In our discussion last Sunday, I made the point, which was almost distorted by editorial pusillanimity, that ideally, in order to render justice to Ndigbo Nigerian leaders who participated in genocide against them during the civil war should be prosecuted at the International Court of Justice. But I also argued that given the very low level of political maturity and moral consciousness in the country presently, that would never happen.

As a result, they casually downplay the significance of the civil war for national integration or mischievously misinterpret any reference to its impact on Igboland and the need for restitution as an attempt to create division among Nigerians. But how many Nigerians have thought about the implications of the fact, noted by Prof. Achebe, that there were more small arms used on Biafran soil than during the entire five-year period of the Second World War or that there were one hundred thousand casualties on the much larger Nigerian side compared with more than two million – mainly children – Biafrans killed? If Gowon was serious about his “no victor, no vanquished” slogan and genuinely wanted reconciliation with the defeated Biafrans, why did his government implement extremely harsh measures against Ndigbo after the conflict? For Ndigbo who suffered the greatest from the civil war, whose land was strafed, bombed and devastated, the terrible experiences of 1966 to 1970 remain a recurrent source of sadness and inspiration simultaneously: sadness, because they were the ones that lost almost everything; inspiration, given the inherent capacity of humans to turn adversity into opportunity

As a student of history, I have come to realise that it is only within the scaffolding of fidelity to its lessons that individuals and groups can positively transform socio-political reality in an enduring and meaningful way. In otherwords, those who ignore the lessons of history no matter how disagreeable they might be are bound to repeat terrible errors of the past. Ever since Nigeria was created by British colonial imperialism in 1914, efforts have been made to build a truly Nigerian nation that blends into a relatively harmonious geopolitical entity the diverse ethnic nationalities out of which the colonial amalgam was founded. Unfortunately, from the very beginning such attempts, especially by British colonial administrators, were largely disingenuous, biased in favour of the North and geared towards optimum exploitation of the newly created colony for the benefit of imperial Britain.

Going by what one reads in the newspapers and hears on radio and television, Buharimaniacs believe strongly that the President, Alhaji Muhammadu Buhari, can solve singlehandedly the problems confronting Nigeria at this time, whereas President Goodluck Jonathan and his subordinates are relentlessly excoriated for running the most incompetent and corrupt government the country has witnessed since independence.

As I was saying, many top-level administrators, managers, technicians and civil servants were either persecuted or dismissed from their positions because they were Igbo. The grotesque federal character provision or quota system enshrined in the 1999 constitution is a testament to Igbophobia, indicating the depth of anti-Igbo sentiment and the extent certain elements of the Northern-dominated ruling elite at the federal level can go to entrench tribalism in the country.

The German philosopher, Georg W.F. Hegel developed a dialectical logic that, contrary to the principles of traditional Aristotelian logic, extolled contradictions as an inherent mechanism in the development of reality. Karl Marx and Frederick Engels adapted Hegelian dialectics to formulate the theoretical framework for a philosophy of revolutionary social change called dialectical materialism. An important component of dialectical materialism is the principle of negation of the negation

Rapacious “authority stealing” by top government officials has crippled Nigeria, and it must be stopped. Yet, the President-elect should be clear in his mind about his motivation and overriding goal. If the driving force of probes launched by him is for revenge against enemies, real or imagined, he should be ready for the repercussions. This is because, supposing the outcome of any investigation establishes culpability for corruption by his political opponents,” the perception that it was persecutory will engender resentment and compromise the trust Nigerians repose on the in-coming government to reduce corruption drastically.

A musket, according to Chambers Twentieth Century Dictionary, is a military hand firearm, particularly of an antiquated smoothbore kind. A musketeer, therefore, is someone, a soldier most likely, armed with a musket. Somehow, the President-elect, Maj. Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) and his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), may be likened to musketeers using revenge mentality and threats of probe as muskets against opponents, especially members of the outgoing administration and African Independent Television (AIT).

Due to the unsavoury experiences Nigerians have had because of incompetent political leadership at various levels over the decades, there is a seeming consensus amongst them that politics is a dirty game. This negative perception of politics, which I disagree with anyway, has discouraged many well-meaning Nigerians from active participation in politics.

But expediency is not always right or else any anti-corruption measure, no matter how dehumanising and inhumane, would be justified. In the case we are discussing, Umaru Dikko could have died at some point in the perilous journey if his kidnappers had succeeded in their mission. Remember, there is no guarantee that brutal military methods, including lengthy prison terms, will eliminate corruption.