ong before the expression "Niger Area" could be chiseled into the shape of the first name of a sovereign nation, the Igbo of the Lower Niger River had become famous as the representative case-makers for the aspirations of the different nationalities of the quadrangular real estate that would later be christened Nigeria. I have argued elsewhere [cf.Nigeriaworld: Nd'Igbo and their Entrapment in Nigeria, May 30, 2000] that the Igbo probably assumed this duty as a response to the British colonial administration's abrogation of their traditional representative communal government and the colonialist's imposition of the Indirect Rule taxation on them during the odd days preceding the amalgamation of the protectorates of northern and southern Nigeria. This seems most likely the case because the Indirect Rule system with its harsh taxation hardly imposed real difficulties on the other major ethnic groups of Nigeria. They had long been accustomed to absolute monarchic system of administration with its servile demands. Hence they were more amenable to the colonial Indirect Rule system. The Hausa and the Yoruba always had their Emirs and Obas respectively, who the colonialists had recognized and employed as legitimate authorities in their indirect political administration of their so-called colonies. In fact, the Indirect Rule system gave a tremendous boost to those monarchs whose status and standings became greatly enhanced with the colonial policy of vicarious administration through powerful local agents. The pockets of resistance they had previously encountered almost vanished completely as the colonial authority reinforced the monarchs' powers with overwhelming force.

It was perhaps only in Igbo land that the full weight of Lugard's tragic political innovation was felt the most. Among the Igbo people, Indirect Rule and its taxation system became a monumental disaster, a terrible burden, and in fact a quasi slavery experience for the freedom and democracy-accustomed Igbo nation. Until the British Lord Lugard manufactured his tax scheme called Indirect Rule, the Igbo hardly paid taxes to anybody, not to talk of a foreign power that was clearly using the hands of Esau and the voice of Jacob to extort money from the usually independent-minded people of Igbo land. The taxes that the traditional Igbo communities had known from time immemorial were in the manner of occasional communal contributions with which they maintained and executed communal projects. Their traditional republican nature made it almost impossible for them to accept burdensome taxation imposed by foreign governments or powerful monarchs. But Indirect Rule changed all that. It altered the people's political tradition and destroyed their accustomed communal living in equality and respect. It was therefore considered a heavy yoke placed on the Igbo people's conscience and their social life. As perhaps could have equally been the case in any other ethnic group with a similar culture as the Igbo, what ensued as a result of the Indirect Rule implementation in Igbo land was strife and struggle for liberation.

My late parents relished telling the tales of the subversive measures the Igbo people had embarked upon against the colonial Indirect Rule taxation system. These were usually couched as war or strife. Hence there was the famous "Ogu Ndom" (Aba women riot of 1929). But there were many other wars among which were "Ogu Utu Odongalasi" (Douglas's Tax Strife/war), "Ogu Nnu" (Salt Strife/war), and very many others. Without question the Igbo hated taxation and rejected Indirect Rule in all its forms. I remember when I was growing up in my village, my late parents taught me so many ballads composed in derision of the Indirect Rule monarchs. I still remember and sing some of them today. Those monarchs that fronted for the colonial masters were generally regarded as ignorant, foolish, lazy, never-do-wells, overbearing and arrogant people, who had been imposed on the smart Igbo people by foreign powers. Many ballads were written to discredit them. I remember vividly the lyrics of one of such derisive ballads:

The white man has killed us.
It was he who imposed the fool (John Doe) on us as our king.
When there was scarcity of food due to feminine.
(King John Doe) had two wives.
And he sold one into slavery to buy cassava foofoo (mashed cassava flour).

The lyrics of another ballad read:

Disgrace and humiliation has killed King (Doe)
He was so hungry that he went to (name withheld) to look for food
And in the process he lost the rifle with which he prided himself.

To abridge our essay a little, the cacophonous Igbo voices against British colonialism were later on united and personalized in Nnamdi Azikiwe. Azikiwe epitomized the leadership of the Igbo on behalf of the whole Nigeria against colonialism. He was idealized as the spokesperson-in-chief of the pre- and post-independence Nigeria. He became the strong voice for Nigeria's liberation and unity, and the embodiment of his people's aspiration to "live free or die." Azikiwe, a real nationalist and an idealized figure of the Igbo struggle against the Indirect Rule, became the most credible voice for our national independence as the rest of Nigeria made the Igbo cause their own. The Igbo struggle for liberation from the British Indirect Rule system transmuted into Nigeria's struggle for independence from colonialism. The Igbo seemed to lose their unique voice for freedom and their distinctive aspiration when their original struggle was elevated to the struggle of the whole nation. As their struggle became the universal struggle of Nigeria so did Igbo leadership transmute into the leadership of Nigeria. Igbo people scattered all across Nigeria not to dominate as it is being sadly alleged these days but because their struggle was in fact hijacked by the entire nation. Theories that claim that the Igbo dominated Nigeria because they were hegemonic by nature are mischievously incorrect if not criminally absurd. Besides their adventurousness and industry in trading as well as menial and janitorial works which took them to cities all over Nigeria, the Igbo became politically ubiquitous mainly because with the countrywide adoption of their struggle against British colonialism, they became practically in almost every Nigerian city the natural leaders of the struggle to free the entire nation from colonialism. They were the ones who pioneered the sensitization of the different peoples of Nigeria to the evils of colonialism. Being the ones most experienced in the struggle, they freely volunteered their experience and expertise, which kept the struggle going for decades until its objectives were finally realized with the Nigerian independence of 1960.

Many Igbo leaders followed after Nnamdi Azikiwe and/or viewed him as a beacon thereby presenting themselves in the different cities of Nigeria as speakers on behalf of Nigeria and advocates for Nigeria's independence and unity. The Igbo believed Nigeria to be the baby of their titanic struggles with the British. All that the Igbo had wished and longed for in Nigeria was how to liberate their precious baby from the slavery of colonialism and nurture her to prominence in the world of both baby and adult nations. The Igbo as a people had great dreams for Nigeria. They cherished and loved the country that they had helped bring into the world. In that spirit they scattered and built homes all across Nigeria. Their vision was that every perimeter of Nigeria should be home to every Nigerian. To use a popular American political parlance, pre-independence Igbo politicians had "a big-tent vision" of Nigeria, a nation where every ethnic group would have equal opportunity to excel anywhere especially when and if they worked hard (The only problem was that some Nigerian ethnics wanted to excel without working hard for it. They wanted to be Nigerian rulers even without a basic education). No other ethnic group had believed in the Nigerian project more than the Igbo. They co-created and loved her as a precious baby. (But when it became a monster following the events of 1966 and after, the Igbo loathed her and wanted to desert her). The Igbo believed with their whole heart that Nigeria was both their home and the home to every member of every ethnic group in Nigeria. The Igbo opened up Nigeria for every Nigerian.

But the downside to this development was, while the Igbo spoke on behalf of the whole Nigeria, many other leaders from the other parts of Nigeria made themselves the extensions of their monarchs, speaking exclusively on behalf of their own regions. Even when they appeared not to speak on behalf of their monarchs like in the case of Awolowo, they clearly acted as their monarchs' extensions by advocating solely regional interests. While the Igbo looked at the broader horizon of Nigeria, ethnic leaders saw Nigeria from the narrow windows of their regional enclaves. While the Igbo fought the Nigerian fight, which they had originally contracted by their rejection of Indirect Rule, regional leaders fought exclusively for their peoples in their regions. While the Igbo leadership exhorted patriotism and its virtues, ethnic leaders of the regions exhorted parochialism and its gains. As the Igbo fought to secure sovereignty, ethnic leaders fought to fortify regionalism. What resulted was that while the Igbo fought and spoke for everybody in Nigeria, hardly was anybody speaking and fighting on behalf of the Igbo as a people.

However, so long as the Igbo spoke for Nigeria, regionalism held primacy over sovereignty. Power was completely devolved and local counties and regions were truly empowered. In fact the Hausa and Yoruba saw themselves as northerners and westerners first and Nigerians second. Perhaps only the Igbo saw themselves as Nigerians first and Igbo second. Innocently Igbo leaders saw no contradictions in such tendencies. For them it was in consonance with the type of Nigeria they had dreamed of and were in fact building. They had acquiesced to a nation with a relatively weak center and strong regions to reflect natural tendencies and customs in the multi-ethnic Nigerian nation. There was absolutely no confusion as regards the vision of Nigeria the Igbo leadership was nurturing. It was almost a self-evident fact that for the Nigerian nation to survive she would have to be loosely defined to accommodate varied interests and tendencies. What was problematic was how far regional autonomy could go without jeopardizing an already weakened center.

But Igbo's utopia of a strong, diversified, multi-ethnic, elastically configured, rainbow-like Nigeria collapsed with the second coup of July 28, 1966, coupled with the subsequent ethnic cleansing against the Igbo civilians in the other regions of Nigeria. The apocalyptic level of the mindless massacre of Igbo indigenes all across the nation precipitated into the thirty-month civil war in Nigeria. Subsequently the Igbo lost their right as the initiators of the Nigerian struggle, their power as the architects of the Nigerian project and their voice as its spokespersons. The successful execution of the coup and the civil war on the part of the notorious two strange-bedfellows, the North and the West, saw the rise and enthronement of the leaders that once excelled in regional politics. The once tribal vanguards of regionalized Nigeria became patriotic advocates of a unitary Nigeria. Hence the parochialists became patriots, the jingoists became nationalists, and the sectionalists became statesmen. And in the same line the tunnel vision ethnics became visionaries and the back-pedalers became the drivers of the Nigerian wheels. In fact the world of the Nigerian project was bellied up and turned upside down. And it has been lying that way ever since.

Having successfully crushed and expelled the original architects of the Nigerian project, the new leaders made a perfect u-turn and started to espouse the doctrine of a united Nigeria, which they had absolutely rejected in the past. But try as they did they hardly could conceal the fact that their concept of a united Nigeria was a brand new one. It was totally at variance with the original project of Nigeria conceived and executed by the pre- and post-independence Igbo leadership. The new concept of a unitary Nigeria had been defined according to regional interests. And the new unity of Nigeria was to be expressed in the conspiratorial efforts of the two regional powers to prevent the Igbo from ever having a slice of the Nigerian project again. The Nigeria ship once commissioned by the predominantly Igbo founding fathers of the nation to sail forward down stream began its never-ending backward climb upstream. Western and Northern leaders who formerly couched their politics in mainly jingoistic terms became the managers of the Nigerian project, which they had never strongly believed in before. And like corporate managers who are conflicted about the viability of their corporations, they contrived to manage the Nigerian project like mercenaries intent on looting and seizing whatever they can lay their hands on before the project finally collapses and dies. In contemporary parlance, that is how Nigeria is being "Enronized" by our post-civil war corporate managers.

Having been expelled from the Nigerian project, having been pushed into war as a result of the heartless coup and the pogroms of 1966-7, the Igbo became disoriented, confused and demoralized. Finally they decided on regrouping by opting to abandon the Nigerian project entirely and establish a sovereign nation called Biafra. But what was lacking was a rallying regional voice. The Igbo lacked a very indispensable experience in regional advocacy. Even though naturally created as outgoing eclectics, the Igbo had to embark on learning the use of their left-hand that is jingoism at old age. Hence the clamor to found a separate sovereignty as Biafrans dominated the atmosphere of eastern Nigeria.

As often happens in a situation of a political vacuum, an untested young military officer whose total experience in politics amounted to only six months on the job as the military governor of Eastern Nigeria was thrust into the fray by accidents of history to shoulder the overwhelming responsibility of articulating the unorganized Igbo agenda as well as making the confused Igbo case in a situation of unprecedented crisis in the Nigerian polity. The entire Igbo, now grasping for straws, immediately rallied around the youthful governor, Lieutenant Colonel Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu urging him to offer no compromises to the Nigerian government.

As if intent on proving his critics wrong, Ojukwu appeared to have the long-sought regional voice to advocate for either a brand new sovereignty in Igbo land or at least achieve what the leaders of the west and the north had enjoyed when the Igbo were propelling the Nigerian project, namely, a limited regional autonomy. Ojukwu unleashed his rhetorical advocacy skills. In Aburi, Ghana conference he and the Igbo claimed victory over the naïve Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon. His nemesis, the July-coup-manufactured head of state, Gowon, was maneuvered to acquiesce to granting a limited autonomy to the four regions of Nigeria including eastern region. But the celebration of Ojukwu and the Igbo people on that victory was short-lived. Immediately the inexperienced Gowon got back to Lagos, his very foxy advisers, in the persons of Awolowo and his colleagues, nixed the idea of a limited autonomy for any part of Nigeria. The former jingoists and regionalists of the west and the north who had spent the past forty years advocating and practicing limited autonomies for their regions now demanded a unitary Nigeria or nothing. Biafra would have to capitulate or risk conquest, they threatened. Of course the true Igbo in their homestead hardly ever fall for intimidation. And that began the eerily ominous standoff that precipitated the outbreak of the civil war in Nigeria.

Meanwhile Ojukwu appeared to have everything the Igbo were longing for. He had the wonderful voice. He had the knowledge. He had also the courage to stand up against the intimidating force of the new Nigerian project under the captainship of the regionalists. Ojukwu had all the features of a typical Igbo man - macho, hairy, bushy, lion-faced and fearsome. In fact he seemed every bit like an Okonkwo that had jumped out of Achebe's Things Fall Apart. However what he appeared to lack in those very crucial periods was practical wisdom or experience to match his highfalutin rhetoric with concrete actions. As Americans say, he could "talk the talk" but hardly could "walk the walk." His powerful voice fired the patriotic spirit of the Igbo but his lack of follow-up concrete actions became evident as Biafrans watched helplessly while their beloved new fatherland shrank and fell to the foreign-backed invading Nigerian army.

After a thirty-month resistance that was marked by unbroken strings of losses of territory and military personnel, the new Biafra project that Ojukwu had contracted to lead collapsed. The Igbo lost both their highly desired sovereign fatherland as well as the lesser evil of a semi-autonomous eastern region. Hence the Igbo became once again quasi slaves in their fatherland. They returned to where they were when they began their first revolt against the imperialist Indirect Rule taxation and artificial monarchy. The collapse of the Biafra project had not meant just the loss of a civil war, it cast the Igbo nation nearly sixty years back to where they were following the amalgamation of southern and Northern protectorates in 1914. The Igbo watched with utter hopelessness as the former western and northern regionalists now directing the project of the post-war Nigeria surreptitiously introduced what nearly equaled the draconian taxation of the Indirect Rule system.

And that is where the Igbo are still languishing today, thirty-two years after the Nigerian civil war. The Igbo have remained completely vanquished and banished from the Nigerian project. But unlike the first time around when they collectively fought the British and their puppet monarchs, it appears as if the loss of the war dealt a major blow to the Igbo psyche, esteem and courage. The Igbo pride and creativity that created the first Nigerian project and sustained the war for about thirty months have all but vanished completely. It seems as if the war had ended with a proclamation: "To your tents oh Ndigbo!" Since that time, the Igbo nation has hardly enjoyed any cohesion. The Igbo of today look permanently demoralized, alienated and indifferent to the political realities of Nigeria. The Igbo of 2002 are far less competitive, less focused and less deep than say their counterparts who fought the British to a standstill because of the Indirect Rule taxation. It is clear that Igbo women of today can hardly repeat the feat of the Aba women of 1929. The great grand daughters of the 1929 Aba women of valor have almost all become sycophants who march in lockstep every political season to beg non-performing leaders at Aso Rock to continue indefinitely in office. The present Igbo men cannot in any way compare with their counterparts that prosecuted "Ogu Utu Odongalasi" against the colonialists. The outcome of the war seems to have permanently scattered the Igbo and destroyed their collective aspirations for good. Since the civil war ended, Igbo people have become principally concerned with efforts to survive individually on a day-to-day basis in a harsh environment that the Nigerian project had become following its exclusive occupation and appropriation by the famed regional vanguards. While the pre-war Igbo dreamed of soaring and excelling in all ramifications of Nigeria's political life, the post-war Igbo seem confined to eking out existence and survival through petty trading and menial jobs. Once the great Igbo politicians found tremendous joy playing at the center of Nigeria's political turf. Today the current Igbo leaders seem contented playing a supporting cast or even watching as spectators the rapidly moving scenes of Nigeria's political theater.

However the greatest causality of the civil war on the part of the Igbo was the loss of a rallying voice. The Igbo today lack a rallying voice. They are roaming like a flock of sheep without a shepherd. Though Ohaneze Ndi-Igbo is trying to change all that. But it has a long way to go. Having not learned how to speak exclusively on behalf of their region, and having lost their right and opportunity to speak for Nigeria as a result of their botched rebellion, the Igbo found themselves not having any voice at all. Since the war ended the Igbo have been shopping for a credible voice to rally them for action as well as make their case before the world body. The question has been; who can effectively rally and make the case for justice to the Igbo people in the post- war situation they have found themselves in Nigeria? This question has remained unanswered for the past three decades the civil war ended in the minus column for the Igbo people. However this question has become far more urgent than ever before now that some Igbo people seem to be resolving to seriously make a case for some good will gestures from the rest of Nigeria that could convince them and the rest of the world that the Igbo have been fully reintegrated into mainstream Nigeria.

The Igbo are now asking for an opportunity to lead Nigeria as both a practical demonstration and a symbolic gesture that they had not lost their citizenship of Nigeria as a result of the negative outcome of the civil war on their part. And the question remains: who can clearly and effectively convey the Igbo feelings on this matter to all Nigerians? Who has the voice and the persona to be the spokesperson of the Igbo people in contemporary Nigeria? Is it possible to make a distinction between who speaks for the Igbo and who leads the Igbo? This distinction is absolutely necessary because the war did create a very strange situation in which the person who could speak most effectively for the Igbo may not be the one who could lead the Igbo, or could lead Nigeria on behalf of the Igbo. For instance, the recent interview Ojukwu granted to the Lagos newsmagazine Newswatch has proved that he seems to have everything it would take to speak effectively on behalf of the Igbo. But that cannot mean that he could be trusted again to lead the Igbo or be presented to lead Nigeria on behalf of the Igbo. The failed civil war efforts seem to have messed up his chances forever. Moreover his political choices since the war ended have not helped matters in any way. His recent participation in the so-called "Opening of the Biafran House" in Washington D.C., can never qualify as a smart choice of a politician eyeing a national platform. If there is anything Ojukwu has clearly demonstrated since returning from exile it is that his political judgments are at cross-purposes with the great wisdom he possesses in his head.

The present situation of Ojukwu represents the classic case of the post-war Igbo conundrum. It's become terribly difficult to find a potential Igbo leader who seems to have it all both on the home front and at the national level. In other words, it has become more difficult than ever before to find a true Igbo leader who could speak, act and lead on behalf of the Igbo people. Often times what one sees are leaders with oratorical skills like Ojukwu but hardly any political wisdom, or people with abundant political wisdom like Ekwueme but with little or no persuasive and rallying voice. That is why the question has arisen; is there any way we can make a distinction between who speaks for the Igbo and who leads the Igbo, or. Who leads on behalf of the Igbo? Is it possible to utilize the skills of people like Ojukwu without at the same time according them leadership positions on behalf of the Igbo? Can we not find a way to employ Ojukwu as our spokesperson, and in fact, as the Igbo case leader, without constituting him into a candidate for a national election? In other words, is it practically impossible to recognize Ojukwu as the maker of the Igbo case in chief but not the official Igbo political leader or the official Igbo candidate for the president of Nigeria? I believe that the recent interview in Newswatch [cf. Newswatch: My Plan for 2003] gave a definitively affirmative answer to this question. Hardly can you find any living Igbo person today who could make the Igbo case more intelligently and more effectively than Chief Chukwuemeka Odumegwu Ojukwu. He brings a lot of credibility and clarity to the matter. The Igbo can be well advised to consider ceding the making of their case to people like Ojukwu without venturing to present them as political candidates because they will hardly sell on the national level. But their skills and talents must not be swept away simply because historical situations had turned them into political non-starters.

In my view Ojukwu is best suited among his peers to be recognized as the Igbo case maker-in-chief in the present-day Nigeria. He has so many things counting on his favor. First, the Ikemba Nnewi and the people's general of the defunct Biafran Republic, is absolutely a press phenom or a very rare pedigree. There is hardly any true competitor in contemporary Nigeria that possesses Ojukwu's media magnetic qualities. He has been holding this unofficial position since returning from exile in 1982. Ojukwu always finds a way to compel people's attention with such crisp choices of words and flawless logic. He has that uncanny magic of enthralling people and enlisting their rapt attention until he's done making his points. The recent interview he granted to the Newswatch magazine seems the clearest demonstration yet that he is still the undefeated champion of media hypnosis in Nigeria. If he could focus exclusively on making the Igbo case in the contemporary Nigeria, he will hardly run short of a medium to disseminate his message. And this is a great plus, which has hardly been fully exploited by the Igbo. I believe that Ojukwu could be unleashed as ambassador plenipotentiary to rove around and make the Igbo case for justice in Nigeria.

Second, Ojukwu has an ingenious grasp of both the Igbo and the Nigerian issues. "My Plan" interview proves this beyond any doubt. He clearly understands the history and complexity of the Nigerian project. He knows the part the Igbo had played in the foundation of the Nigerian nation and how they fell out of favor in it. Ojukwu seems to know what the Igbo must do so as to return to a position of respect in Nigeria. In that interview he said, "I am of the school of thought that the beginning of wisdom for an Igbo man is to re-engineer as much as possible the whole eastern region…. I believe that it is a mistake to try to go alone in anything in Nigeria. I believe that we have so much in common with our old partners that it would be foolish to just let them fade away." On what could be done to re-engineer Nigeria, Ojukwu repeats an answer which nearly every student of Nigeria's history has been parroting for so long now: "I am an advocate of the need for holding a national conference, and the need for the national conference will be to enable us look at the issue of restructuring Nigeria. Some people also put it more strongly by calling it re-negotiating Nigeria." Ojukwu, like many patriotic Nigerians, rightly believe that the only way to restore the lost glory of our nation is to return it to the way it was conceived and configured by our founding fathers. Nigeria was conceived as a multi-ethnic nation with a weak center and strong parts. The people who fought tooth and nail to bring about that type of configuration of the nation were mainly westerners and northerners. The Igbo had angled for a very powerful center but lost. And for more than three decades now we have been trying to build a huge republic with a very powerful center and weak parts but have not succeeded any bit. Rather than make progress we have fallen more than fifty years back. All indicators point to the fact that the only way forward is to return to the original objective and configuration of Nigeria. There is no sincerity in continuing to push the huge cart of the Nigerian republic uphill the way we have been doing for nearly forty years. True wisdom lies in recognizing that Nigeria as a complex nation can only get to its destination by allowing her constitutive ethnics and parts to decide and determine their own goals as well as the pace and means to get there.

Third, Ojukwu is a great Igbo defender. The case maker of a cause must be an informed student of the issue in contention. Ojukwu understands the issues of Igbo predicament in Nigeria and he holds the Igbo position very well. Ojukwu demonstrated his skill in this regard in his unassailable refutation of the Igbo disunity allegation often repeated like a mantra by the press and politicians from the other parts of Nigeria. According to him, "It has been said by some people that the Igbo are disunited. I must tell you, we are more united than the Yoruba, as a people. And I will state this as fact. We kill our leaders less than the west. Move north, they are not better than we are. I found that there is an orchestrated attempt at intimidating the Igbo with their own shortcomings. And these are shortcomings that are rampant across the entire country." Part of Ojukwu's dexterity in defending the Igbo, which was prominent in the Newswatch interview was his magnificent presentation of the apex cultural group of the Igbo: "We have an Ohaneze that is highly democratic. There is nothing like that in the west where any Yoruba can come to a meeting (uninvited). Instead (there is) the little elite grouping that you find in Yoruba land, little elite groups that you can find in the north. We have an umbrella organization that encompasses all members of our society that you don't even need membership to come in. Because you are Igbo, you have a seat." Ojukwu's great illumination of an Igbo organization such as Ohaneze is appetizingly accurate and markedly superior. It demonstrates quite clearly that even when the Igbo are seen as hobbled by disunity, they are not bereft of the capacity to generate internal organizations that may be head and shoulders above those of their competitors in the Nigerian project. By such a brilliant argument, Ojukwu succeeds in turning the arrow of a debilitating criticism against its shooters. This is what it means to make a case for a cause.

Fourth, Ojukwu possesses a great skill to lead in the generation of ideas that could move both the Igbo and Nigeria forward. It is very important for a case maker to be, not just a parrot, but, an independent thinker and a generator of positive ideas himself. I think Ojukwu proves this quite convincingly in that interview. In several places he dreams of establishing an organization that will put in place "a higher concept of politics." He talks of the need for his party [APP] to address the issue of unemployment in Nigeria as well as "pronounce itself firmly on the question of secularity (of Nigeria)." He prays that the election of 2003 "may strive to enthrone a proper democracy where practice of true democratic principles is in place." According to him true politics should "never be a do-or-die affair." He outlines the duties of democracy in Nigeria to include fighting corruption, attacking what he calls "concentration of the poorest of the poor in the country," restructuring the nation to weaken the concentration of power at the center, empowering the states and helping to fashion them in the nature of American union of states. He is of the opinion that Nigerian states like their American counterparts should have their individual constitutions with their individual judiciary. According to him, he would prefer a one-term tenure for all office holders. But where Ojukwu seems to have scored a slam-dunk in that interview was in his blistering criticism of the press. According to him "the newspapers in Nigeria encourage bad behaviors by Nigerians…. It's the journalists that enthrone 419ners as leaders of our society. You can do a lot by ignoring certain things. Why can't you just take one news item and pursue it to the end? Where is the loot now that you have collected it? …. I want journalists to join in nation-building." Ojukwu shows his skills as a good advocate not only by knowing the critical issues through and through but also by broadening responsibility and commitments. Here he succeeds in making the media co-responsible for the Nigerian project. For him the media must exemplify utmost responsibility or they will become part of the problems of the nation.

Fifth and finally, there is absolutely no doubt that Ojukwu has come to terms with his place in Nigeria's history. He seems now to accept his lot in the context of Nigeria's checkered history. He now realizes that unlike many other Nigerians there is a terrible political limit to what he can reasonably aspire. In light of this, Ojukwu denied press report that he had declared to contest the presidency in 2003 under the banner of APP. According to him, that was "the wishful thinking" of those who "want to smoke me out." Answering a question on his political viability in present-day Nigeria, Ojukwu conceded that people might legitimately look at his past before considering him for anything: "I believe you will look at my past career, you will look at everything that I have passed through. You will remember how I started my career." This is Ojukwu come down to earth. I think this is good for him and the whole Nigeria. Salvation will dawn on Nigeria on the day many people will join the new Ojukwu in recognizing what they are truly capable of, and what their limitations are. Nigerians are not good at this at all. In our country, everybody believes that he/she could be president or governor. Previous choices and lifestyles count for nothing in peoples' decisions to participate in the political process in Nigeria. But in civilized countries nothing dredges history deeper than political participation. Candidates with controversial pasts are usually stopped on their tracks once they indicate their interest in politics or humiliated in elections. To save themselves and the people such traumatic spectacle, they usually do what Ojukwu is trying to do now, namely, search their souls and know what their limitations are.

But most importantly, Ojukwu now accepts responsibility for the part he played in bringing us to this standstill mess that is present-day Nigeria. And like Gowon he is now seeking redemption. While Gowon searches for his redemption through a national devotion termed "Nigeria Prays", Ojukwu is calling for something more dramatic and concrete. He is now urging to unite with his archenemy Gowon to start amending what they had destroyed in Nigeria through the civil war. Being mindful and humbled by his past he now thinks and suggests a way forward for him and all those who had in one way or the other contributed in bringing Nigeria to this catastrophic state: "It's like one time, I said to my good friend, Gowon, whom I call Jack, and said, please stop this foolishness of going round to pray for Nigeria. Let both you and I, go round hand-in-hand, shoulder-to-shoulder repairing whatever they say we damaged, materially, spiritually, that we will achieve greater result in national reconciliation, integration and unity. We are yet to do that." There is absolutely no doubt that the regenerated and renewed Ojukwu can be put to a great use on behalf of the Igbo and all Nigerians. He seems well primed to do a great job for our people if employed as the advocate in chief of the Igbo case for justice in Nigeria.

However there is still a catch. I believe that for him to be a credible case-maker for the Igbo desire for justice in Nigeria, and for him to talk convincing in Nigeria and to all Nigerians, he has to avoid political cheap shots and sniping. His Newswatch interview, despite its elegance and depth, was loaded with gratuitous cheap shots and ungrounded attacks on the present administration. There is no doubt that the present administration deserves to be criticized on specific issues like the Sharia, the Electoral Acts fraud, non-performance on the economy, etc. But it makes a very distasteful reading when every now and then one stumbles into sneaky attacks on the person of the president that has nothing do with issues at state. In the case of "My Plan" interview, the pervasive presence of such attacks tended to becloud and ruin the great message of the exercise. For instance, I shuddered each time I read that Obasanjo is worse than Abacha. Ojukwu knows this to be a blatantly false statement. It is almost impossible to rationally determine Obasanjo to be worse than Abacha. In all his imperfections and non-performance, Obasanjo appears light years better than Abacha, Babangida, Abubakar, Buhari put together. Then the question arises; why make a statement which one knows to be totally false? What real purpose does such a statement serve except to reveal the speaker as a whiner and a grumbler?

Moreover how can one make a credible case if one is mixing facts with fictions?

There is no gainsaying the fact that Ojukwu can be the best maker of the Igbo case for justice in the present Nigeria. But for him to be able to do this successfully he has to cut out some of his virulent sniping at some of his political enemies. He cannot act as APP attack dog as well as the Igbo case-maker for justice at the same time. Both roles can never gel. He has to choose one. If I could advise him, I would suggest that it is time for him to quit partisan politics completely. He has hardly had any luck playing partisan politics in the last twenty years. It is time to call it quits and concentrate on what he does best namely advocacy. He should channel all his energy advocating for justice for the Igbo and for all Nigerians. He will sound far more believable if he could make the justice case from a position of non-partisanship and statesmanship. Ojukwu should in fact seek to be one of the few voices of reason in the Nigerian sea of ethnic and partisan bigotry. Nothing will be more beautiful than to see him rise above the fray and talk in a manner that will be beneficial to all Nigerians.

Rather than waste his time seeking the hand of fellowship with Gowon which he could not accomplish when it counted the most some thirty-five years ago and may never have even now it has only a symbolic value, he should like Gowon embark on his own program to improve the situation of Nigeria however he deems fit. If he would invest in, say, preaching and advocating for justice and reconciliation all across Nigeria, he might accomplish far more for himself and for every Nigerian. It's been thirty-five years since he could have pulled off a major feat by working hand-in-hand with Gowon all across Nigeria to avert a monumental disaster that descended on our people during the civil war. Now, it seems absolutely lake to be falling over his head seeking for a hand of fellowship with Jack. The mortal damage has been inflicted on our psyche as Nigerians. We are a mortally wounded nation because of the war. That must live as the legacy of Jack and Emeka to generations of Nigerians to come. What is important now is that they, the key actors of our national tragedy, are having a change of heart and seeking for how to contribute to the needed healing of our wounds and the repair of the damage they caused. Gowon has chosen the path of calling all Nigerians to prayer. Ojukwu might consider making his own path that of calling all Nigerians to justice and reconciliation.