Cover StoryOpinion

Ndi Igbo at a Crossroads: A People Without Leaders in a Country Without Fairness

11 Mins read

First, it was George Obiozor (Ex-President General – Ohaneze Ndigbo – who died Dec. 2022); Professor Ben Nwabueze (SAN), who, might be said to be advanced in age, but was one of the remaining pillars of the struggle for Igbo emancipation. He died on October 29, 2023. Then Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife (who died Dec. 2023); followed by Onyeka Onwenu (who died July 2024); Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu (Ex-President General – Ohaneze Ndigbo – who died Dec. 2024). The one other vociferous person I am afraid may be in the ‘terminator’s’ radar is Senator Enyinaya Abaribe.

— Peter Omonua

 

By Peter Omonua,

I had wanted to write this essay awhile ago. For some reasons, I kept pushing it away. When Nnamdi Kanu was sentenced, I thought it would be a good time to do it. First off, I need to disclose that I am not Igbo, and may not have the complete picture of the goings-on within the Igbo political and cultural circle.

This article is based on my observation, in form of ‘publicly available information’. In addition to not being Igbo, I am also neither Yoruba nor Hausa. Ndi~Igbo, at this moment, does not appear to have a leader. Those who had hitherto carried out the oversight role have been mysteriously and systematically eliminated between Buhari’s second term and the current Tinubu’s government. The manner they all died should leave no one in doubt. First, it was George Obiozor (Ex-President General – Ohaneze Ndigbo – who died Dec. 2022); Professor Ben Nwabueze (SAN), who, might be said to be advanced in age, but was one of the remaining pillars of the struggle for Igbo emancipation. He died on October 29, 2023. Then Dr. Chukwuemeka Ezeife (who died Dec. 2023); followed by Onyeka Onwenu (who died July 2024); Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu (Ex-President General – Ohaneze Ndigbo – who died Dec. 2024). The one other vociferous person I am afraid may be in the ‘terminator’s’ radar is Senator Enyinaya Abaribe. He needs to be protected.The manner they all died point to something very uncanny. I observed a pattern about how they all passed and my mind told me something was not right. I had to be sure I was not being paranoid, until I stumbled on a video made by Dr. Kemi Omololu-Olunloyo, the investigative-journalist daughter of Dr. Omololu Olunloyo, former Oyo State governor. She echoed my suspicion, and told us she was sure Ndi~Igbo leaders were being taken out one at a time. It was more like “Strike the Sheppard and the sheep will scatter”, and it seems to be working. Their death has left huge vacuum in Ndi~Igbo community, which now appears totally dysfunctional, with no unified position on national issues.

This vacuum in leadership, may be responsible for the disdain Ndi~Igbo have been subjected to by recent successive administrations. It would not be wrong to say the Igbos have been practically ostracized, to put it bluntly, over the last 11 years covering Buhari’s 8 years and Tinubu’s 3 years. This leads me to the recent conviction and sentencing of Nnamdi Kanu. When squared against other individuals accused of similar crimes or even more egregious offences (i.e. Boko Haram and Fulani killers), it reinforces the conclusion about the deliberate subjugation, with an intent to humiliate.

While at the national level, it may appear that Tinubu is struggling to steady the ship of state from the ‘tidal wave’ of economic and security disaster, one thing we can all agree on is that he has and continues to empower the Yoruba people. He is unabashedly and unapologetically enriching his people and creating expansive avenues for them to amass wealth. He is not only elevating his Southwest base economically, but deepening their political control. It is almost as if this is the 1970s repeating itself, where the Yorubas were empowered to dominate the economic and investment sectors to the detriment of all other ethnic groups.

Unfortunately, some Igbo politicians and businessmen shamelessly lap up the droppings from the Southwest table. You see them all around, adorning APC and Tinubu Caps and chorusing “On your mandate we shall stand”. Amongst these are Orji Uzo Kalu, Benjamin Kalu (The Deputy Speaker of the Federal House of Representatives) Chief Arthur Eze and some other noveau-rich social personalities (Obi Cubana, Cubana chief priest and E-Money, Yul Edochie amongst others), all of whom are groveling to be seen as close to Tinubu or to his son Seyi. This is despite what may be described as the subjugation and humiliation to which the Ndi~Igbo have been subjected over the last 11, with a few rather colorless Igbo sons and daughter assigned to mostly inconsequential portfolios as quota candidates.

If you did not get the clear message delivered by the exclusion of Ndi~Igbo from Buhari’s government, I don’t know how else you will. If you have not gotten a message from the minuscule representation of Ndi~Igbo in Tinubu’s government, I don’t know how else you would. If you did not get any message at all, the selective treatment of Nnamdi Kanu, compared to the kid-glove treatment of other agitators like Sunday igboho, Professor Banji Akintoye, and worse still, the Boko Haram and Fulani killers, I wonder how ignominious you will like to be subjected to get the message. The humiliation is not about to end anytime soon. Except Ndi~Igbo has the latitude to continually absorb the exclusion and ostracization, they might want to consider a negotiated settlement and a deliberate exit strategy.

There were unconfirmed reports, that at a certain point, there was an offer and a concession for the Igbos to take the current 5 Igbo states to form a new nation. If that report is true and that offer is still on the table, it may be wise to consider it.

Coincidentally, Senator Ned Nwoko, recently avowed that the Ika region of Delta State is, to all intent part of Igbo Nation. He even requested for the creation of an Ika State to bring the total number of Igbo States to 6. If that assertion can be pursued further and actualized, that would address a lot of the misgivings about the viability of a proposed Igbo Nation.

The ongoing feud between Igbos and Yorubas is not new. I grew up in the 70s and 80s observing it. However, the hostility deteriorated further in the run-up to the 2023 presidential election. It got to a ‘War footing’ when Tinubu was announced the winner of the elections, against the odds of what the general electorate, including some even in the camp of those who now celebrate victory had expected. That mutual animosity, which might have been a little crack on a wall, has over the past 11+ years of APC government, become a gaping hole. I watched in disbelief the treatment meted to Igbos during the Lagos gubernatorial election of 2023, and for simply wanting to exercise their electoral right as enshrined in the Constitution. It was partly the reason I wrote the articled which I titled “The Vindication of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu and the Biafra question”, (Sahara Reporters Op-Ed – April 04, 2023). I was so aghast at the display of hate towards the Igbos that in the article, i had counselled that the Igbos, thenceforth, halt all future investments in Lagos and to gradually start rechanneling developmental initiatives to ‘Ala~Igbo’. It is a call which I will still now reiterate. That fractured relationship has been on a slippery slope. If you know the level of pent-up anger and resentment of the Yorubas towards the Igbos (and I suppose vice-versa), you would not even require any prodding to do what I have suggested here. I should know, because I grew up in Yoruba land, speak the language fluently, have a lot of associates who are Yoruba and know venomous comments and statements I get to read and hear concerning Igbos.

The last presidential election of 2023 was the closest I could recall that the Igbos came closest to the presidency. The INEC Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu performed an umpire gymnastics, in the glare of the whole world. He is now being rewarded with an Ambassadorial position. (At least, that helps him to not having to walk the streets of Nigeria and be confronted with possible rewards of his travesty). It was a double jeopardy for Ndi~Igbo. In the first instance, the presidential ticket for 2023 was not supposed to be contested with the Igbos. That the Yoruba even contested, despite having only just completed 8 years of Vice-presidency and prior 8 years of Presidency was the first insult. The declaration of Yoruba as the winner, against the odds was Salt-Upon-Injury. Peter Obi wept, not for himself, not because INEC made a caricature of the electioneering process, he wept for Nigeria and on behalf of the average Nigerians. He wept because he foresaw what was to come, which is the situation we are all now dealing with. It is the situation for which the US president has lambasted Nigeria as the “NOW DISGRACED COUNTRY’, and his threat to invade. It is important for Ndi~Igbo to realize that, no matter how glaring it might have been that an Igbo man won that election, or any future elections for that matter, there is an unspoken agreement and an understanding between the Fulani and Yoruba, to deny the Igbos Nigerian Presidency. I have been privy to discussions between Southwest individuals of reputable standing, during which they had unwittingly blurted out comments such as: “As soon as Tinubu finishes his 8 years, it would go back to the North for 8 years and it would not be coming back to us again until 2039”. When I ask about the time for the Igbos, they utter some mumbo jumbo, very incoherent explanations as to why the Igbos are not yet ready for the Presidency.

Long and short, the Igbos are not in their calculations. Ndi~Igbo’s participation in the elections is to give the process a semblance of national suffrage; to portray the exercise and the process leading to it as legitimate. They need it to be seen as an all-encompassing exercise before local and international observers. Invariably, the Igbos have continued to be used as the pawn in the political cheeseboard game for the Fulani north and the Yoruba southwest. Put in another way so there are no ambiguities: the current arrangement is not designed to see the emergence of an Igbo president, in 2027 nor in 2031. It has been pre-planned for a Tinubu 2nd term and for the Fulani to take over from the Yoruba in 2031. It’s a rotation of the presidency between the Fulani and the Yoruba.

However, they will continue to dangle, like a carrot, the prospect of Igbo Presidency, to lock them down in Nigeria.The Fulani may appear to be snuggling up to the Igbos via a deceptive coalition which includes Peter Obi, who it now appears they are coaxing to accept a vice-presidential candidate slot behind Atiku. It would be shameful if he accepts. That could erode any political gains and the goodwill he has built. Any fraternization of Fulani with Igbos at this time is intended merely as a spite of the Yoruba, who have been their traditional and historical allies. We can all agree that they have much more in common, if not for the shared faith in Islam, but at least in duplicitous approach to agreements. The Yorubas would as well be more amenable to the Fulani’s sharia propagation agenda than the Igbos could ever be. It is in the best interest of both Fulani and Yoruba to not support an Igbo president and they would readily put aside any differences they may have to jointly inhibit the realization of such an eventuality.

But let’s assume, hypothetically that Ndi~Igbo was favored by the ‘powers that be’, to become the president as a mark of northern/Fulani benevolence; what could that president possibly accomplish in 8 years? What could you possibly put in place that the next Fulani administration would not dismantle? What became of any progress that the cumulative terms of Obasanjo, Yardua and Jonathan achieved within the 8 years of Buhari? You want to become the president, to what end? If fortuitously that was to happen, on the one hand, you will be confronted with an unprecedented level of acrimony and frustration, even more vicious than Goodluck Jonathan had to live through during his presidency.

Secondly, any developmental stride you might accomplish within that period would most likely be rolled back. You then have to wait another 16 years to repeat the feat, assuming the rotation between the 3 major tribes was even followed and respected. I don’t fault those who live in dreamland, hoping that with some good luck, an Igbo man may yet attain the position of Nigerian president. It is their prerogative to wish. I am a realist and the reality of the Nigeria I grew up in, in my mind forecloses that outcome.The glory of a prosperous Igbo Nation does not lie within Nigeria. Ndi~Igbo needs to chart a course outside of Nigerian. I do not have the diplomatic expertise or political wizardry to prescribe the shape or form of what that disentanglement should look like. That should be for the deliberation and determination of the ‘council of elders’ that may yet emerge from the Igbo Nation. I would say though, that the ‘Council’ should not be afraid to negotiate, but must also not negotiate out of fear. The ‘Council’ should not include mercantilist politicians, self-serving undesirables like Orji Uzo Kalu, Hope Uzodinma, Rochas Okorocha, Chukwuma Soludo, Okezie Ikpeazu or ‘the now disgraced’ Joe Igbokwe (if I may borrow that phrase from Donald Trump). These characters’ main driving force is primitive wealth accumulation for showmanship. Their core motivation for seeking public office is to trade the people’s mandate for profit; which are clear cases of spinning their selfish desires to seem like National interest. They derive their relevance from obscene display of wealth, and would most likely opt to remain part of a debaucherous Nigeria where grand-scale larceny and kleptomaniacs are celebrated.

When that assembly of ‘Elders’ Council’ is constituted, it is my hope that altruistic, selfless Ndi-Igbo men and women, individuals that have demonstrated transparency in speaking for the Ndi~Igbo challenges will make that list. Among these, in my outsider estimation should include people like: Alex Otti, Enyinnaya Abaribe, Bob-Manuel Udokwu and importantly, Peter Obi. I would have loved to have Osita Chidoka on this list, except that he prevaricates when speaking to issues, a trait which makes him sound more like the 2 other tribes than Igbo.

There is an attempt for Ndi~Igbo to be consigned to a position of irrelevance in the Nigerian political discourse. If Tinubu has his way, he would extend that “Cultural erasure” to the realms of economic suppression. You cannot achieve greatness, as a people within Nigeria. I am writing as someone who has lived within these 3 tribes, long enough and studied enough pre-and post-colonial literature on Nigerian to understand the idiosyncrasies of each of these tribes. The dynamics of these relationships, vile and mutually destructive as it were, is not likely to change; not now, not in the foreseeable future. The consequence is that each tribe continues to see as being in their best interest for the others not to progress, in what should really have been a healthy competition between neighboring countries or regions.

The Ndi~Igbo ‘Council of Elders’ may want to resuscitate the offer previously made of the 5 states (plus Senator Ned Nwoko’s Ika Igbo). Tinubu, who himself is desirous of an independent Yoruba region or country would be glad to see those he considers his ‘Achilles heel’ go. It may pave the way for his own realization of an Oduduwa country or region, a commitment he most certainly would have made to the Sunday Igboho / Banji Akintoye group. Do not forget, Ebitu Ukiwe was unceremoniously yanked off as Ibrahim Babangida’s deputy; heavens did not fall. Peter Obi was robbed of his presidency; heavens did not fall. It is doubtful that Nigeria (i.e. Fulani and Yoruba) would ever get to that point at which they would be comfortable with an Igbo president; each for their own self-preservation reasons – the Fulani, for fear they would not be able to control the Igbo and lose control of their hold on Nigeria as their Estate; and for the Yoruba, the fear of competition and a reversion to the pre 1967 era where Igbos dominated in all spheres.

The animosity against the Igbos in Tinubu’s Southwest, especially Lagos is intensifying. You saw it during Governor Ambode re-election campaign in 2019. You saw it during the Sanwo-Olu re-election campaign in 2023; you will see it in the 2027 gubernatorial and presidential elections. You have seen the destructions of Igbo businesses in Lagos and the demolition of multimillion naira houses belonging mostly to Igbos. Do you want to continually be an endangered species in both the North of the country and the South West, and for how long? Time to wake up and smell the coffee.

Omonua can be reached via:pomonua@yahoo.com

   

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
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….
Cover StoryNewsSports

Union Bank, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard, Others Back 5th Cycling Lagos

2 Mins read
Union Bank of Nigeria Plc, AIICO Multishield, Checkers Custard and other corporate organisations have thrown their weight behind the 5th Cycling Lagos,…
Stay on the loop!

Subscribe to our latest news.

Leave a Reply

WP2Social Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com