If there was no arrest of Chief Emeka Ojukwu by the State Security Service, SSS, over the weekend, today will make it a week the former Biafrian leader declined to honour the invitation by the state security agency. The invitation of Ojukwu to appear before the SSS, according to reports, was initiated on Wednesday September 8, and the date for his interrogation was fixed for Monday 13th. Initial reports on this matter indicated that Ojukwu was willing to appear before SSS for his interrogation, but between the time he received the summons and Sunday the reaction of Ojukwu had changed dramatically.
It is quite possible therefore to speculate that Ojukwu on further consultations with his associates and handlers felt that the SSS invitation was at best unacceptable, and at worst, the motive was sinister. Being a leading political figure in the country, and former secessionist leader of Biafra, there would be no shortage of those who would read what is happening as another attempt to humiliate Ojukwu.
Ojukwu’s political fortunes have since his return from exile been bouncing around like a yo-yo. It is either that it has dipped on grounds of some miscalculations on his part – as in, for instance, joining the second republic National Party of Nigeria, NPN, and seeking senatorial office, which he lost and claims he was rigged; or it has boomed, possibly as a result of his struggle to retrieve some of his father’s estate like the Villaska lodge in Lagos, or his various high profile interventions, which have in one form or the other, helped to stoke the Ojukwu myth, or whatever is left of it.
In short, confrontations with the Nigerian state is something that is not quite new or strange to Ojukwu – he seemed to be born into it.
His latest standoff is, therefore, not new. His arguements on why he is declining to accept the invitation, and the response of the SSS to his public statements have helped in no small way to heighten tension.
At his Monday press interview spurning SSS, Ojukwu made it clear that he was not going because no reason was given for his invitation, and alleged that he had received information that he might be assassinated in due course. Ojukwu said rather than visit Abuja for the interview he was available to be interrogated at his home in Enugu.
“As a respecter of law and order and a Nigerian patriot”, he said, “I would humbly wait in my modest abode to receive and exchange views with properly-designated agents of the government.”
The SSS, alarmed by the public outburst of Ojukwu, issued its statement the following day, denouncing Ojukwu for snubbing its request that he appear before it.
The SSS further said its invitation to Ojukwu did not constitute arrest, but merely for a chat, and that he was free to bring along his lawyer or anybody he designates to come along with him. The SSS went further to chide Ojukwu for attempting to use the media to blackmail the security agency, and that his public posturing is reminiscent of his flight into exile following the collapse of his Biafrian Republic in 1970. The SSS warned that should Ojukwu remain adamant in his position, the security establishment would have the option to use other lawful means to enforce its authority.
However, matters did not end there, because the public spat between Ojukwu and the SSS drew into the fray the intervention of Ohanaeze the apex socio-cultural organisation of Ndigbo.
Col Joe Achuzia (rtd) speaking on the matter on behalf of the group said the manner of SSS invitation was another attempt to humiliate Ojukwu and the Igbo race. He wondered why Ojukwu should be given a one way economy ticket to Abuja, which implied that there was no intention to allow him to return to Enugu. Achuzia further painted a strange scenario that the whole Ojukwu saga was part of the ploy to frustrate the Igbo 2007 presidential aspiration. He may have his point. But it was the same manner in which Achuzia hastily linked the Okija episode to the same 2007 aspiration of a people.
If the SSS thought by its public reaction, it had won the public argument over Ojukwu, his response on Thursday, was to demonstrate that he was far from being cowed. Speaking when members of his party, All Progressive Grand Alliance, APGA, led by its deputy national chairman Chief Maxi Okwu, paid him a solidarity visit, Ojukwu upbraided the SSS for bungling the exchange between them:
“It should be clear. I am a citizen. I have rights. We have a Constitution, and it says how these things should be done. Why are they pussy footing around? If I have committed any offense, arrest me. I fear no arrest and I can never run away from my residence. So I really don’t know why there is crisis, discussion vis-a-vis an invitation or arrest if it is a matter of arrest. They said I support Biafra, how can’t I? I declared it. How I can’t I? I ruled it for so many years. It is not hidden that I support MASSOB, why not? It is an opinion, and you say to us, this is democratic government. If you say okay by so doing I have committed treason or act of treason, then whoever he is, is irresponsible for not arresting me.”
The exchanges these past one week have been one that has thrown up some issues that may not cease until there is some conclusion to the matter.
One opinion says that Ojukwu ought to have been arrested as soon as he declined to obey the orders of SSS. This view says that no one person under a state should be seen to be dividing the state, and thus setting a bad example which can be copied by others, and thus renders the state ineffective. Holders of the point of view further contend that Ojukwu should be used as an example of how not to confront a state. They say from SSS explanations the act of invitation to chat does not necessarily mean that Ojukwu would be arrested, because if the SSS wishes to arrest him they could have done so without even the courtesy of notification, which Ojukwu, they say, is abusing.
But there is the other side that says inviting Ojukwu to come to Abuja and issuing a one way economy ticket for him and his aide is act of humiliation. Proponents of this view contends that whenever Ojukwu is invited for national events in Abuja, he is usually given a two way first class ticket in line with a man of his stature. They suggest that the one way ticket is a sign that the SSS has no wish to release him if he had made the trip to Abuja. This view claims that if all the SSS wanted with Ojukwu was a chat, it could organise it in such a way that the interview could take place at his residence in Enugu, and that to compel Ojukwu who is over 70 years and with failing health is unfair. This pro-Ojukwu view suggests that even if invitation for a chat does not constitute arrest, the facts and conduct of SSS showed clearly that it had (and still has) a different view and plans.
A third view says that the whole SSS system has become anachronistic under a democratic system where the state apparatus acts mechanically on issues just as is done under the military. This view insists that the SSS must comply with due process just like all the other agencies of government. If it wishes to arrest somebody it should do so following the due process, which is, present its case before a judge or magistrate and establish a prima-facie case, and thereafter obtain a court warrant to either arrest or interrogate. Unless due process is followed, any other method employed would make a mess of the whole saga, reminiscent of military era - and which is, unfortunately, how it is turning out. Those espousing this view say if the SSS believes that by its operation, it should operate outside of public scrutiny, it should publish relevant portions of the Constitution which allows it to operate outside the law.
Another view says that the Ojukwu saga is a continuation of attempts to humiliate Ndigbo after the end of the civil war. This view says such prominent leaders from other parts of the country could not have been so shabbily treated by the SSS, the way Ojukwu is being treated, suggesting that Ojukwu is being harassed because he is an Igbo man, and also because he led the defunct Biafra, which many Igbo still hold very dear. There is the example of the Justice Chukwudifu Oputa summons of Ibrahim Babangida and Muhammadu Buhari, two former military leaders, who were summoned but declined to appear before the panel, and nothing was done to them. Nevertheless, on this matter, while it is correct that Buhari and Babangida snubbed Oputa commission, both men obtained legal cover to stop the state agents from harassment.
And the Oputa Panel was not in any case a security outfit created to maintain its own brand of securing the nation’s territorial integrity.
With the way things are building up, the APGA membership and leadership,during the courtesy visit to Ojukwu are already hinting of their plans to copy the Buhari, Babanigida court examples. If this happens, and the SSS obeys the court order, it would mean that Ojukwu would be forcing the SSS to go to court and explain why it elected to handle the exchanges the way it had done, and would use the court platform to canvass several other issues that it feels like pursuing.
Furthermore, there is the view that if Ojukwu disobeys the order of a state apparatus, and it is seen as being unlawful, what is happening is a consequence of a state that on its part, had made lawlessness a state policy.
There are examples of state action in Odi in Bayelsa State and Zakibiam in Benue State which left on its wake massive destruction of lives and properties. It is argued that a state which treats its people the way the Nigerian state does, cannot possibly claim to be acting in the interest of the people.
This view believes that the reflex of the Nigerian state shows such mentality of being trapped in the colonial era, where British officials see themselves as being above or outside the law. The view contends that unless there is reform of the state through a national conference, the manner with which people would relate to the state would continue to show signs of opposition and not acceptance. Therefore, if this view has any validity, it seems to conform with the admonishment of Justice Brandeis of the US Supreme Court, which speaks on the conduct of the state, that : “Our government is an omnipotent, omnipresent preacher. For good or ill, it teaches the whole people by its examples. And it is contagious.
If government becomes a law breaker, it breeds contempt for law: it invites every man to become a law unto himself. A lawless government invites anarchy. To declare in the administration of the country, that the end justifies the means - to declare that government may commit crimes in other to secure conviction - will bring terrible retribution.”
That, in a nutshell, is the tragedy of the present situation.
