Why Uju Anya is right

AMIDST the different reactions that had greeted the abrupt departure of Queen Elizabeth ll  is a special one being bandied by one Uju Anya, a lecturer at the prestigious Carnegie Mellon University, United States. The stinging statement is just one out of the many audacious invectives detonated to impinge and recalibrate the many years of colonialist imperialism, visited on Nigeria and various other countries of the world through the Queen. Individuals and associations who claim to be good students of history have lampooned the departed Queen, just like Anya who said shortly before her departure was confirmed that, “I heard the chief monarch of a thieving and genocidal empire is finally dying. May her pain be excruciating.” This statement of hers got more criticisms than praises. The criticisms were from those who felt the dead should be given the benefit of rest and not be subjected to missiles.

Looking deeply into Anya’s claims, one would discover them to be personal, heartfelt and bold. The speech was not an extemporaneous one, as she was fully prepared to bear the brunt of throwing stones at the speechless, pale and humbled flesh of the late Queen of England. With fairness to the parties involved in this war of words, imperialistic wars are not strange to Africa. Nigeria during the pre-colonial period and prior to the first visit of the Queen to African countries like South Africa in 1947 and Kenya in 1952 witnessed a lot of imperialistic moves, mass enslavement and killing of people. This was before the incursion of the British. Nigeria became independent in 1960. The Gold Coast (present-day Ghana), which at first became self-governing in 1951, later became independent in 1957. It was declared a republic in 1960, three years after which Nigeria became one.

Britain should apologise to Africans for keeping a hold on the continent despite giving the impression that the territory had been given independence. Clearly attesting to this is the Anglo-Nigeria Defence Pact of 1962, whose provisions entitled the British to the non-transferable right of entering the country with sophisticated arms and ammunition without being questioned. Thanks to the Dapo Falashe-led students union and various interest groups in the country for the mass resistance.  The Governor-General at this time was still responsible to the Queen who was still regarded as a primus inter pares in the country and has easy access through her officials.

The reported genocide which took place in the southeastern part of the country between 1967 and 1970 was a child of necessity and acrimony which grew out of the complete marginalisation of the Igbo by the Barracuda Nigeria. It was championed by General Yakubu Gowon against the secessionist agitators and Biafrans led by Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. The war led to the death of no less than 3 million people. Ojukwu was fighting many things at the same time. He was fighting the double standards which the Nigerian Army was suffused in, including the undue elevation of Yakubu Gowon. He felt that his hardworking and brilliant Igbo people should have a stake in the administration of the country and its resources, or they should withdraw from the marriage that had not been fruitful. Only this was enough to open the can of worms.

The British government fortified Nigeria against the secessionists by complementing its troops which were already around 85,000. It issued a statement to tacitly support the Nigerian government and one Nigeria against the minority Biafra while this war was at the foundational stage.  By June 1967, Sir David Hunt, the new British High Commissioner, wrote in a memo to London that the “only way of preserving unity of Nigeria is to remove Ojukwu by force.” Meanwhile, it was recently found out that the British had an inspiration for their solidarity with the Nigerian State. It was clearly revealed by Lord Lugard who once said the British are not philanthropists by reaching out with education, religion and civilization but businessmen. The businessmen disclosed their intent in the course of this war by also saying through George Thomas, the Commonwealth Secretary that: “the sole immediate British interest in Nigeria is that the Nigerian economy should be brought back to a condition in which our substantial trade and investment in the country can be further developed, and particularly so we can regain access to important oil installations.”

No wonder then that Britain instigated the Nigeria State to further smoke out Ken Saro Wiwa, a brilliant author and widely traveled environmentalist who, provoked by the total degradation of his minority Ogoni (oil producing area), mobilised for the mass consolidation of his explosive Ogoni Bill of Rights in the year 1990. Wiwa, being an orator,  inspired people to action with his words. He wanted the self-determining Ogoni and spoke it, in action and words, spirit and flesh. He was not a friend of the British who, via the instrumentality of its jointly owned Shell BP company, stole oil, misused and polluted water for the Ogoni. The churches at this time were not also places for the usual contracts between miracle workers and their seekers but freedom fighters who went on several days of intercessory prayers and vigils. They solicited freedom via their massive rallies which eventually almost stopped the evil activities of the British Shell in Ogoni. Wiwa was predeterminedly executed alongside others in the year 1995 by the Abacha-led junta.

Interestingly, the Nigeria that was aided tacitly (by the British) to murder the iconic legend of free speech was comically suspended from the Commonwealth that same year. Is that not funny? In conclusion, it must be clearly noted that Nigerians who attacked Uju Anya are not abreast of their history. They must try proving Professor Hugh Trevor Roper wrong by knowing their heroes and those who aren’t.

• Akingbondere, an intern at the Falana and Falana’s Chambers, writes in from Lagos