Re: USA Africa Dialogue Series - Re: FANI KAYODE’S FLAWED ARGUMENT

I don't know why the Ibos take the so called deportation personal. Lagos State had deported some Yoruba from Oyo and Osun States before the incident of the deported Ibos to Anambra State and nobody raised any eye brow. The Governors of those States did not blow the issue out of proportion. 

It is the responsibility of the Federal Government to look after the welfare of its citizens. No ethnic group in Nigeria should neglect the care of its people regardless where they reside. 

Each ethnic group should take records where its members go to reside within the Federation and the reason why they leave their States of origin for other places. This kind of record keeping is necessary and morally compelling. 

It is time to stop name calling and find a solution to the problem. The Federal Government must rise to its responsibility to the citizenry. 

Segun Ogungbemi.  

Sent from my iPhone

On Aug 12, 2013, at 4:11 PM, obiemeka06 <obiemeka06@yahoo.com> wrote:

Felix,I couldnt have agreed more with you and Aduba on the issue of the odious deportation.However, just like issues in Nigeria sentiments and personal prejudices have again taken over our reasoning.The illogical arguement of Kayode tells you the quality of people that lead us in this country. To think that such a person that clearly suffers from a thinking_deficit syndrome has been a minister in this Republic, says a lot about why Nigeria is where it is today.Secondly,that Fashola SAN did such a thing and is busy defending it in todays globalised world is to say the least shocking.For those who are rejoicing that with the coming of the APC we now have an alternative to PDP,they should better have a rethink because Fashola has shown what to expect from the progressives.Well,for me am not disappionted because i have always believed that they are the same people despite all pretentions.

Obi Emeka Anthony  Anambra State University

Sent from Samsung tablet

Felix Kayman <felixkayman@gmail.com> wrote:

This debate reminds me of a story I heard at the University of Ibadan several years back about a professor from cross-rivers state who came to study in Ibadan in the 1960s, later got a job at the university; got married and made a life in the university for twenty odd years. His four children were born in the university and all school certificates indicate that the children are, to all intents and purposes, from Ibadan. Given the fact that they speak Yoruba language better than their native calabar language and indeed they all have Yoruba names by which some of their friends refer to them. Then in 1999 following the return to democratic rule, the children applied for the state bursary like other children but they were turned back because - yes you guessed right - they are not from Ibadan. Indeed, the father was asked to return to his home state if he wanted bursaries for his children. I have always struggled to understand how Nigerians that are resentful of settlers from other places in Nigeria are always keen to be accepted as citizens of other countries. Even if the Ibos chant that 'Lagos is no man's land', have Nigerians never joined the chorus that America is "The land of the free"? If there are to be laws to curtail the incidence of begging and unseemly behaviour on the streets of Lagos, then it should apply to all persons, citizens and denizens inclusive. But to single out a group of people for 'deportation' to their hometowns and homestates is in bad taste and cannot be justified on any constitutional platform. 

There is a paper by Brenan Kraxberger titled - Strangers, indigenes and settlers: Contested geographies of citizenship in Nigeria. Interesting reading for anyone who is a student of society. The author argues among other things that 'cultural pluralism and the lack of a meaningful national identity inform the institutionalisation of multiple citizenship containers in Nigeria.' The deportation of Nigerians within Nigeria is another reflection of the lack of national identity that the writer alluded to. This time, there is a blatant demonstration of a lack of national identity by the Lagos state government. It is still difficult for me to understand how and why Nigerians residing in one part of the country can be said to be deported to their home-towns or homestate or any other state for that matter. How were the deportees identified? My understanding of the concept of deportation is that there are entrance clearance requirements that have been flouted, therefore such persons need to repatriated to their places of origin. Hey! These are Nigerians... So what is the entrance requirements for anyone wishing to visit or reside permanently in Lagos. This is where I am tempted to align myself with the sentiments of Benjamin Aduba that: 'What Fashola did...was start a class warfare: the rich vs. the poor. The deported Igbo and the upper-class Igbo that are allowed to live in Lagos are Igbo.' However I think it is a combination of class discrimination and politics. In a federal democracy there will always be cities and states that attract more people than others. This should be regarded as a strength and not a problem. Lagos state government is in a position to strategically challenge the federal allocation on the basis of this kind of migration pattern, rather than resorting to deportation of fellow Nigerians. I am particularly disturbed because of the implication of this practice, not just for other ethnic groups but for all non-lagos state indigenes who have offsprings that are born in Lagos.This is why I think that the national assembly needs to debate the issue of the 'contested geography of citizenship in Nigeria'. How long do I need to reside in a state before I am able to claim citizenship of that state. Why would anyone ask someone that had never been a taxpaer in his state of origin  to return to the state for bursary awards for his children? Why is it almost impossible for someone from Oyo state who had lived in Enugu state for 20 years to contest for an elective position in that state. Unless this questions are addressed by the national assembly, as we count down to 2015 general elections, the insidious practice of internal deportation will become the order of the day. As Ola Kassim concluded, 'First they came for the Jews...'  Today it is the Igbos, tomorrow it might be the Hausas, next day, it would be the egbas, then the ekitis, Ijebus, oyos, ijeshas, ilorins, edos, ibiras etc. Then in due course those from badagry will be separated from those from epe; while the people who originate from the lagos mainland will be expelled from the island... where and when will it stop? 

On Saturday, August 10, 2013 7:06:47 PM UTC+1, olaka...@aol.com wrote:

Dear All:

 

We are conflating two unrelated issues on this thread, The poor and homeless Nigerians

of SE origin who were deported back to their states of origin were not deported because

the Igbo didnot "own" Lagos, but rather because the Gov. Fashola led government of Lagos

state felt it could no longer continue to bear (alone without financial assistance from the federal and other state governments) the huge financial cost of looking after the homeless and the destitutes in Lagos state--most of whom ae migrants from other states in Nigeria and sometimes from other neighbouring countries including the Republics of Niger, Chad and Mali.

 

As I will argue later even though I consider this act of deporting fellow Nigerians to their states of origins not only unconstitutional and undemocratic but also immoral, I do not agree with the critics of Gov Fashola that he alone and his government should bear all the blame for this unfortunate action,

 

Conflating the issue of the deportation of destitute and homeless Nigerian citizens

some of whom suffer from varying degrees of mental illness from Lagos to their states of origin

with the issue of who owns or who does not own Lagos is not only an unfortunate distraction from an important social problem

it is like engaging in a fruitless task of watching to see whether or not

two runners on straight parallel lanes would eventually converge or collide at a single point if they run long and far enough.

 

 

 

There are two concepts about ownership of a given place at any point in time--namely anncestral ownership and legal and or economic ownership

of specific real estate properties and businesses in a given jurisdiction. The entire new world (Noth and South America and the Caribbean is the ancestral home of native Indians (or First Nations Peoples.Aborigenes). Even though the Aborigenes would always collectively claim sole ancestral ownership of the homelands of their ancestors, the economic ownership of this same jurisdiction is now withing theuir reach.

 

Lagos is unarguably a 'Yoruba' city and more specifically a city 'owned' in ancestral terms by its original settlers--the Omo Ekos

who are unquestionably of Yoruba ancestry.

 

Apart from the original Omo Ekos (the real Mckoys  amongst  Lagosians)

the rest of the millions of Nigerians who reside in Lagos are foreigners (Ara Okes--peoples from the north, but also applies to those from the east, west or south--possibly ncluding also some mammie waters --water dwelling species (mermaids etc.)--including the majority of fellow Yoruba and non Yoruba --who were either born or who have always lived in Lagos. The varying degrees of araokeness (foreigness) is directly proportional

to the distance between an indvidual's original hometown and Iga Idunganran--the palace of the Oba of Lagos, located in Isale Eko area of Lagos Island. The longer the distance your hometoen is from Lagos Island, the more deserving of the araoke label you are regardless of your ethnic origin.

 

Hence Lagos (Eko) could be deemed an ancestral Yoruba city only to the extent that the original settlers and ther progenies identify with their other Yoruba kins as being of common stock. 

 

Regardless of whether or not the Arabs or the Asians end up buying up 90% of all real estate properties and businesses

in London, England the owneship of the city of London (in ancestral terms) will continue to rest

with the English for the same reason that Lagos will always be a city owned (again in ancestral not necessarily economic

terms) by the Yoruba. Both London, England and Lagos, Nigeria would remain both English and Yoruba respectively

regardless of whether or not the English or the Yoruba become minority populations in these two cities.

Thus while the Igbo, the Hausa and other Nigerian ethnic groups might have legal ownership of properties in Lagos--which give them the rights to do whatever they want to do with properties (as longer it is not illegal), such ownership would never replace or supplant the ancestral ownership of Lagos--the same

for the same reason that Kano, Enugu and Benin City would forever remain Igbo, Hausa and Edo cities respectively.

one is ancestral the other is legal and economic

 

Regardless of the states of origin of the deporated Nigerians, the deportation from Lagos or ny other jurisdiction

fails the following yardsticks originally suggested by Tope Fasua: Constitutionality, Morality and Tradition.

 

Constitutionality:

 

The deportation of some Igbo destitues and earlier beggars from Norrthern Nigeria

back to their states of origin  is an egregious violation of the civil rights of the poor, economically marginalized

and mentally ill Nigerian citizens.

 

 The government of Lagos state cannot win this fight on  constitutional grounds, even though it might successfully argue that there was nothing else it could have done considering that the Federal and other state governments in Nigeria have failed

to negotiate a fair compensation for the extra burden  its government bears in having to to look after hundreds of thousands of additional migrants from all over Nigeria--all in search of the golden fleece.

 

In well developled and fully functioning federal democracies, e.g Canada, the Federal government compensates the regions/provinces and states with additional funds which assist the state governments in looking after the welfare of the destitute, homeless and mentally ill migrants.

 

One of the salient civil rights of a citizen under a federal model of government in constitutional democracies is the right

to free movement and ability to settle anywhere within the geographic boundaries of the country.

The deportation of destitutes from Lagos bythe state government is an illegal act that must be ecognized for what it is.

A poor citizen in a democractic setting should be accorded the same rights as that of the richest of her citizens.

 

The failure of leadership that led to the painstaking decision by Gov. Fashola to start deporting the poor and the homes as well as the sick and infirm amongst them rests squarely with President Jonathan and the Federal government and at alower level

with the collective of the state governors for their failure to negotiate how the states which eceive most of the homless migrants

would be compensated.

 

 

Morality:

 

The deportation of fellow Nigerian citizens from any region of Nigeria is an immoral act.

We cannot accept the rich, the middle class and the working poor (source of cheap labour)

from any region of Nigeria who actively contribute to the economy of Lagos  or any other jurisdiction

in Nigeria, while turning away some

 other citizens who are unable to cater for themselves  because they are indigent and or mentally ill and are temporaily

o permanently incapable of providing for themeselves.

&