Achilleus-Chud Uchegbu
Thursday Homily
Last Thursday, precisely on September 5, 2024, Prof. Ahmed Bako, properly identified as a professor of Nigerian and African history, with academic attainment from Bayero University Kano (BA, 1980 and PhD, 1989) and California in the United States of America (1984), delivered a much advertised 50th inaugural lecture of Bayero University. The lecture attracted much attention, primarily because of its title -The Igbo Factor in the History of Intergroup Relations and Commerce in Kano: Opportunities and Challenges Revisited. The expectation was that Prof. Bako would apply his intellectual prowess in exploring the opportunities in the social interactions between the people of the Southeast and those of the Northwest regions and perhaps, use that to create a new thesis for mutually beneficial political interaction.
I am deliberate in using the ‘people of southeast’ region and ‘people of northwest’ region because the usage of Igbo in Prof. Bako’s work relates to an ethnic group which expands beyond the five states of the Southeast. In the same logic, the people of Kano may have been used, by Prof. Bako, about people resident in Kano and doing business in that city within the period under Prof. Bako’s interrogation. These people are not just Hausa. Online sources list ethnic groups in Kano, in pre-colonial Nigeria including Hausa, Fulani, Abagagyawa, Kanuri, Tuareg, Arab, and Nupe. This suggests that people described by Prof. Bako as “people of Kano”, are migrants who settled in the city because of commerce.
However, Prof. Bako made a great effort to examine the relationships and social interactions between Igbo traders and other residents of Kano during the period under review. His research established a fascinating narrative of the social bonds between the people of Kano and Igbo people which, in several ways, may have helped in the development of the city and the attainment of its present status as the commercial heartbeat of Northern Nigeria. These interactions may also have led to marriages that produced offspring. These are narratives that need to be retold, especially within GenZ circles, to help promote inter-ethnic relationships and advance the cause of national unity. I consider this very important because inter-ethnic interactions among younger generations of Nigerians, as gleaned from expressions on social media, have become very toxic. This is something that Igbo settlers in Kano, under Prof. Bako’s review, did not experience in their social interactions with ‘the people of Kano’ and other places where they settled.
Nonetheless, Prof. Bako failed the test of scientific objectivity in his stereotyping of Ohanaeze Ndigbo as a “separatist group.” He stated in his paper on Page 3 that “I am not going to be concern (sic) with current contestations on the question of power shift as well as agitations for separation by Igbo political platforms such as the IPOB, the Ohanaeze Ndigbo worldwide and other Igbo separatist groups.”
Ohanaeze Ndigbo cannot be classified as a separatist group. It is fallacious to state so in a paper that ought to be scholarly. But, Prof. Bako not only did so, but he also failed here to provide academic references to any documents where Ohanaeze Ndigbo was listed/classified as a separatist group. He also failed to show understanding that Ohanaeze Ndigbo is a nationally accepted regional group of the Igbo ethnic nationality comprising Igbo people of the Southeast states alongside their kin and kin in Rivers and Delta State. Ohanaeze Ndigbo ranks in the same category as Arewa Consultative Forum which is the voice of the 19 states of the north, Middle Belt Forum, and Afenifere among other such groups. By pretending not to know the status of Ohanaeze Ndigbo, Prof. Bako, by inference, logically argues that ACF, Afenifere, Middle Belt Forum etc, are all, also, separatist groups. Prof., do you accept this?
If Prof. Bako rejects this thesis, then, he is guilty of stereotyping Ohanaeze Ndigbo and cleverly intellectualising his bias against Ohanaeze and Ndigbo and presenting it as objective truth when indeed, it is an absolute falsehood for which he ought to apologise to Ohanaeze Ndigbo for the deliberately wrongful and vexatious classification. This is necessary because his position draws an innuendo that seeks to pitch the government of Nigeria, and other governments around the world, against the organisation and by extension, against Ndigbo.
The danger in Prof. Bako’s wrongful classification and stereotyping of Ohanaeze Ndigbo in a work that ought to be the product of a thorough academic exercise is that it leaves that paragraph in his paper as reference material which can be used by researchers in the future to expand negative stereotyping of Ohanaeze Ndigbo and the Igbo people generally. This deliberately sets the foundation for targeting the Igbo people, in Kano or other regions where the anti-Igbo narrative had gained ground, for extermination or other forms of genocidal actions.
Also, Prof. Bako’s intellectualisation of his sentiments in claiming on Page… that “My view is that because of ethnic solidarity, Igbo traders gradually marginalized or even displace (sic) large number of Hausa traders. A typical example of a Hausa man displaced by the Igbo was Alhaji Abubakar Makwarari. He became a textile retailer in 1974 in a stall he rented from Alhaji Salisu Barau Zage at the cost of £6,000 per annum. In 1986 he was ejected due to his failure to pay the new rent of £30,000. Chief David Obi Oknokwo (sic) paid the stated amount and occupied the stall. Many other Hausa traders such as Lawal Sulaiman (Minister), Alhaji Yahya etc were displaced by the Igbo who were ready to pay high rents…”
What Prof. Bako cleverly refused to acknowledge is that the shop owner Alhaji Salisu Barau Zage has the right to give out the to whosoever he wishes. Thus same Alhaji Zage, rather than allow his fellow ‘Kano man’, Alhaji Abubakar Makwarari to lease his property (shop), for £6000 chose to give it out to a certain Chief David Obi Okonkwo for £30,000. In other words, Alhaji Zage decided to settle for higher value for his shop rather than play ethnic cards and make huge losses. Prof. Bako refused to explain why any businessman, moreover, a landlord, would prefer to lose a princely £24,000 just to show ethnic solidarity. Therefore, it is obvious that Chief Obi did not displace Alhaji Maikwarari. Rather, the landlord of the shop settled for a higher value to make the most money (profit) from his investment in the shop. Prof. Bako ought to realise that investors invest their money with eyes on huge returns on investment. That is the reality even today. Unless Prof. Bako is suggesting that his ‘brother’, the landlord, works for Red Crescent and purposely built the shops for charity. Unfortunately, he failed in this project of intellectualising his prejudices to supply scholarly proof that the landlord abhors profit.
