By Tunji Olaopa

The Yorùbá culture has always been blessed with the attention of intellectuals, scholars and academics who considered it a worthwhile subject of discourse. Without any doubt, the Yorùbá culture is one of the most studied cultural forms of life in the world. This is apart from the many scholars, cultural enthusiasts and intellectuals that the culture itself has produced, from Samuel Ajayi Crowder to Samuel Johnson, from Akinwunmi Isola to J. A. Atanda to Saburi Biobaku, and from Wole Soyinka to Wande Abimbola, Oyekan Owomoyela to Toyin Falola.

But we must also not forget the cultural and indigenous intellectuals, like D. O. Fagunwa, Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu and Adebayo Faleti, to name just a few, whose very being and profession are invested in the culture itself. All these intellectuals are those who have laid the foundation for entrenching the influence and the national and global reach of the culture, as well as its hold on our collective imagination.

Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu

In this piece, I am glad to dedicate this critical analysis to Baba Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu who has been a cultural icon for me since way back. I have written so much about my wondering and wandering sensibility as a young boy growing up and reflecting about my context and surrounding. Yoruba culture and history have always held a deep source of curiosity for me, and Pa Ladigbolu is a phenomenal figure who constitutes a triadic embodiment of the theological, the cultural and the political, and one at that who influenced my scholarship indescribably. That places Baba within the crosshair of my search for cultural and theological enlightenment, especially about the Yorùbá culture’s engagement with non-Yorùbá influences.

Indeed, in many of my intense political conversations with HE Chief Olusegun Obasanjo around Nigerian politics and the place of the southwest within it, he had always been insistent that I must not miss the opportunity to sit at the feet of the Master, Archbishop Ladigbolu, since I have chosen to follow in the footstep of my grandfather and the celebrated historian of culture, Rev. David Aibinu Olaopa, of blessed memory. This was an added impetus since I had already taken him as a father and a mentor.

Baba Ladigbolu is phenomenal. He occupies the same circle of cultural preservationists that include Tunde Kelani the filmmaker and the Afenifere, the pan-Yorùbá cultural and political forum. However, Baba’s historical trajectory is one with a significant difference. And this is because he is a minister of God who is deeply ingrained in both his cultural environment as well as in Christianity. His career therefore enables a deep insight into the understanding of the conflicted relationship between culture and modernity, and how one could begin to unravel the significance of modernity within a culture’s own development. Indeed, the cultural and professional trajectories of Baba Ladigbolu provides us with a fundamental framework for how an ecumenical framework could be generated between an indigenous culture and a foreign religion. Pa Ladigbolu achieved that almost seamless coherence that allowed him to become a priest of the Methodist Church of Nigeria (and to rise up to the zenith of its hierarchy as an archbishop) while retaining a very deep cultural mooring in the Yorùbá heritage.

We immediately see the significance of this fusion in an age when Pentecostal Christianity built its own incursion into a different culture on the basis of the demonization of those cultures as heathenism. Archbishop Ladigbolu deployed his contact with western education as the fulcrum for developing an open-minded cultural sensibility that allows for the mutual reinforcement between Christianity and the Yorùbá culture in terms of the emergence of a modern sensibility that enables a conversation between the two. When I think of Pa Ladigbolu, I see an older and more perfect reflection of how Ali Mazrui’s Africa’s triple heritage thesis could become an embodied lifestyle and philosophy. I have written so much about how my upbringing enabled me to see how the three dynamics—Christianity, traditional Yoruba religion and Islam—could relate in a non-violent manner. Baba Ladigbolu was raised as a Muslim within a deeply culturally conscious Yoruba context and he converted to Christianity while still advocating the preservation of the Yorùbá culture.

Being born within a household that traces its lineage to Alaafin Siyanbola Ladigbolu I, and growing up within an authentic palace comes with its own unique educational value in the paraphernalia of the Yoruba culture. One of the deepest implications was that even before encountering western education through his many travels and the experience they yielded, he had already assimilated an enlarged mind that accepted the theological ramifications of Islam, Yoruba theology and Christianity. His worldview was already wide enough and empathetic to accommodate his myriad experiences traveling from one place to another. We can speculate that his enlarged sensibility owes a lot to the open-minded accommodationist framework that the Yorùbá culture itself makes possible. The Yorùbá culture was able to accommodate the incursion of Islam and Christianity because it lacks the exclusionary ontology of both.

I prefer to see Archbishop Ladigbolu as an exemplar of Antonio Gramsci’s understanding of who an intellectual is. Gramsci bifurcated between the “traditional” and the “organic” intellectuals. The traditional intellectuals—teachers, scientists, priests, artists—contrary to their claims to be the bearers of universal values, are actually those that emerged from within a privileged or even a dominant social class, and who are compelled by the dynamics of that class to reinforce its values and philosophies. The organic intellectuals, on the other hand, are more organically connected to the masses because they grew and emerged from within non-privileged strata, transformed their status through education especially, and imposed on themselves the obligation to raise the fortune of that strata. Intellectuals, Gramsci argues, are recognized by their need for the critical elaboration of a new understanding of the world. This is what determines the functions of the intellectuals in any society.

Indeed, I want to make a radical assertion that Pa Ladigbolu possesses the status of both a traditional and an organic intellectual. When he became a Christian and the entire household became convulsed with fear and tears, they had no way of understanding the contradiction in their worries. They were Yorùbá who embraced Islam. And so there should not have been any worries about one of them embracing Christianity. And if their worry had been about his possible loss of cultural knowledge, little did they know that he would become a cultural champion that he is today.

A much more fundamental challenge embedded in Pa Ladigbolu’s stature is the tension between absolutist theological ontology of Christianity and the accommodationist and liberal worldview of the Yorùbá. How was the archbishop of the Methodist Church in Nigeria able to balance the claim that Jesus is the way, the truth and the life with Christianity’s paganization of non-Christian cultures? How is Christianity’s proselytizing dynamics squared with the non-proselytizing nature of Yorùbá traditional religion? One way to respond to this is to argue that Pa Ladigbolu’s cultural enthusiasm had to take a back seat while he was the Archbishop of the Methodist Church. And this cultural advocacy had picked up immediately he retired as the archbishop. Even if this explanation is far-fetched given his fearless determination to be Yorùbá at all cost, no one—not even the Church—could deny that Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu was a staunch Yorùbá who deeply loves God.

Combining two near-incompatible theological views, in my assessment, becomes a courageous plus for Pa Ladigbolu, an insight into the capacity of the Yorùbá culture to keep inventing itself in the face of challenges. The Yorùbá understanding of àṣà demonstrates a flexible adaptability that has allowed the Yorùbá to not only domesticate non-Yorùbá influences, but to also fit into any cultural and theological contexts wherever they found themselves. This is what had made possible, for instance, the Candomblé and Santeria religious experiences from Brazil to Cuba and beyond. These religious forms emerged from the syncretic fusion of the Yorùbá òrìṣà tradition with Roman Catholicism. What is even more significant is that Candomblé, for example, lacks the same institutionalized framework determined by an orthodoxy and a sacred text. Its heterogeneous form allows for significant incorporation in the same way that Ifá incorporates non-Yorùbá events.

This is the same way that Baba Ladigbolu could be understood as a modernizer of the Yorùbá culture and tradition. Being the leader of the Yorùbá Unity Forum (YUF) as well as the chairman of the Oyo Metropolitan Development provides the opportunity to do two major things. First, it allows him to pursue a program of creative urbanism, what the Yorùbá themselves are historically famous for—transforming Yorùbá cities in line with modern exigencies. And second, Baba’s advocacy also brings to the fore the roles of traditional structures and institutions in the development of modern existence.

For Baba, even as the best of modern scholars have realized, culture matters. It must be the platform around which our being-in-the-world is measured and extended to others. The full extent of his multicultural experiences has allowed him to both serve the Almighty while pushing the bounds of theological and cultural similarities and differences. And so, in straddling Gramsci’s distinction between the traditional and the organic intellectual, Archbishop Ayo Ladigbolu becomes an exemplar for other intellectuals—a sum of cultural knowledge that broadens our cultural worldviews.

 Olaopa is a Professor of Public Administration and the Chairman,Federal Civil Service Commission, Abuja.

By Tony Afejuku

The column continues our reading of Professor Omajuwa Igho Natufe’s very sparkling essay on the path to redemption in Okpe nation. The President General worldwide of Okpe Union is a thorough-bred Safarian and a cosmopolitan who advocates justice and equal rights for all Nigeria’s indigenous ethnic nationalities including his beloved Okpe nation. He denounces, without mincing words, the Animal Farm mentality and hierarchy in Nigeria. Kindly savour what he says/proposes as Nigeria’s “homogenous and heterogeneous federating units”, and other matters of patriotic and national/nationalistic interest.

A Pathway to Redemption

Nigeria’s minority ethnic nationalities are crushed under the weight of the above problems. This is evident in the onslaught of minority ethnic nationalities in central Nigeria, for example, and the arrogant inclusion of southern minority ethnic nationalities in the Biafran and Oduduwa Republic maps produced by the Igbo and Yoruba, respectively.

Prior to independence in 1960, the demand for state creation for Nigeria’s ethnic minority nationalities was meant to restructure the polity by freeing them from the marginalization which they faced in each of the three regions dominated by the tripodal hegemony. This issue was the key theme at a post-Richards national constitutional conference convened in Ibadan in January 1950 under Governor John MacPherson. To help focus the deliberations at the Ibadan Conference, H. M. Foot, the Chief Secretary posed two vital questions for the consideration of the delegates. “Do we wish to see a fully centralized system with all legislative and executive power mainly concentrated at the centre or do we wish to develop a federal system under which each different region of the country would exercise a measure of internal autonomy?”

“If we favour a federal system, should we retain the existing regions with some modifications of existing regional boundaries or should we form regions on some new basis such as the many linguistic groups which exist in Nigeria?” (As cited in Kalu Ezera, Constitutional Developments in Nigeria, London, 1961, p.110.)

The second part of the question regarding the creation of regions (states) for the various ethnic groups recognized that the Nigerian polity had become a prison for minority ethnic nationalities.

Unfortunately, only the Midwest Region was created via a referendum on August 9, 1963 under a civilian regime.

Basically, to restructure a political system is to reform its components and redefine the relationships governing the powers and responsibilities of all levels of government. Especially in a supposedly federal system like Nigeria, such a restructuring is expected to recognize the exclusive jurisdictions of the federating units in critical sectors of industry and the economy as evidenced in the 1963 Constitution. The resistance to this has been very loud, as the opposition perceives restructuring as a code name for the dissolution of Nigeria. In fact, those arguing for 54 or more states in Nigeria and opposed to restructuring are primarily concerned about forfeiting their fiscal benefits of the current distorted federal system that allows them to collect monthly stipends from Abuja.

The politico-military class in power since 1966 has jettisoned the federal principles of the 1963 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in favour of a unitary political system, even though they christened the 1999 constitution a federal republican constitution. Ironically, the United Kingdom, a unitary system possesses more federalism compliant institutions than a supposedly Federal Republic of Nigeria. For example, political parties in the United Kingdom are federalism compliant unlike the military imposed command system that defines the form and content of Nigerian political parties. This military imposed command system has permeated all levels of governance including the state and local governments.

While it may be fashionable to condemn the military regimes for restructuring Nigeria via their respective state creation exercises between 1967 and 1996, it is most disturbing that the elected civilian governments (1979-1983; and since 1999) have failed to address the issue in a meaningful way to halt the various centrifugal forces in the country. For example, their refusal to restore the 1963 Republican Constitution and jettison the 1999 Constitution, which is essentially a militarized command-system constitution, can only be construed as a rejection of renewed federalism.

But if restructuring is to succeed in Nigeria, there must be a universal recognition of the tenets of federalism as contained in the 1963 Constitution. Assuming that we agree on the prerequisites for restructuring, then a key question to be resolved is on the number of states (federating units) in a renewed Nigerian federalism. Given that Nigeria is a collection of indigenous ethnic nationalities, it is the view of the Okpe Union that a restructured Nigerian federalism must reflect this imperative. The state creation imposed on the country by various military dictatorships (1967, 1976, 1987, 1991, and 1996) merely balkanized the three major ethnic groups into states. Thus, by military fiat, the Hausa/Fulani have 10 states, the Yoruba have 7, and the Igbo have 5. This military fiat must be discarded. If we recognize that all indigenous ethnic nationalities are equal federating units of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, then on what basis was these three ethnic groups balkanized into several states, respectively, and thereby establishing power disequilibrium in the polity? This creates an undue access to power for these ethnic nationalities in terms of multiple federal ministerial and board appointments to each of them, compared to, for instance, 1 federal ministerial appointment for the entire 40 ethnic nationalities in Plateau State or 1 for the entire 10 ethnic nationalities in Delta State. Is this George Orwell’s Animal Farm hierarchy the basis for Nigeria’s renewed federalism?

As a framework for a restructured federal Nigeria, we propose the following: – The creation of homogeneous federating states for the 15 most populous ethnic nationalities that have contiguous boundaries, respectively. These federating units will be 15 homogeneous ethnic-based states for the Hausa, Yoruba, Igbo, Ijaw, Itsekiri, Kanuri, Ibibio, Okpe, Tiv, etc.
The creation of a maximum of 15 heterogeneous (multi-ethnic) federating states for the other ethnic nationalities. An ethnic nationality occupying a defined contiguous boundary in a heterogeneous state shall constitute an autonomous region with due constitutional jurisdictions. It shall also have concurrent jurisdiction with the heterogeneous state over natural resources discovered in its territory; but shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over primary and secondary education, culture, language, and traditional institutions, etc.

A Charter of Rights and Freedoms protecting minority rights will anchor this restructured federalism.

If the proposed homogeneous and heterogeneous federating units are rejected in favour of the existing 36 states, then it is recommended that a distinct ethnic nationality occupying a defined contiguous territory, like, in alphabetical order, the Benin, Itsekiri, Nupe, and Okpe, for example, be classified as an autonomous region with due constitutional jurisdictions to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the state over natural resources in its territory; but shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over primary and secondary education, culture, language, and traditional institutions.

Another proposition which appeals to Okpe is the 18-regional structure prescribed in the PRONACO People’s Constitution of August 2006, where the Isoko, Okpe, and Urhobo ethnic nationalities are grouped in one region to be known as either ISOKPU or ISOKPEHOBO Region. Each of the three (3) ethnic nationalities shall be classified as an autonomous area with due constitutional jurisdictions to exercise concurrent jurisdiction with the state over natural resources in its territory; but shall exercise exclusive jurisdiction over primary and secondary education, culture, language, and traditional institutions.

In all of the above proposed frameworks, the revenue allocation formula shall be 50% derivation; 20% Federal Government; and 30% to the Federation Distributable Pool.

It must be emphasized that restructuring by itself does not guarantee an end to marginalization in Nigeria. In each local government area and in each state across Nigeria, there are communities marginalized out of the mainstream by leaders and political parties comprised of members of the same ethnic and religious groups, for example, in Delta State and in Okpe Nation. What we have is poor governance across all levels of government, including the traditional system, anchored on massive corruption. Therefore, we recognize that restructuring by itself is never a panacea for good governance, as long as corruption remains the mainstay of Nigerian political culture. A respected retired permanent secretary who knows his onions had this to say about corruption. He opined:

“One fact Nigerians must know is that Nigeria is not a rich country per capita; it is the corruption level that projects otherwise. That is why we must learn to live within our means and fight the war against corruption a little more ruthlessly”. (Anonymous, May 4, 2024)

In his series of public lectures, Prof. PLO Lumumba succinctly addressed this quagmire by reminding us that those found guilty of corruption in China are summarily executed while their counterparts in Africa, especially in Nigeria, are eulogized and elected to leadership positions at all levels of government. We recommend the Chinese treatment in dealing with convicted corrupt officials in Nigeria as the most effective method of waging the war against corruption. We are aware that sitting legislators (at local, state, and federal levels) will not support this recommendation. It is left for the citizenry to determine for how long they want to watch their commonwealth stolen by political and traditional so-called leaders.

To be continued.

Afejuku can be reached via 08055213059.

By Toyin Falola

Peace is an essential commodity, second only to oxygen, as it is a necessity for every individual. Regardless of the excellent condition of human biological components, the absence of peace can lead to tragic problems that undermine all they have accomplished. Peace is central to collective human development. Ironically, despite people’s awareness of the cardinal values of peace and their advancement, the rate at which conflicts at cross-country and international levels are perpetrated illustrates humans’ capacity for self-destruction. While it is undeniable that some groups of people derive satisfaction from inflicting violence on others, particularly the vulnerable, it is strange that certain groups deliberately incentivize conflicts due to their tempting rewards. This highlights the complexity of human nature and the intricate relationships they maintain among themselves.

Thabo Mbeki, as a leader of a vibrant black country, South Africa, has emphasized the importance of peaceful coexistence among humanity and the extent to which he, and others alike, have committed both human and economic resources to achieving peace and mitigating conflicts, especially in war-torn societies across the world. Seeking peace is to advocate for tolerance, which is crucial for ascertaining a sound ecology for trade and cultural exchange.

Prof.Toyin Falola (left) and Thabo Mbeki

The ongoing conflict between Palestine and Israel has not only strained the relationship between the two countries but has also increased the inflammatory potential in the region, making it difficult, if not impossible, to foster economic growth and technological advancement. As a leader of the free world, Mbeki understands that unchecked violence poses risks to the safety of others. When conflicts are allowed to persist without resolution, the ripple effects are inevitable. For instance, while the prevalence of violence in the Middle East may not have direct or immediate and measurable consequences on South Africa, a deeper analysis reveals that it would bring a litany of horrendous challenges to the people.

Africa’s proximity to the Middle East exposes it to the secondary danger of being a potential ground for mass migration of people seeking safety from conflicts in their countries. Meanwhile, the problem of having a significant exodus of people into a continent already striving for economic stability could ignite a new wave of crises that may not necessarily occur on the war fronts. In essence, foresighted leaders like Mbeki must confront such challenges proactively to safeguard their interests, as neglecting preventive actions could jeopardize long-term stability.

Prof. Toyin Falola (left) and Thabo Mbeki 

The promotion of peaceful coexistence as a foundation for a prosperous future is not born from weakness; rather, it reflects having an excellent disposition to the future. Mbeki often emphasizes that South Africa’s approach to governance is deeply rooted in historical understanding, particularly of the centuries-long exploitation at the hands of the former colonial powers, with England playing a central role. Nevertheless, these African leaders chose to sweep the materials of history behind them and embrace dialogue–not out of a desire to play the game of vendetta but from a genuine commitment to build a prosperous future.

Mbeki believes that once there is a demonstration of commitment from the Europeans, they can forge alliances with them, provided this commitment is backed by deliberate efforts to move beyond the precarious issues of the past. Therefore, it is understandable when Mbeki emphasizes the importance of investing in any activity that would foster peace between them and other nations to enable progressive engagements. A peaceful environment is essential for all forms of development, including economic and technological advancements critical to modern transformation.

On the home front, it is undeniable that South Africa, under the leadership of these emancipators, is making tremendous strides to dispel any wrong notions that may have been generated against them. They are taking bold and calculated steps to pave a harmonious path toward the continent’s success. In essence, for South Africans to convince outsiders about their intentions to make great choices and stand by them, it is important to first make a courageous impact from the home front. If they struggle to gain the trust of other Southern African countries about their desires to lead the path to economic rediscovery, it would be nearly impossible to rally broader support for their political and economic rejuvenation campaign. Against this backdrop, they were making significant investments to integrate South Africa with other countries within the region to lay solid foundations for sustainable development.

Mbeki’s efforts exemplify the efforts of a foresighted leader. This is evident in how he was embraced and treated with respect and honour during his visits to different African countries. He established himself as a key advocate for economic prosperity and political freedom in the region. This has significantly increased his popularity among his peers across these nations. It is important to state that Mbeki’s bold statements and actions have been carefully evaluated by other countries, which have observed his confident leadership and his ability to bring people together to attain a common goal.

Regional cooperation is crucial for promoting inclusivity and fairness for everyone, irrespective of their political leanings. The fact of history is that South Africa and other countries in the region have experienced cultural and ideological interchange, influenced by common linguistic heritage and long-standing moral values. Colonialism and apartheid should not be the basis for an abusive relationship that entertains different voices. Contrary to the pessimistic assumption that Africa is polarized by factors such as ideological philosophy, moral principles, and cultural identities, the reality remains that the continent’s long history of coexistence has blurred these lines and boundaries.

Therefore, it is crucial for African nations to immediately address divisive schematics pulled by minority groups to tinker with the peace they have been enjoying in the region. To prevent potential crises, they must actively engage in activities that foster togetherness and allow them to enjoy the inherent benefits of working together. The importance of unity in Africa is underscored by the intrinsic strength that comes from collaborating to achieve a common purpose.

In essence, the success of many countries in the world today comes from their coordinated efforts and cooperation in achieving their objectives. This way, trans-country conflicts would be faced with unified rejection to demonstrate to outsiders the seriousness of African leaders in combating altercations that deter investors. Sustainable integration among African countries would not only help eliminate terrorism on the continent but also foster a reinvigorated system and create the foundation for progressive engagements.

This is why Mbeki has become an agent of peace, crusading for the outright erasure of dangerous engagements that could hinder the attainment of peace on the continent. His outstanding efforts and remarkable achievements in promoting unity and understanding among Africans cannot be overlooked. In his power, he has made it possible for Africans to recognize their true potential. He points out that Africans were not brought up to hate and despise others, and unless the frustration becomes unbearable, they have always been welcoming and accommodating.

The price for peace, as paid by this precious human, is the concerted efforts made through his visits to different African countries, urging them to avoid violence and shun conflicts at all costs. Mbeki understands that allowing conflicts to persist impedes progress and makes it challenging to achieve the people’s desirable goals.

PS: This is the concluding contribution to a 12-part series based on the collections edited by Sifiso Mxolisi Ndlovu, titled ANC Today Letters: The Ideas and Thoughts of President Thabo Mbeki, Volume 1, 2001-2004, supplemented by materials from the Thabo Mbeki Museum, UNISA, Pretoria. The series was composed over five weeks in three different countries. The museum’s resources, digitized under 27 categories, can generate over 200 books.