again and again, as an individual project’s failure rather than what it actually is: a structural absence in the systems responsible for producing investable transactions at scale. The Missing Middle  This is the Missing Middle of Infrastructure Finance: the institutional architecture that sits between capital that wants to move and infrastructure that needs building, and whose incompleteness explains far more of the global infrastructure gap than any shortfall in committed funds. It consists of project preparation facilities able to fund feasibility and structuring work before commercial viability has been proven. Transaction advisers capable of building deals that satisfy development mandates and commercial return thresholds at once, rather than treating the two as separate constituencies to be managed sequentially. Risk-sharing and guarantee instruments that convert political, regulatory and currency risk into something a commercial balance sheet can underwrite. Aggregation platforms that bundle smaller, individually sub-scale projects into portfolios large enough to justify institutional transaction costs. Standardised documentation that reduces the bespoke legal cost of every new deal. And coordination across ministries, regulators and financiers robust enough that a technically sound project does not die in bureaucratic sequencing after the money has already been found. None of these are new ideas in isolation. What is missing is their assembly into a coherent system, deliberately funded and institutionally accountable, rather than scattered across donor-funded pilots that end when the grant does. The African Dimension  Africa makes this dynamic unusually visible, and consequently offers an unusually clear opportunity to correct it. The continent’s infrastructure financing need, by any measure, is vast. Less understood is that the shortfall is disproportionately one of preparation rather than capital. Nigerian gas-to-power, off-grid solar and mini-grid developers have each demonstrated that individual projects can clear the bankability bar; what has not emerged is systemic pipeline scale, a steady stream of comparably prepared projects large enough to absorb the capital already circling the sector. The pattern repeats, with local variation, from grid infrastructure in East Africa to transport corridors in West Africa. Interested capital is rarely the scarce input. Investment-ready projects are. The Global Comparison  Mature markets solved this problem gradually and mostly invisibly, through decades of institution-building that predates the current infrastructure conversation: specialist project finance units inside banks, standardised PPP frameworks, established regulatory playbooks, deep benches of transaction lawyers and engineers who move between deals rather than between one-off assignments. Emerging and frontier markets are not being asked to meet a lower standard. They are being asked to meet the same standard without having built the same machinery, and then being told, when deals fail to close, that the problem is insufficient funding….
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com