Theses On SNC: A Critique of Unreason & Other Essays

Femi Obayori Theses on SNC
THESES ON SNC:
A CRITIQUE OF UNREASON
&
OTHER ESSAYS
By
Femi Obayori
1
© Femi Obayori 2008
N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means,
electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise
without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
ISBN 978 088 395 9
Published by OBABOOKS ENTERPRISES

e-mail: ifafemi2001@yahoo.com
Printed and bound in Nigeria by Arymson Publicity

10, Oremeji Street,
Off Kekere-Owo Street
Ilasamaja-Mushin,
Lagos
2
Contents
Table of contents 3
Dedication 5
Preface 6
1. Sovereign National Conference revisited 7
2. Sovereign National Conference: beyond glib and glitz 9

-By way of introduction 9
-The Sovereign National Conference 10
-SNC is a popular struggle 15
-SNC and June 12 Struggle 16
-SNC in the era of fascism 18
-Leaders of the struggle for SNC 20
-By way of conclusion 21
3. SNC is a Popular struggle 23
4. Thesis on SNC: a critique of unreason 28

-Struggle as intellectual discourse: some clarification 28
-National dialogue 28
-Nigeria not sacrosanct: on law and justice 29
-The battle of ideas 31
-SNC and social consciousness 36
-On the amalgamation of 1914: a few words 39
-By way of conclusion: knowledge is power 41
-End note 41
5. Breaking out of she shackles of bureaucratism:

a benign mud-slinging
- Introduction: matters of theory are not yet settled
- Bureaucracy and bureaucratism
- bureaucratic tendencies of PRAG
-What is to be done: breaking out of the shackles of
bureaucratism
-Postscript
6. PRONACO’s People’s Conference: Continuation of
3
errors of assumptions, illusions and failures

-The way a conference crumbles: by way of
Introduction
-The root of failure: continuation of errors
-The road to failure: continuation of errors
Errors of principle
Errors of praxis
-Consequences of errors
7. Whither PRONACO? The October 6 event:
matters arising
-On democracy, legality and revolutionary duty
-Take over or mere protest
-The problem is ideological, not generational
-Personalities in struggle
-The errors of October 14
-The goal of October 29
8. PRONACO’s death throes: the price of procrastination

-Some remarks
-Some elements of procrastination
-A basket full of procrastination
-Benefits of procrastination
-Some more remarks
9. Age of Unreason: A fraternal critique of PRONACO’s Peoples

Conference
-Some useful remarks
-Our original theses are still alive
-Two general assemblies
-Comedy of errors
-On ideology and sentiments
-Catechism on errors and comedy of terror
4
Dedication:
In fond Memory of Mrs. F. T. Obayori
Who never really objected to my political line
Save for the motherly “Tread With Care”
5
Preface
What is published herein is by no means the result of an attempt to
produce a book on Sovereign National Conference (SNC) or put
together a How-To-Do-It manual. It is a collection of essays written in
the course of the author’s intercourse with like minds who were and
continue to be involved in getting to the root of the socio-political and
economic problems of the Nigerian project. Although most of the
essays herein were written in the last five years or thereabouts, they are
merely a development on the idea which spark the author first caught in
the mid-nineties when military dictatorship was the order of the day
and all sorts of ideas of conference were extant and the late dictator,
General Sanni Abacha, even had occasion to call a Constitutional
Conference. It was in the days when judicial murder and executive
lawlessness were the order of the day. It was also a time that tasked the
intellectual acumen of the young men and women involved in the
struggle. The kernel of the SNC idea expounded then is contained in
the essay Of Caricature Nationalism Reactionary Pan-Africanism and
Visionless Democracy which was later published in the collection
Season of Protest, Season of Betrayal in 2000. This view is reducible to
one thing: SNC is not a talkshop; it is a popular struggle. It formed the
central theme of the first part of the present publication.
The attempt by Obasanjo to bastardise the SNC in 2005 in
what he called the Constitutional Reform Conference and the parallel
attempt by the civil society under the aegis of Pro-National Conference
Organisations (PRONACO) which called a People’s Conference but
could not get its acts together to properly involve the people, formed
the raw materials for the essays in the second part of this publication.
Because the battle of idea was not won, the organisers of the People’s
Conference implicitly lost the battle of praxis. And it is the author’s
firmly held view that until we are ready to lay aside sentiments and face
the battle of ideas well-armoured and armed a genuine SNC will remain
a mirage.
Femi Obayori
December 26, 2008
6
PART I
Sovereign National Conference Revisited
The call for Sovereign National Conference (SNC), which

assumed the top of the agenda in the years of the June 12
Struggle, regained currency again shortly after Obasanjo
assumed office, the euphoria of democratic rule having cleared.
It was at a time when all who hitherto had seen the SNC as
opprobrious began to embrace it. Such oppositions, we must
immediately point out, were founded on either abject ignorance
or crass opportunism. The latter calls for SNC faired no better in
that they proceeded from the wrong premise that the essence of
SNC is the preservation of the unity of Nigeria, restructuring and
true federalism.
Also worthy of note is that the SNC calls are being made
against the background of the following: an executive arm of
government headed by a brash and recalcitrant president who
sees in the call for confederacy or regional autonomy, a mere
opinion, treason; a legislative arm of government bent on
frustrating the call for SNC because it sees in it a challenge to its
“power”; an international community that thinks its economic
interest is better protected within the framework of the present
pseudo-federal arrangement notwithstanding the economic
condition of the peoples within the country, the unheard-of level
of corruption; and of course against the background of
protagonists of SNC who do not know the full implications of an
SNC.
Indeed, what has changed is that the tempo of the SNC
call has dwindled, while at the same time the conditions that
necessitated SNC and the elements of the circumstances have not
changed, but intensified. Thirteen percent derivation has not
assuaged the anger of the Niger-Delta people nor could it have
done that. Unfolding events in the Southwest, including the wars
7
of Oodua groups against the Caliphate and its agents and the
unholy war of Obasanjo government against OPC, demonstrate
this. The crisis between the Fulani settlers and the Ilorin
(indigenous) Yoruba is still on-going. The Bauchi crisis, the
crisis in Jos and sundry others are clear evidence that if the call
for SNC has dwindled, it is not out of lack of need for one.
We must also admit that the only alternative to SNC in
our circumstance – the many political and cultural flares – is a
civilian fascism as exemplified by the President’s unreasoning
craves for State of Emergency. This is further revealed in its
most bizarre nature by the crudity, diabolical tendencies and
imperialist yesman characteristic of our Mr. President.
Having said this much, what is SNC? Is the SNC the
same thing as a mere Conference of Nationalities? What is the
essence of the SNC?
The first battle of the SNC is the battle of concepts and
goal – the battle of ideas. The argument in some quarters that
what is important is a conference whether Sovereign or not,
whether Constitutional or National, is untenable. The S is what
makes the whole thing meaningful. A Conference lacking
Sovereignty is like a eunuch. To remove the S is to have
castrated the conference even before it gets off the ground.
As to whether it should be a National Conference or
Constitutional Conference, the fact is that the issues concerned
go beyond constitution drafting; they are issues of principles of
co-existence of nationalities coerced into a country by the
colonial masters for their own economic ends. Hence, what is
being questioned and redefined is the basis of existence of the
country and not just writing a constitution. Constitution can only
come after the conferees have succeeded in defining common
factors of co-existence.
In this regard, what the imperialists think is of little
interest to us. They have no say. They are exactly part of the
problem. They have the right to think an SNC is not necessary
because it offers the opportunity of transforming the flag
independence they gave us forty years ago into genuine
8
independence. They have the right to be shiftily scared because

an SNC could only result in either of two things: the repartition
of Nigeria into several nations, or reorganization along a
genuinely democratic nationalistic line contrary to their interest.
Now, on the Sovereignty of the Conference. The
Sovereignty of the Conference goes beyond the mere declaration
in theory that the outcome cannot be overturned. Such
declaration is merely a statement of principle. It does not stop a
national assembly from jettisoning its outcome; it does not stop a
pro-imperialist or pro-caliphate regime from transforming itself
into a civilian fascist regime, nor does it stop the military from
staging a coup. The principle must therefore be translated to
practical programme. In practice the Sovereignty of the
Conference means the ability of the people to defend the
outcome of the Conference. This is foundationed on two solid
pedestals. One, the people must be part of the making of the
Conference. The pre-conference mobilisation must be based on
the mass initiative of the people – that is, National Conference
itself must have been preceded by conferences at various levels –
Village/Township, Ward, Local and State levels as well as
nationality and professional association levels. Secondly, it
means that while the conference lasts the people must be
politically active in the street, measuring the tempo of events
within with activism without. Attainment of such level of
freedom means the process of propagandizing and mobilisation
for the conference itself includes the creation of the rudiments of
a State by the various interested parties. It is only such that can
pressurize or compel an existing state to call one. The SNC is a
product and at the same time a continuation of our democratic
struggle.
Those who are afraid that the Conference might lead to
break up of the country must be told the truth: national chaos and
systemic collapse are part of such political activity as we are
describing. There is no way such an event would take place
without political ferment and not turn to a non-event. The
important thing is how to engineer the chaotic ferment into
9
regulated, directed, goal-oriented, socio-political ferment. After

all, as the saying goes, there is no sweet without sweat. The SNC
is a bitter pill that we must brace up ourselves to swallow if
really we are ready to be healed of our ailment.
Written 3-4, October 2001 and later published

in one of the dailies, which unfortunately
the author neither saw nor read,
as the piece was originally meant for
circulation among political friends.
10
Sovereign National Conference:

Beyond Glib and Glitz
1. By Way of Introduction
Once again the call for National Conference is on top of the

agenda. Just as in the days of June 12 Struggle (1993-1998), the
whole opposition seems to be united behind this great banner:
traditional advocates of the popular cause, political jobbers who
suddenly find themselves marginalised from the center of power
and bandwagoners of all sorts – where is that politician in
opposition, students union activist, labour activist, human rights
activist, seasoned bureaucrat in pension and ex-military man-
turned democrat who has not advocated National Conference?
Where is that ethnic leader shunned by Abuja or stunned by the
sting of the bees of poverty that has not queued behind this
banner? Where is that bigwig in religious circle, that seer, who
has not been directed by God to bear the message to the people?
And where is that armchair critic who has not devoted critical
moments to this critical issue?
But does this presuppose any clear understanding of
what the Conference entails? Does it reflect any knowledge of
the essential nature of the Conference, the principle, what is to
be done and the goal? What the Conference is expected to
achieve?
Definitely not. Opinions are as diverse and varied as the
groups, classes, marginalised parties and interest groups
canvassing these positions. And what is more, at all levels,
irrespective of groups, there appears to be a general capitulation
before the raging bull of unreason. The ideological juggernauts
of the struggle convulse and writhe in death throes, choked and
overwhelmed by the pervading fume of lack of knowledge and
quest for fame, bore on by undue faith and unequalled ignorance.
And once again we find ourselves in the deep waters of a
struggle that threatens to end the way June the 12 Struggle ended
in 1998: cheaply hand over power to the very enemies of the
11
struggle in a ceremonial applause because of lack of knowledge

and lack of preparedness.
That is why it has become very urgent to draw attention
to the grave errors being committed in the ensuing cacophonous
outbursts accompanying the canvassing of a nevertheless very
correct agenda. This more so if we are guided by the simple but
often ignored logic that when we arrive at a correct position from
a wrong premise, it is always difficult to consistently uphold and
defend such positions against the intellectual and practical
political battery of our (more powerful, better-resourced)
adversaries in power. Thus the great questions: what is this
conference all about? What is Sovereign National Conference?
Why Sovereign? Why National?
2. The Sovereign National Conference
The reduction of the idea of National Conference to a mere

National Dialogue on how Nigeria should be moved forward or a
conference on constitution merely begs the issue. It is a
reflection on the one hand of lack of clarity, or timidity on the
part of genuine advocates, and on the other mischief and an
attempt by our adversaries in power to confuse and waterdown
the essence of the struggle. The only consistently correct position
both from the point of view of historical and political logic and
from the point of view of practical politics is one: that the
conference must be National and not constitutional and
secondly, that it must be Sovereign.
2.1. The Conference Must Be National

Now, why National? What is the meaning of this? Why harp on
mere concept? Why not just call it anything once we are all
agreed on a conference?
No sir! We can’t just call it anything. The word must not
run short of the events and our appreciation of the events. There
is power in word - to make or to mar.
12
The conference must be national and not constitutional

because what is at stake is not the Constitution but rather the
Nation itself. We have never been a nation and no attempt is
being made to build a nation. Nigeria is a mere collection of
nations and nationalities forcibly harnessed and brought together
by the British colonial power without the consent of the various
peoples in order to foster the political economic aims of the
British Empire. Flag independence in 1960 did not change the
essential nature of this. As a neocolony, Nigeria only matters in
the global scheme of things as the market outpost of the
imperialist powers under the Anglo-American leadership run and
administered by local compradors. It is a country but not a
nation. There is no national culture, no national consciousness
and no national focus. The people of Nigeria are still very much
the peoples of the various nations and nationalities that make up
the country Nigeria. Why? Because there was never a time the
people came together to freely decide whether or not they want
to be part of the country, whether or not they want to join their
various destinies and build a nation, and the modalities for doing
this.
A conference on constitution presupposes such
agreement. It presupposes that the issue of nation has been
settled and what only need be done is to work out a constitution
to codify how people are to live together and jointly run their
affairs; but this is far from the truth. Thus, constitutional
conference, constituent assembly or constitutional reforms are a
mockery of the essence of what we are saying. And that is
exactly what all the previous conferences and constituent
assemblies have done. The pre-independence conferences of the
1950s were held in Britain under the watchful eyes of the British,
featuring the acknowledged leaders of the major ethnic groups
and restricted to defining systems of government and
constitution. They were actually meant to preserve and
strengthen the British economic dominance and political
influence after independence. And no wonder today that all the
major apparatus of the State- the Judiciary, Army, Police, Prison,
13
and Bureaucracy - are structurally and functionally relics or

refurbished versions of their essentially repressive colonial
precursors.
The post-independent conferences and constituent
assemblies were all meant to prevent the rocking boat of this
nationless state from foundering. They were all meant to manage
the crises which the country is inexorably bound up with and not
to find a final solution to these crises. For fear that the patient
might die in the process our great physicians continue to
prescribe sedatives rather than a major surgical operation to
severe and carve out the malignant tissues.
The National Conference is therefore not a conference of
constitutional lawyers or experts on how to draft constitution. It
is not a conference of political leaders and bigwigs to fashion a
constitution; it is a conference of all the ethnic groups,
professional associations, occupational unions, religious groups
and other interested parties in Nigeria, including such
disadvantaged categories as the youth, women, and disabled; and
even commercial sex workers. Only genuine, freely elected
representatives of these interested parties can participate in such
conference.
Political bigwigs and juggernauts who have not defined
relevance in any of these constituencies or any other recognised
and admitted by the conferees is a mere paper weight as far as
the conference is concerned. Opinion leaders who are not
relevant at this level must limit their opinions to the pages of
newspaper and TV talk shows. The fate of a country cannot be
subjected to the sentimental interest of this or that opinion
leader; it is serious business. This exactly is how things stand.
2.2. Sovereignty of the Conference
Some people are courageous enough to advocate National

Conference instead of a Constitutional Conference even when
their understanding of the difference between the two is hazy and
confused, but have not found the courage to insist on the
14
sovereignty of the conference. Then there are those opponents of

SNC who see the sovereignty as their only excuse to consistently
cling to in order to dispel the idea of a conference in thin air.
Hear them: there can’t be dual sovereignty; the people already
have their sovereignty in custody of the elected representatives at
the national assembly. The existing government is a sovereign
power; to talk about sovereignty is an invitation to anarchy et
cetera et cetera.
Balderdash! Arrant nonsense! We need to tell them loud
and clear: the conference is all about dual sovereignty, about
dual sovereignty that cannot subsist for too long. The people
must forge a new kind of sovereignty with which to dislodge the
sovereignty they willingly handed over to representatives who
have become turncoats, who now use this power to repress and
oppress rather than organise their life for higher quality.
We shall here take a brief look at the principle of the
qualification sovereign and later when we discuss the praxis of
SNC, look at its practical implication.
Those in power who argue that the conference cannot be
sovereign mainly use the argument in furtherance of an even
more parochial and mischievous position: that the National
Assembly is competent enough to discuss the fate of Nigeria as
its members are elected representatives of all the people. They
argue further that the assembly could transform into a constituent
assembly to reform or remake the existing constitution. But these
clever advocates of the old order have forgotten that these so-
called representatives of the people were elected on the basis of
the imbalances in the polity, which the conference is poised to
upturn. They were mandated, (if we discount the injustices
attending their jolly ride from their constituencies to the
assembly) to legislate on the basis of the existing constitution
and were sworn in allegiance to Nigeria as presently constituted
and orgasnised. Legally, therefore, and legitimately, they are not
fit to play the role being proposed for them.
Secondly, the very logic of self-preservation can never
allow the members of the National Assembly to dispassionately
15
address issues bordering on the conditions of relation of the

nations and nationalities that make up Nigeria. They can never
be expected to be sincere. Those of them that do not have their
eyes on higher offices must be busy rooting themselves for a
prolonged entrenchment while majority only see the assembly as
an opportunity to foundation their future ambition and nurture to
life future prospects in the political arena. Therefore, politically,
morally and psychologically, they cannot be expected to
genuinely play the role of destroying the old order and
midwifing the birth of a new one. They must get off the stage
sooner than spelt out by the so-called mandate they were given.
This is the bitter truth.
****
However, we must note that this position does not exclude our
participating in processes leading to election to the National
Assembly. With some measure of positional and organisational
deftness, we could turn the assembly into a center of struggle; we
could infect it with viruses that would initiate its self-destruction.
We could initiate cancerous growth and ultimately death of the
assembly, paving way for SNC. But this only to the extent that
such participation forms part of an overall strategic plan that
supercedes and does not become the strategy of our struggle
itself. Our strength, we must always remember, lies among the
disempowered people in the street.
****
What then is the real meaning of the conference?

The sovereignty of the conference simply means that its
decisions cannot be overturned by anybody or group of persons
acting legally or otherwise. The decisions arrived at by the
conferees supercede all previous positions on Nigeria. Neither
the so-called existing elected government nor some putschists
could be allowed to overturn its decisions. Such decisions are
final and cannot even be moderated by any anybody outside the
conference.
16
But that is in principle and theory. In practice, what does

this mean? How is this to be ensured? How do we practically
realize this? Or does any power inhere in the mere declaration
that this is the case?
The practical implication of this is that the people must
be prepared and ready to defend the outcome of the conference.
This, we must admit, will depend largely on the process leading
up to the conference. Is it a sectarian process, an elitist or cliquist
process, or a popular process involving the mass of the people?
That is the rub.
3. SNC is a Popular Struggle
Yes, SNC is a popular struggle. It is not an armchair thing. It is a

struggle that must derive from the mass initiative of the people
under the instigation and direction of their authentic ideological
and political leaders – it is a programme to galvanise and
organise the mass of our people. It is a programme that can only
work when it is predicated on work among the masses. It must
be founded on the maxim “the people are the makers of history.”
Until we have been able to make the idea of the conference infest
the mass of our people like air-borne contagions, we can’t talk
seriously about a grand conference that will succeed. The
popular interest in what the representatives of the people are
going to canvass at the conference is crucial to the process of
sovereignty. It is only when the people have participated actively
in the processes leading up to the conference that they can be
expected to be committed enough to defend its outcome to the
death. It is only when they have been part of the political
processes, the agreements and disagreements, the squabbles and
scuffles, and occasional outbursts of disorder leading up to the
grand conference that they can be expected to correctly array
themselves in good battle formation to confront and disperse
agents of the old order, whether they are paid thugs, police
running dogs or military putchists. Popular participation - that is
the bottom line. The people must be drawn through the fire and
17
brimstones of the struggle for them to become born again and be

prepared for the battle ahead - the battle for their body as for
their soul. No two ways about it. Any other road will surely lead
to perdition, and the people would again be fated to wake up
from their slumber one day to say: we were robbed; we were
done in.
But this most leaders of the struggle do not understand,
and are already leading the people astray, to the road of self-
destruction. This is dangerous. Not to call a conference at all is
better than to have a caricature conference called by supposed
people’s leaders. We are indeed likely to commit mistakes worse
than we committed during the June 12 Struggle. This perhaps is
the more reason why we must take a cursory look at the June 12
Struggle and the call for SNC. What are the relationships and the
lessons?
4. SNC and June 12 Struggle
The first salvo of SNC was fired in September 1990 when the
National Consultative Forum (NCF) unsuccessfully tried to
convoke a “conference” at the National Theatre, Iganmu, Lagos.
The years 1990 - 1993 was a period of mobilisation by few
committed but rather confused adherents of the idea. One
landmark event, however, during this period was the successful
holding of the first convention of the Campaign for Democracy
(CD) in Jos on 2nd May 1992. This convention of CD, which
was actually a coalition founded in 1991 and made up of 11
founding member organisations, featured 25 member
organisations and came up with a clear objective in the struggle
for democracy, namely: putting an end to military rule and,
secondly, institution of genuine democracy via a Sovereign
National Conference.
It was, however, the annulment of the June 12 election
and the revolutionising input of CD which suddenly blossomed
to an amalgam of 42 member organisations shortly after the
annulment that pushed SNC from the background as a sectarian
18
demand of a foresighted clique to a popular idea approximating

the will of the people. Between 1993 and 1998 the demand for
SNC featured consistently on the table of demands of June 12
revalidation advocates and the generality of strugglers against
military rule.
The death of Abacha on June 8, 1998 saw the renewal of
the struggle for June 12 with a new vehemence, just as SNC
advocates became cleaved in two: those who still wanted SNC
and those who felt all that was needed was the installation of
Basorun Abiola as President – revalidation of June 12 in their
perspective consisted in this.
The death of Basorun Abiola after having tea in the
presence of US envoy extraordinary Mr. Pickering on July 7
1998 was what cleared all illusions from the eyes of inconsistent
advocates of SNC. The demand then was for the institution of
Government of National Unity (GNU) with the sole
responsibility of convoking a Sovereign National Conference
(SNC). But the SNC advocates soon became confused and lost in
the waters of events which pace was never dictated by them in
the first place.
Between July 7 1998 and May 29 1999 the ruling elite
contrived and successfully consigned SNC to the background.
The role played by the G38, the democratic illusions of a section
of the progressive politicians, ethnic illusions of the Yoruba and
lack of vigilance of leaders of the democratic struggle in this
unholy summersault we shall save for another medium. Thus
entered the era of five (5) years of fascist development under the
overlordship of a Yoruba man from Abiola’s hometown of
Abeokuta who is also a former military Head of State. June 12
struggle became only part of our memory. And SNC has to fight
a life and death battle. But the 5th Year of the fascist has shown
clearly that there is no alternative; SNC must once again become
the order of the day and the lessons of June 12 Struggle must not
be lost on the leaders of the struggle: the streetcraft must be
reappraised, the war dresses must be brought down from the
racks and the ordinance re-accessed. This is the story of June 12
19
and its relevance to the struggle against our emergent fascists

using the road of SNC.
5. SNC in the Era of Fascism
The calls for SNC made in the period 1990 to 1998 were made in
the era of military dictatorship; then it was easy to see reason
why compromises with the government should be ruled out. But
today (1999- 2004)) it is the era of fascism in the guise of civil
rule. It is an era when a democratically elected government is in
place but this government can no longer pretend to be
democratic. The ruling classes can no longer rule in the old way;
it must bare its fangs. The leveling of Odi in 1999 was the very
first major parting of ways of the fascist regime with democratic
approach to resolving issues; the declaration of state of
emergency in Plateau State on May 18, 2004 was a most
consummate expression of the dawning of full-blown fascism.
Between these two events were a whole lot of other horrendous
assaults on democratic development encouraged and goaded on
by the very fact that the society at large was swathed in the
sarong of illusions. The road to fascism, after all, is painted with
many illusions: economic illusions, democratic illusions, ethnic
illusions and even spiritual illusions.
Future economic prospects opened up by unhindered
democratic developments; the plea to allow ‘our nascent
democracy’ some time to stabilise; the ethnic illusions of the
Yoruba who felt Obasanjo is their son and must be given some
chance to turn things around and of course the stunting of
intellectual and spiritual development of the leaders of the
struggle under such circumstance of myriad of illusions were
some of the real conditions on which fascism grew and
blossomed.
The overall effect of this was the slowing down of the
pace of development of SNC idea and process. This was amply
demonstrated on March 6, 2004 at the maiden meeting of the
Citizen’s Forum (CF). The leaders tried to beg the issues. They
20
shied away from a pointblank declamation on SNC. They failed

to let the people know that democracy is impossible in Nigeria as
presently constituted and that the civilian dictatorship can only
be confronted by a popular programme - SNC. The May 3rd
2004 Conference of Nigerian Political Parties (CNPP) rallies in
Lagos and Abuja and the CF rally of May 15 and the way these
were ruthlessly put down by the State, however, gave enough
food-for-thought to those still in the mucky waters of fascist
illusions. If on May 3rd General Buhari, Ojukwu and others were
merely escorted through the streets of Abuja by the police, on
May 15 in Lagos Soyinka, Ayo Obe, Gani Fawehinmi, Femi
Falana and Dr. Beko were assaulted with enough tear gas to
remind them of the dark days of the military. Femi was in a fit
from the tear gas and Beko broke his glasses, while Soyinka was
briefly the guest of the commissioner of police at the Lion
Building.
The declaration by the PDP chairman Audu Ogbe on the
eve of the June 9 NLC-led national strike on oil price hike that
the strike was a declaration of war further confirmed the fascistic
nature of the government and transformation of the party to a
fascist outfit.
In this circumstance what sort of leaders does the
struggle for SNC demand, and what sort of leaders has our
struggle called forth? The bitter truth must be told; for in the
final analysis that is all we owe posterity and ourselves. The
celebration of the 11th anniversary of June 12 elections and the
coterie of heroes that graced the occasion, their speeches, or
rather ramblings on, is a testimony to the enormity of the trouble
the democratic struggle is in. That occasion surely reminds one
of a few lines from Alexander Pushkin’s Eugene Onegin 1(LIII.
1-8) which I would crave the indulgence of the audience to quote
in full:
The yard was bursting with dependants,
there gathered at the coffin-side
friends, foes, priests, guests, inured attendants
of every funeral; far and wide;
21
they buried uncle, congregated

to eat and drink, then separated
with grave goodbyes to the bereaved
as if some goal had been
achieved.
6. Leaders of the SNC Struggle
June 12, 2004 was a reunion of self-acclaimed heroes of June 12,

to identify with the struggle and pat one another on the back for
remaining steadfastly committed to the struggle, but shying away
from the main issue on ground – SNC. It was like a childhood
game of sort – dance around the bride, rigmarole, tease, but
never touch her; she’s too hot, she’ll melt, nay, evaporate. Those
who want to lead the struggle for SNC in the era of full-blown
fascism must be well prepared. The days of seeing every
political platform as an opportunity to show off and demonstrate
oratorical skills must be left behind. The leaders must be ready to
go to the masses. They must get down from the political
platforms of grand rallies and TV talk shows and penetrate the
neighbourhoods, breach all elitist barriers, to carry the message
of SNC evangelically to the mass of our people. This is an era
that does not call for those leaders who talk glibly of past
achievements at every forum or opportunity. Voluble
declamations by de-ideologised political leaders must give way
to serious talks; the sentimental, psychology-driven leader who
is carried away by popular appeal must give way to the ideology-
driven leader of the struggle. Clear-headed non-orators need not
seize the podium; they must be ready to package and manage
empty-headed but committed orators. Leaders who have nothing
meaningful to say to the masses must get off the political stage to
the background, where they will be less visible but more useful.
Sentiments and selfishness, the drive to want to be seen and
heard, must not be allowed to becloud our appreciation of reality.
The struggle for SNC is serious business. This exactly is how
things stand.
22
7. By Way of Conclusion.
In this lecture, we have deliberately ignored the issues of

modalities for calling the conference, mode of representation and
all that. This is so because what we have set out to do is
clarification of principles and perspectives on the essence of the
conference and, of course, a justification for it. It is enough,
however, to make the following points:
i. that the conference is not a mere conference of

leaders but that of freely chosen representatives of
the people
ii. that the Grand Conference must be preceded by pre-
conferences at various levels at which the various
interest groups will formulate their positions on the
basis of popular participation and mass initiative of
the people.
iii. that fascist regime cannot call a genuine conference;
the responsibility to initiate and define modalities for
the conference rests with the interest groups and
nationalities that believe in the conference. Thus
preparatory meetings by the groups is where to
begin.
iv. that activities of the conferees at the grand
conference must be backed up by activities of the
masses on the street. SNC is a political programme.
It must possess the minds and bodies of the people
in readiness for the task ahead. The mass must by
activities be in a position not only to defend the
outcome of the conference, but also to be active
enough to keep their representatives in check, to
prevent them from derailing or betraying the
mandate vested in them.
This is the way things stand.
23
Friday 18th June to Saturday 19th June, 2004

Lagos, Nigeria.
Femi Obayori
24
Sovereign National Conference is

a Popular Struggle
The SNC is a popular agenda. It is a struggle of the masses. It is

not the mere joining of issues in the boardroom by selected
representatives of the people on the question of constitution,
neither is it an idea exclusively within the purview of some
experts, patriots or natural leaders (whatever that means) as the
case may be. It is about the question of peoplehood/nationhood
of the various peoples within the Nigerian enclave, their control
over their social, economic, political, and cultural existence –
their right to self-determination within or outside Nigeria, the
issue of economic relations, issues of interest of classes and
interest groups. It is a project that derives from social
contradictions among the people and which political viability
and moral justification can only depend on its popular essence.
Such popular essence is not just in terms of it being that which is
geared towards improving the condition of the peoples in
Nigeria, but in practical terms translates to its deriving from the
mass initiative of the people. It is therefore rather preposterous
and fatuous for anyone of the Left extraction to conceive of the
SNC as that consisting of the fashioning out of a humane
constitution on the basis of a humane vision by political
scientists, lawyers or intellectuals, just as it is a most insolent
demonstration of ruling class political insolvency for the civilian
dictatorship to want to reduce a popular project to a mere
conference of elders or opinion leaders. The illogic of such
views can only be matched by their stupidity. The rest is fraud,
insincerity, and chronic political pick-pocketing.
****
We have had cause to elucidate on why the conference has to be
Sovereign and National and not merely a Constitutional
Conference on a number of occasions in the past. But then we
must never tire of hammering on this point. It in fact defines the
very soul of SNC both in theory and in practice. To shy away
25
from hammering on it is to begin to collapse under the

ideological bombardments of the ruling class. The conference
has to be national because the point at issue is that of
nationhood. One, that the various peoples imprisoned within
Nigeria are being deprived of the right to give expression to their
peoplehood of the right to give expression to their
peoplehood/nationhood having been coercively brought into the
Nigerian Union by the British colonialists. Secondly, that
Nigeria itself as it were is not yet a nation and nothing is being
done to fashion a nation out of it. There is no national culture
and no real national goals except formal flukes foisted on all in
order to secure a nominal place in the gathering of nations.
Hence, the need to first be agreed on the minimum conditions for
co-existence before discussing constitution, and more, a
constitution to which the people must make contributions – the
various interest groups, classes, trade union organizations e.t.c.
and which must allow the various nations and nationalities the
right to secession as might be desired.
The sovereignty of the conference simply means the
outcome or decisions arrived at cannot be upturned or vetoed by
anybody, executive, legislative, judicial or otherwise. No
individual or group of persons could legally or legitimately
query the decision of the conferees or subject such decisions to
modification, moderation or rejection.
Thus the National Assembly, constituted by
representatives elected on the basis of the existing constitution
(warped as it is) is morally, ideologically and practically
incompetent to do this. They are not spiritually tempered enough
to do it, nor is it within their mandate. And not by any
mathematical calculation, logical conclusion or dialectical
extrapolation can their mandate be translated to encompass
discussing the nation at the level we are talking about. The cap is
too big for them to wear.
****
26
As we have said before, SNC is not a forum or platform for some

eggheads to jaw-jaw on the problems of the nation and fashion
out a Constitution for Nigeria. It is not a battlefield for men of
timber and caliber or some juggernauts to slug it out. It is an
assembly where the aspirations of the various peoples in Nigeria
would be submitted for scrutiny and lowest common factors
determined as basis for continuous joint existence or separate
developments as the case may be. It is a conference of
representatives bearing the mandates of their peoples. The
process leading to it must be a most democratic one both in
terms of its rudiments and in terms of its overall essence. It is
also a revolutionary process. SNC is not a palliative concocted or
conceded to by a ruling class that has lost its grip on the
“Nation”. It is supposed to be a revolutionary tearing away from
the past, a cataclysmic eruption putting asunder all old ossified
lore and modes of organization. There could be fanatics and
sacrificial lambs. There could be nihilists, but this does not
discount from the popular essence of the process. And that is
why the popular mass would queue behind the group or party
that best sums up or reflects the lowest common multiples
(LCM) of their aspirations. In essence, I am saying it involves
the collation and factoring of anger and hopes of the people into
action. It is not a conference of some maverick leaders.
This brings us to the need to make a distinction between
populism and popular process. The fact of the struggle being a
popular one must not blind us from being weary of opportunists,
those prancing populists, who see in every struggle only the
opportunity for exhibitionism and populist phraseology while in
the real sense only serve their own personal interest or the
narrow interest of a small (cult) group. We must downplay the
influence of individuals, sages and nihilistic mavericks. The
people, the social movement - that is the point at issue. Secret
plots and clandestine ploys only make meaning to the extent that
they are to serve as lubricants of the popular movement and not
clearing houses for tapping at the best resources of the
movement for some other political ends. And I will explain:
27
popular movements often bring out some of the hidden potentials

in people (in certain individuals). Such potentials could either be
used to further the interest of the movement or distilled/stolen by
the agents of the status quo who are ever interested in building a
human resource pool for the advancement of their class interest.
Undue populism on the part of the progressive makes him a
potential victim of such plot. Why? Because he is bound to fall
for any praise-singer.
Now, having made these clarifications, the question
arises: what are the contents of SNC as a popular struggle? There
is need to match our principles with practice. The struggle for
SNC calls for agitation, propaganda and conscientisation of the
masses.
There is the need to put in place a propaganda machine
that is capable of matching and countering the disinformation
and disorientation machine of those who benefit from the present
arrangement. We need to be able to work up the masses to the
level of mass psychosis – a psychosis induced by the love for
SNC, for change. The fever of SNC must catch the people.
Leafleteering, advertorials, and even SNC websites are some of
the propaganda means open to use.
Also, there is the need to send agitators among the
people. Agitators must invade the work places, schools, transport
facilities, farmsteads and the neighbourhoods. The project must
be pursued evangelically, with fanatical zeal. Firebrands are
needed -diehards- to tell the people, to convince them that their
decision or indecision at the various levels of conferences (we
shall come to this later) will go a long way in determining their
future and the future of their children.
Then, there must be conscientisation along the line of
SNC. The agitators, the propagandists, the organizers need to be
educated along the line of SNC. The process of fractional
distillation to bring out those who have acquired the ideological
level of consciousness, those that can be called cadres, those who
understand SNC in our own context and who are able to on the
28
basis of such understanding respond logically to events as they

unfold must be churned out with unprecedented speed.
Then there is the need to organize the masses along the
line of the SNC goal. SNC organisations must emerge. Begin
from mass meetings in the neighbourhoods, rallies at schools and
workplaces, talks in churches and mosques, market squares and
sundry other places and institutions where the people can be
found en masse, then follow up by creation of cells in such
places. It is a difficult task but this must be accomplished. From
cells to local chapters, regional or state chapters, to the ethnic or
nationality conference or pan-Nigeria conference, conference of
professionals or interest groups as the case may be – the
initiative must flow from below, from the masses.
03-05/12/2004
Lagos, Nigeria
29
Thesis on SNC: a Critique of Unreason
1. Struggle as Intellectual Discourse: Some Clarification
Lest we are accused of verbosity or literary turgidity, the point

indeed has to be made from the very start that this discourse is
not meant for the masses, though it is about them, about their
activity, their life. It is a discourse among the intellectuals of the
struggle (intellectuals not in the sense of school certificate
carrying intellectuals or dry-as-dust rote learners, but those who
have internalised the logic, strategy and tactics of social motion,
of social change, through study and through action; those who by
a process of social fractional distillation have been thrust forth at
the vanguard of the social movement) and we must be forgiven
the repeated assumption of certain premises. Those who cannot
vibrate at certain minimum frequencies can be excused from this
debate. We have no explanation. No apology is extended. People
can continue to moralise and sentimentalise where the intention
is not to clear all illusion and abstract out the substance
(indiscernible to the ordinary mind) but where resolution of the
problem is the issue, then all sentimentalism and narrow excuses
and considerations effervesce with unimaginable alacrity.
2. National Dialogue
The National Dialogue is going to end as it started, as a farcical

rehash, a tragicomedy of errors of assumptions, illusions and
failures. Good intention is not enough (if at all the intention was
good); it must be matched with good logic. Substituting a
conference with a dialogue, a mere discussion among groups,
seems to limit the point of departure to a political expediency
and not any attempt to fundamentally affect the polity. But then a
problem is not solved by putting the cart before the horse, neither
is it solved by conjuring up the horse before the cart. The horse
in reality must be made to pull the cart. To assume that all that is
needed are constitutional reforms, which could be achieved by
30
assembling some eggheads, is the mother of all errors. A

constitution, no matter how ‘beautiful’ must never be our focus.
The conference as a process is more important. Why? Because it
is possible to arrive at a correct position via an erroneous
argument, erroneous analysis and unreason. When we arrive at a
correct position through the wrong route, we are likely to run
into problem in implementing the outcome of such decisions or
resolutions.
3. Nigeria is not Sacrosanct: On Law and Justice
One of the objections being raised against a Sovereign National

Conference is that sovereignty should be out of the way; that to
talk about sovereignty is to challenge the basis of the nation and
the constitution. In essence, that SNC is a platform of illegality.
Nigeria is a legal entity, but this does not mean it is
legitimate. Nigeria has a constitution. But the constitution is not
God-given (Just as Nigeria Itself is man-made and not God’s
creation). All the talk about God the maker of all that exists,
good or bad, is balderdash. It is part of the justification of the
frantic attempt by the ruling elite to escape with their loot.
Thus there are draconian laws, unjust laws, decrees and
inhuman laws, laws with human face and just laws. There could
be legality without justice. SNC approaches the issue of legality
and legitimacy from the point of view of social justice and
equity. Laws are codified systems of rules on the basis of which
a society or community is governed. Such laws are usually
fashioned after the perceptions, ideas and the real interests of the
ruling elite in any age / society.
Thus colonial laws favoured colonialism, just as under
the present civilian rule the laws are skewed in the favour of big
businesses and social emasculation of the working classes and
declasses.
The legitimacy of our action derives from the moral high
ground on which we stand when certain processes are put in
motion. The attempt to right the wrong of imbalances among the
31
nations and nationalities in Nigeria, the insistence that the

consent of the people is a fundamental point of departure in
building a nation from motley aggregate of nationalities, the
recognition of the rights of peoples to self-determination (up to
the point of separate existence), the effort to torpedo the existing
unjust laws, in short, belong in the realm of social justice and
legitimacy.
****
We must be permitted to digress a little. It is a positive

digression nonetheless. The very constitution which the
opponents of SNC pretend to hold sacrosanct is that which they
daily defy and defile. This law is not an ass; it has been turned
into a sex- slave; it is not a prostitute, it is a sex- slave in pudah.
Thus our defenders of this constitution sin both against
womanhood and God at the same time. But occasionally the
ruling elite put away the veil and hand our chaste lady some
spaghetti tops and G-strings to match, not for a house party but
for a street carnival. Such is the morality of the lovers of the
constitution.
4. The Battle of Ideas
The first battle of SNC is the battle of ideas, the battle of

concepts and goals. Our consciousness of relations among
peoples and classes- of conflict of interest- is the central
paradigm of the struggle we are engaged in. Irrespective of the
colouration, every struggle is a reflection of the contradictions
between classes.
****
The ruling classes will try to foist on the whole society an idea of
conference that when translated to practice will not
fundamentally turn things around. Irrespective of ethnic
background, they all benefit from the present arrangement. To
conceive of the restructuring of Nigeria or its breakup is to
challenge the very superstructure which is the result of their
32
neocolonial economic system and at the same time, its

justification. They therefore from the very start try to sell ideas
which impose limits on the thought and actions of the rest of the
society. They hammer on peace and the need to move Nigeria
forward. They look at the oil blocs of the South-South (Niger -
Delta), contemplate the possibility of losing what does not in the
first place belong to them but which they possess by law and
plunder (through illegal bunkering) and say seven quick God-
forbids. They therefore are quick to present those who make an
objective presentation of the problem as enemies of progress,
revolutionaries, terrorists or cantankerous crises zealots.
All other ideas are treated as opprobrious, anathema,
nay, ungodly. They wrongly present the whole issue as that
within the purview of some experts, bureaucrats and learned
men. To them a correct idea of the conference can only flow
from the grey head of some professor of political science, lawyer
or seasoned administrator and elder statesman - those who run
the very system we are poised to change and by implication
benefit from the ruin of the society. They frantically try to
exclude the real leaders of the people, the public advocates and
those who are the conscience of the society. They also try to
expunge from the agenda issues of rights of the people from
point of view of class interests and the interest of special
categories such as women, children youth and students. The
ethnic and cultural dimensions are raised to the top of the agenda
to the exclusion of other elements. Culture is appropriated in
bastardy, in vulgar forms, rather than in its dynamic,
scientifically appreciated form. They try to invent role for the
traditional rulers and other "custodians of culture."
****
The conference idea as a gathering of opinion leaders or leaders
of thought appointed by the civilian dictatorship without
recourse to democratic procedures and popular participation is
the height of this bastardy. Such idea of conference is an attempt
to transmute the committee of a clique or group on the
33
conference to the conference itself. It is the mother of all

unreason as far as the popular masses and their intellectual
leaders are concerned. Stealing by trick, which the ruling elite do
in the name of business transaction, is what they thus try to
import into the arena of politics. If the masses cannot be trusted
to appoint the right people into the conference by election but
must rely on the ingenuity of the cabal in appointing the
conferees, then public conduct of affairs becomes rather
preposterous. But it is not only the bourgeoisie that is being
swept away by this stream of unreason in flood; seasoned
Marxists and eminent leftists are also being hurled down the
valley of unreason from another perspective entirely. The slogan
"workers of all countries unite" has blinded some of our
orthodox Marxists from seeing the tree for the wood. Nationality
struggle, the quest of the ethnic groups in Nigeria for Self-
determination, for autonomy, to them, is antithetical to this
Marxist slogan. A conference in which ethnic groups have
prominent position would adversely affect the interest of the
working class, they claim. Some of them reckon unity in terms
of bringing all proletariat under one big banner (country), in
terms of number alone. Thus just as the capitalists abhor
smallness; so do the leftists, the seasoned, orthodox dry-as-dust
Marxists abhor smallness. They have not woken up from the
slumber of soviet-ism, to properly appreciate Lenin’s position on
the self-determination of nation’s and nationalities.
But the fact is that such Marxists serve the interest of
international capitalist and the local comprador than the interest
of the workers. And what is more, they are advocates of fascist
suppression of the rights of people in theory. But let us abandon
the orthodox Marxists to their orthodoxly un-Marxist errors.
People should endeavor to read Marx and Lenin with a little
more presence of mind.
****
34
The lumpen proletariats abhor ideas. They want action, quick

action at that. Their motto: little input, mammoth reward. They
have no patience for fine phrases and bookish analyses. They
only need to be directed, they only need to be summoned by
person or group of persons who could resolve their most
immediate problem of pelf and show-off and they are game.
They need a Capone, someone to direct them to take action, not
by word of mouth, but by his own action and they are on the
field, riot zealots that they are - looting and burning. They are
not likely to be patient enough for a meticulously planned
conference; they may not be interested in a democratic conduct
of the conference. They may not be disposed to the conference as
a process, nor are they likely to see anything wrong in the
appointment of representatives into the conference. Their
greatest concern is the outcome of the conference. They are
lovers of small empires and would rather prefer that the
conference led to a break up of the country where some of them
could also emerge as small lords and small bouncers and are
likely to be uplifted from position of area boys or small scale
hustlers to that of area fathers and big time hustlers. Thus their
strength magnifies when the strength of a nation or country palls.
They live by rage and fire and triumph over the society in
moments of ferment. They represent the most consistently
inconsistent and incontinent of all classes. They will go with and
bow to the class or group whose idea is triumphing or seems to
be triumphing at any point in time.
****
The peasantry is standing aloof. They are cut off from the battle
of ideas just as they have always featured in the so-called
democratic process as mere number/ demographic factors whose
votes can be stolen or tricked from them, so are they related to in
the SNC agenda. They will toe the line of the first class to appeal
to them, to attempt to sway them. The feudal rurality is best
equipped to do this. But with a little more work on the part of
35
other classes, the urbanity could impact on them meaningfully,

after all, the rurality is also being drawn daily by the exorcising
vortex of globalisation and the accompanying democratic
illusions. The encroachment of the urbanity on the land and
brains of the rurality is the very condition for the emancipation
of the rurality from the clutches of modernity and its own
backwardness. Those who have the most progressive idea of
SNC must catapult themselves to the forefront of this social
motion.
****
The intelligentsia is not a class whose interest can be clearly

defined in the sense of workers and bourgeoisie or feudal lord
and the peasant. They are the intellectuals - men of ideas -
spanning classes and spinning the classes, swaying them with
ideas. Under an oppressive regime, some of them queue behind
oppression, justifying every action of the oppressors, others
stand opposed to oppression, while a third party, still, either
stand aloof as sagely on-lookers of the game between two
factions of a lowly society, or as referees. On both sides of the
divide - the oppressors and the oppressed - stand the
intellectuals, bold, gaunt, in open confrontation, engaged in a
tug-of-war and war-of-words at the head of the rest of divided
society. Society never created a more motley aggregate than
these philistine, shallow minds, and phrase-flinging opinionated
bigots. And only occasionally does this class throw up men of
original ideas. In the era of globalisation the intellectual has
become more and more grant-driven researcher who must
publish or perish. The public speaker, the man of letters, is
becoming more and more a social alchemist who must put to test
some weird hypothesis and moribund method. Where are we
likely to meet the intellectual? Where are we most likely to
encounter him, if not where he is trying to wash down the brain-
muddling debris of some high-sounding idea, where there is the
battle of ideas? But then he who pays the piper dictates the tune.
The intellectual in the era of globalization must regularly tumble
36
down his ivory tower throne to the not-too-high mahogany desk

of research institutes, and NGOS to package and garnish the
oppressor’s ideas in fine phrases and earn some buck or perish.
This Sovereign National Conference is going to be
appropriated by two factions of intellectual on behalf of
diametrically opposed factions of the society. Those who
genuinely want to analyze and study the concept from their class
points of view and those who are engaged in it as mere academic
exercise and /or in order to make some money and ‘get on in
life’.
5. SNC and Social Consciousness
We have said the first battle of SNC is the battle of ideas. We

here try to abstract ourselves from academic or intellectual
niceties to the arena of a practical or rather pragmatic intellectual
discourse. Our ability to possess the body and mind of the
masses is very crucial to the success of SNC in the interest of the
masses. Social psychology, sentiment and psychotic zealousness,
the willingness to die for an idea even before it is fully
understood, is one viral infection we must spread among the
people. By propaganda, the contagion of a popularly conducted
National Conference must be spread among the people. The
second stage is the fractional distillation of, from the motley
aggregate of populaire, those who not only accept the idea, but
also have become die-hards by understanding, those who know
the essence of the struggle and are capable of organising the
people on the basis of clear understanding. They interpret reality
as they unfold. We here must make a distinction between the
action zealot, the populist and opportunist of all modes and those
whose actions are propelled by knowledge of reality and
commitment to the cause, just as a distinction must be made
between the committed but uninformed activist and the
knowledge-driven cadre.
Human society has developed to a stage where things
must not be left to the laws of social motion alone. Human
37
beings must consciously oil the wheel of the vehicle of social

change; the road to the future must be carefully chosen and
recharted to suit our vehicle. The age of leaving things in the
blind hands of fortune are dead and far-gone.
****
The apostles of divine intervention in the resolution of the crises

of the "Nigeria Nation" do more than a great service to those
who benefit from the present state of social injustice. They do
more damage to the development of social consciousness for
change than those who preside over the rotten system. No divine
emanation can substitute for the synthesis of concrete political
line, followed by the drawing up of practical political
programme. The rule of an egghead or an ordained leader is out
of the question. Divine emanations in social matters are the
results of social contradictions and correlate more or less with
the views and interests of the group/party represented by the
temporal (human) medium of such emanation. Nigeria must
therefore be discussed -to be or not to be. The point of departure
cannot be that bordered by a lot of ‘no-go areas’ such as
agreement that Nigeria is indivisible. In trying to resolve their
problems human beings need to be able to consider all
possibilities on the basis of reality as exists. The human mind
must be allowed a free reign. The cauldron of social
consciousness must be allowed to ferment and boil over, to foam
and steam until the broth congeals to a firm palatable
consistency. The sentimental appeals and social psychological
fervor must be allowed free reign among various interests at
various levels of meetings until eventually a meaningful and
rather more consistent idea representing the lowest common
factors, the very substance unifying all the elements, can be
distilled from the roaring confusion.
****
38
Do not be deceived; our friends in government are not interested

in SNC. They have no consciousness for social change. Their
consciousness is that of petty politicking and SNC is merely
another platform on which to operate and pretend to be in tune
with the popular aspiration. Mundane-mindedness and all the
miasma of democracy in the era of globalisation have swamped
and blurred their cerebral cortex. Double-speak, which they do
to the accompanying encomium of bootlickers, hecklers and
fellow fraudsters, is what they intend doing on the SNC
platform. They must be stopped. Even when they publicly
renounce their putrid pedigree and reinvent the past in the hue
and noise of the future, the people must be weary of them. The
fine phrases they haul out of their politricking consciousness
must not be allowed to infect the popular consciousness. The
authentic leaders must search out their intellectual Achilles’ heel
from those emanations and verbal ejaculations, which are rooted
in their subconscious and use this to bind and hurl them out of
the public arena. They must never be allowed a moment of
respite. It is a battle of classes, of interests, and just as in street
battles, weapons clash, so must words be made to clash with
resounding reports.
****
You cannot give what you don’t have or what you don’t have
control over (which is one and the same thing). For a man to
impact on the consciousness of the people, he also must be a
conscious individual. That is, his individual consciousness must
necessarily be a subjective reflection of the social consciousness
or an early manifestation of the social consciousness.
But then social consciousness is also class-consciousness
a la Karl Marx. Hence intellectual prowess is not enough
qualification in politics. Those who use their knowledge as a
weapon to assault and waterdown the psyche of the popular
mass, bog them down in the miasma of the sentimental and place
obstacles in the way of their ideological development as
consistent defenders and traffic wardens of the popular cause
must be prevented from taking the center stage in the intellectual
39
battle of SNC. The battle for the soul of SNC cannot be carried
out with undue civility. It is a bitter battle in which all the bilious
verbiage and unsparing polemics must be excused. In this battle
of words, we must not hesitate to call a spade a spade. The
lackeys of the system and quislings cannot be spared their
rightful cognomen. Each group, party and clique must be bold
enough to wear its colour as face cap and bright tops. Those who
refuse to wear their totems should not blame us when we help to
plaster their foreheads with their signs of the ANTICHRIST. It is
operation show your colour. No double-speak.
6. The Amalgamation of 1914: Few Words.
The objective of SNC is not to do a deathblow to the errors of

1914 amalgamation. For amalgamation is merely one of many
errors in a train of errors. Rather, it poises to put asunder the
illusion of over a century. Amalgamation was preceded by the
establishment of protectorates. The attempt to go back to pre-
1966 regional arrangement or to pre-1914 is part of the short-
changed fraction of the ruling elites' tricks to waterdown the
essence of change impelled by the brewing contradiction in the
polity. It is part of the greedy calculations of the southern
fraction of the ruling clique who cannot take their eyes off the oil
fields of the South-South but are equally already tired of playing
the second fiddle to the Northern fraction, which needless to say
has played a most conscious role in sustaining the collective
interest of the ruling clique. The southern compradors are no
doubt in soup. The political economy of their quest for a national
dialogue is as clear as noonday. The wind has blown and the
people definitely have seen the cloaca of their hen. This is the
season to put an end to the consecration of abject obscenities. All
unreasoning calculations and miscalculations of the ruling elites,
North and South, must be exposed to the ordinary people. All the
escape routes must be blocked, like rat in the field, leaving only
the orifice for smoking with pepper and tobacco ember and the
40
outlet where stand guard the people machetes drawn. All talk
about amalgamation is balderdash.
Men must learn to match their desire with objective
reality, with their destiny. The desire for a united Nigeria, if and
when it runs contrary to the logic of social motion, that is, to
objectively conditioned reality, which is an immanent law of
society, must be put aside for us to be able to grapple with our
reality. In the era of globalisation, which is conditioned by a very
high level of development of productive forces and
unprecedented level of development of capitalist contradiction
and the measure to cushion same, all parochial social alchemy
must be left behind lest we face damnation. Thus if we have not
set out to keep Nigeria one, by the same logic we have also not
set out to break it. What we have set out to do is to lay the basis
for democracy and social justice, a process which may include
either of these.
7. By Way of Conclusion: Knowledge Is Power
The essence of what we have been saying since this piece

opened therefore boils down to this: that there cannot be a
genuine national conference until the battle of ideas have been
fought and won by the people. The first battle of SNC is the
battle between a correct idea that sees the SNC as part of the
political activities of the masses, meant to reshape their life
rather than that meant to satisfy some political expediency. Such
a battle can only be won if the leaders of the masses are prepared
to study and are prepared to reduce the objective of their quest
for knowledge to that of advancing the cause of the masses.
Their knowledge must derive from reality and again be put
unquestionably to the transformation of reality. All other brilliant
expositions for whatever purpose are reactionary and must be
combated.
31-12-2004
41
On dual sovereignty: the line of duty

Let us not deceive ourselves, the Sovereign National Conference is meant to put asunder
the existing order. Unjust power must be made to bow to the power of social justice. The
conclave of the parasitic few is destined for the gallows through the Port of No Return.
The government of the day needs not be deceived, tricked, cajoled or courted; the
conference is poised to lead it to the slaughter slab as a sacrificial lamb on the altar of
social justice. Let’s call a spade a spade. No double speak. Shi Kenan...
42
PART II
Breaking Out Of the Shackles of Bureaucratism: a

Benign Mud-Slinging
1. Introduction: Matters of theory are not yet settled
What is happening to our struggle is not unexpected. When a

struggle is fraught with so much indecisions and selfish
decisions, when a struggle is peopled by pseudo-revolutionaries
who place on higher premium squabbles over trifles but are
decidedly averse to class interpretation of unfolding reality, then
such a struggle cannot but be the victim of several shipwrecks.
The ship of such struggle will flounder more than once. Yes,
more than once because it is impossible to sink once and for all
the ship of a popular struggle – water will always find its level.
The struggle of the Nigerian people has been
shipwrecked more than once. The cause and manifestation of the
current shipwreck are located in the shackling manacles of
Bureaucratism. The Pro-Sovereign National Conference
Organisations (PRONACO) Action Group – PRAG – is the
organizational manifestation of this Bureaucratism? What is
bureaucratism? What has been its manifestation in PRAG and
how has this led to the crippling of the struggle for SNC, which,
as I have said elsewhere, is a popular struggle?
Providing answers to these questions and many more is
very important, particularly in the light of the growing tendency
to equate ability to amass material resources to “stage actions”
with correct political line. It is also important in the light of the
palling over the political landscape of the fume of a new line that
is founded on the notion that we have had enough of theoretical
discourse and only need to translate this into action. The notion
that all matters of principles, perspective and theory have been
concluded is the very height of parochialism and the very basis
on which has germinated the burgeoning sapling of
bureaucratism in the social movement. Such must be combated
43
both theoretically and practically, even at the risk of losing all

old friends, becoming a lone-ranger, or one at the head of a
minuscule minority.
2. Bureaucracy and Bureaucratism
We shall here take bureaucracy from a class point of view

without recourse to academic niceties. The Bureaucracy as it
were refers to the administrative, civil, organ of the state. It is
that connecting nexus and networks, the apparatchik (civil) of,
as against the policing, military and judicature, the state. It
permeates all structures and all organs of the state. It is to the
other organs of the state what the circulatory system is to the
other organ systems of the human anatomy. It is very important;
indeed the most important organ of the state. Civilisation is
impossible without the bureaucracy.
Now in organisation too, formal administrations can
only be possible where there is a bureaucracy in place, where
there is an administrative structure in place. Hence the error in
the perspective that thinks bureaucracy essentially has a negative
connotation. But then the structure must match the function.
Whereas the structure is not sophisticated enough for the
functions, for the activities called up by objective reality, such
activities are bound to be slowed down or fail to keep pace with
the demands of the time. Administrative inadequacies and
managerial ineptitude thus set in. It becomes like a body running
on a single kidney and a weak heart.
On the other hand, if the bureaucratic structure is too
unwieldy, if it outweighs the function, then it cripples the
system; the structure becomes too fat and flabby (what the
Spanish would call in the case of a state, Estado Adiposo – a
fatty state). Hence concepts such as Bureaucratic Bottlenecks,
Red-tapism and Bureaucratism. Bureaucratism is a political
concept. It connotes the raising of structure over and above
function, making it on its own a raison d’etre of a process. It
defines a political line that is structurally conservative,
44
uncreative, unresourceful and unprogressive. Bureaucratism

abhors innovations or rather promotes innovations geared
towards unduly expanding existing structures or creating new
ones in order to satisfy some inessential or rather sentimental
needs. Where bureaucratism prevails, amenability to changing
situation is near nil. The process or organisation dominated by
the line of bureaucratism thus becomes comatose.
3. Bureaucratic Tendencies of PRAG
At the inaugural meeting of PRONACO held at Airport Hotel,

Ikeja, Lagos on January 12 and 13 2005 issue of the need for a
bureaucracy to run the activities of PRONACO preparatory to
and while the conference lasts enjoyed the attention of the
participants. On the one hand was the youth group, who averred
that a formal bureaucratic structure manned by the so-called
professionals could be unproductive and unnecessary, weighing
down the process and provide room for the blossoming of
careerism within the emerging socio-political movement. On the
other hand were those, mainly the elders and those at the center
of the then existing machinery of PRONACO, who believed that
having such a bureaucracy was normal and would rather help in
streamlining and facilitating the activity of the social movement.
They argued that no modern process could succeed without such
a bureaucracy.
The youths had the day as it was agreed that PRONACO
should have a very slim administrative structure which should be
allowed to grow and expand at a rate that keeps pace with
unfolding events as we march towards the convocation of the
Sovereign National Conference.
Following the declaration of the resolve of PRONACO
to go the way of a sovereign conference at the press conference
on January 14, 2005, tempo of activities in public glare
dwindled.
Then suddenly invitations emerged from the blues
calling youth groups to a meeting of youth groups within
45
PRONACO. The ideological battles that ensued on February 12,

2005 which led to the quashing of the idea of a youth wing and
the emergence of the PRONACO Action Group as that forum
meant to give ideological direction to and propel PRONACO
toward practical political actions rather than papertigerism and
bureaucratism is for future chroniclers of our struggle to recount.
But it is noteworthy that from the very start, while the
genuineness of the idea behind such a youth or action group
could not be entirely ruled out, there were indeed those who saw
the initiative as an opportunity to gain inroad into PRONACO
secretariat. For them the forum was more of a bargaining chip
and they only needed to carry the other youth groups along in
order to give flesh and muscle to their jostling for positions.
They were not action zealots but rather position zealots. Thus on
February 15, 2005 at the PRONACO planning meeting more
energy was devoted to identifying the PRONACO youth group
members and seeking positions than seriously combating the
lethargy of the elders. And on March 17th when the National
Democratic Movement (NDM) called a March to protest the
Abuja National Dialogue charade many of those who failed to
attain prominence in the PRAG effort simply absconded. Those
at the head of PRNACO who came know themselves and must
be acknowledged without bothering to mention names.
Now from 12th February till March 5th when the second
meeting of PRAG held the PRONACO action group planning
committee-met 8 times and “hotly debated and rationally agreed
by consensus” on certain recommendations (see PRONACO
Action Group Planning Committee report to the PRAG general
meeting on March 5, 2005). Apart from secondment of six (6)
members, mainly originators of the idea of PRAG, to the
PRONACO central planning committee and another four (4) to
the PRONACO secretariat, the committee members after the
consideration and “ exercise of caution to avoid a wieldy (sic)
and bureaucratic structure” and bearing in mind that the “noble
goal is to collectively and successfully plot this noble courses
(sic) to a logical conclusion the following PRAG central
46
structure was recommended Coordinator -Alhaji Shettima

Yerima, Deputy Coordinator - Bright Ezeocha, Secretary-
Comrade Sola Olatunde, Publicity Secretary - Comrade Wale
Adeoye ,Treasure -Comrade Mrs. Kime Enzozu. Three nine-
member committees were also recommended. Namely Strategic
Committee, Mobilization Committee And Research And
Publicity Committee, making a total of 27 committee members.
It is also noteworthy that certain names were
recommended to be part of these committees. Meanwhile the
PRAG planning committee found occasion on personal account
to take a trip to Port Harcourt South-South for wider
consultation. It is worthy of note that apart from this report there
was a minority report, which was unanimously rejected
unanalysed by the meeting just as the two minutes of the
previous meeting were rejected by the entire house as not
reflecting the deliberations at the meeting. The report of the
committee was venomously torn apart by most of the speakers at
the meeting. It was pointed out that the PRAG planning
committee had no mandate to nominate people into committees
and structures and more so that structures must be built bearing
in mind the essentially engine-room role of PRAG, that the
power of the people lies in the street rather than boardroom and
cozy hotel conference halls. The reviews that followed and
decision on major political actions were founded essentially on
this political line.
But what has happened since then? No PRAG meeting
has held and there are no indications that any political actions
were in the offing and, what is more, PRONACO itself has gone
to sleep.
Those who appeared to be genuinely committed among the
PRAG bureaucracy members have also grown highly
disenchanted at the unseemly turn of events. Now what are the
Bureaucratic tendencies in all this? This is not difficult to
discern; and include namely:
47
 The building of an omnibus structure without

cognizance to political demand of the time.
 Devotion of time to trifles and the inessential without
cognizance to unfolding political events and the need to
galvanise the masses
 The emergence of an uncritical, anti-intellectual caucus
with phobia for knowledge and self-criticism; the very
fact that cliquism and cunning have taken the place of
dialectical approach and intellectual discourse as
contained in the revelation of the trajectory culminating
in a minority and majority report.
 The preoccupation with sharing of offices rather than
sharing of responsibilities - problem that was glaringly
manifested even by some of those who on the March 5th
tried to carpet the planning committee.
The consequence of this is sectarianism and petty

bourgeois small group mentality, a kind of abysmal exclusionism
and glorification of godfatherism.
4. What Is To Be Done: Breaking Out of The Shackles of

Bureaucratism.
We must proceed from the point of view that SNC is a popular

struggle; it must derive from the mass initiative of the people.
We must take cue from the Marxist maxim that the power of the
proletariat party lies in the street while that of the petty
bourgeois party is in the parliament (Eighteenth Brumaire of
Louise Bonaparte). We must match our theory with practice,
seeing our theory as a product of practice, which must constantly
develop. We must give prominence to ideological considerations
in our development of strategic initiative (over sentimental
appeals). We must oppose corporatism with streetcraft. And,
finally, we must admit and demonstrate that whereas there could
be reforms within a revolutionary process, political revolution
48
within a process designed in a reformist fashion is practically

impossible. Now what do all these translate to in practical terms?
****
One of the first steps towards combating bureaucratism is to
promote self-criticism. Education, education and more education
- that must be the point of departure. And the greatest source of
this education on a mass scale must be the mass movement, the
popular struggle. We must become education and
conscientisation zealots who must try to draw lesson from every
political success and every setback. It is not enough to just be
originators of fine ideas, but we must also be the implementers
of such ideas at the head of the masses, at the vanguard of the
mass movement. Education, education and education - rather
than justification of the unjust. And to be able to do this we don’t
have to be geniuses; good logic and sincerity is all we need.
****
But beyond the glib and glitz of populism, we must advance
practical political programmes that will speak to the aspiration
and muscles of the popular mass. From rigorous debates, we
must move straight on ahead to propaganda, agitation and
organisation, which in the present circumstances can only make
meaning when carried out pari pasu. In formulating such
practical programme, we need to steer away from complex and
rather convoluted approaches, to novel and simple projects.
Matches and protests, rallies and evangelical agitations in the
neigbourhoods, catechism for social change - that must be the
thrust. We need to apply the Occam’s Razor to cut out seemingly
unclear or those aspects of our plans which are likely to weigh us
down, which are likely to be difficult for us to digest and carry
through not to talk of teach to the masses.
Structure should not be seen as permanent. We must
discourage titled officers and their insignia. Adepts at
pamphleteering, picketing and rallying the popular in the
neigbourhood, are a thousand fold more useful to the process
49
than coordinators or chairmen of committee who cannot move

themselves not to talk of other people.
****
Bureaucratism has held the popular struggle hostage, while
mediocrity and reaction in politics reign supreme, pace around,
gallivanting unscathed. The only way to combat bureaucratism
and set the struggle back on track is to dissolve all bureaucratic
structures that do not match the immediate actions demanded by
the process and put in place such structures as would propel the
struggle forward by hewing up and lining the slumbering masses
in the impending phalanx destined to assault the extant
autocracy.
This exactly is how things stand.
7-8 April, 2005

Lagos, Nigeria.
Postscript
There seems to be a genuine effort at self-criticism and departure
from bureaucratism on the part of PRAG, but PRNACO apex
seems to be steeped neck-deep in this contagion. The
circumstances leading up to the 11th June rally and the
assiduousness demonstrated by PRAG on this day best
exemplifies this. We shall find occasion in the future to revisit
the facts and dialectics.
18 June, 2005
Lagos, Nigeria
50
PRONACO’s People’s Conference: Continuation of

Errors of Assumptions, Illusions and Failures
1. The Way a Conference Crumbles: By Way of Introduction
In a paper written at the end of 2004 and published on the

internet1 in March, 2005 I said “The National Dialogue is going
to end as it started, as a farcical rehash, a tragicomedy of errors
of assumptions, illusions and failures. Good intention is not
enough (if at all the intention was good); it must be matched with
good logic. Substituting a conference with a dialogue, a mere
discussion among groups, seems to limit the point of departure to
a political expediency and not any attempt to fundamentally
affect the polity.” Proceedings at the conference convened by the
civilian dictator retired General Olusegun Obasanjo and his
cohorts in February, 2005 and its subsequent packing up in July,
2005 over the issue of resource control, which led to the pull out
by the delegates from the South-South Zone, has born out the
correctness of this position. A conference that was convened
undemocratically, without popular participation, composed of
government nominees and a few unclearheaded, self-opinionated
ethnic jingoists, who were opposed to no-go areas not on the
basis of any sound principles but in order to attain prominence in
public while kow-towing before the autocracy in the boardroom
and capitulating before the most barren, most illogical and
retrogressive arguments of their national enemies and (ruling)
class friends could hardly be expected to achieve something
better. The issue of sovereignty was never raised, just as it was
never deemed a conference on national issues. It was a
conference on constitution. It was a conference on true
federalism and resource control. It was not a conference meant to
achieve a better deal for the peoples imprisoned within the
Nigerian enclave. It was not meant to define modalities for co-
existence within the same or different countries. There were so
many assumptions and so many illusions - assumption that any
conference, whether sovereign or not, popular or not, democratic
51
or not, would assuage the thirst of the people for change, for a
new, more equitable distribution of products of social
production; illusions on the part of some people in opposition
and minorities that they could turn a programme designed in the
first place by the fascist regime to entrench and consolidate itself
in power into a programme for change, for progress; illusions by
the religious leaders that God Almighty was about setting Isaiah
the Messiah to work, that Saul was about to transfigure to Paul.
They were blinded spiritually and intellectually blurred by so
many assumptions and illusions, thus the Conference that was
predicted to end the need for further conferences failed. And
once again many a day-dreaming political juggernaut and
eminent personalities were compelled to face up with the sober
reality that it was not yet El Dorado – the beginning not the end
of the tunnel.
2. The Root of Failure: Continuation of Errors
With the collapse of the Abuja Conference, attention expectedly

shifted towards the PRONACO effort as a possible viable
alternative. The masses were not disillusioned. They were not
disillusioned because the mass of our people never believed in
the Abuja conference. They saw in it another ruling class trick.
Abuja was never their conference. It could not have led them to
El Dorado. Their traditional democratic leaders were not part of
it. Their intellectual and ideological leaders were not part of it.
Their democratic organisations were not part of it. It was a
conference of ruiners and ravagers. For the mass of our people
PRONACO became the beacon of hope. It became the beacon of
hope because their democratic organisations, their intellectual
and ideological leaders and their traditional democratic and
popular leaders were its makers and movers. They were for a
moment at home. At home because of the supposed credibility of
the effort.
But some of us have never shied away from the facts and
dialectics of our struggle. We have always maintained that not to
52
have a conference at all is better than to have a caricature

conference called by supposed people’s leaders2. We have never
failed to point out the errors of principles and praxis in which
PRONACO and, particularly, its gerontocratic leadership are
steeped. We have never failed to alert our comrades to the
dangers on the precipitous path being trodden by the PRONACO
leadership and its accolades and cheerleaders among the younger
generation3. The shoddy kick-off of the conference on Saturday
1st October, 2005 and subsequent move by a seemingly
progressive faction to assume control from Thursday 6th
October, 2005 has born out the correctness of our position and
shown that the present opposition within is merely a crocodile
tears-bathed consummation of the errors of 12th and 13th
January 2005 where the elders conspired to consign Sovereignty
to the dustbin and smuggle in the idea of a People’s Conference
instead of a Sovereign National Conference. They jettisoned the
name PROSNACO (Pro-Sovereign National Conference
Organisation) for PRONACO.
3. Road to Failure: Continuation of Errors
In this write up I will attempt to be as brief as possible, for two

reasons: one, that there isn’t much to be said that we have not
said before, only that our comrades, particularly the leadership,
have often chosen to plug their ears to the truth; secondly, this is
more appropriately the time for those of us who think we know
what ought to be done to seize the field and act up in the interest
of the masses instead of kicking their haggard horses of the
struggle that won’t just move.
What are the errors of principles with which PRONACO
is bedeviled? And what are the errors of praxis? What is the
prospect for change on the basis of the October 6th effort?
53
3.1 Errors of Principle
While it is true that the civil society effort to call a SNC predated
the effort of the autocracy, the crystallisation of PRONACO in
January 2005 was a hurried arrangement, which from all
principal political points of view was a response to the
dictatorship’s National Dialogue idea. It was therefore a reaction
to the regime rather than a steady and logical culmination of a
popular democratic development. It was also an opportunistic
attempt on the part of a marginalised section of politrickians
playing on the popular sentiment and genuine aspiration of
progressive elements that people the civil society and ethnic
organisations to define relevance and create a platform that could
be used as a bargaining chip to gain concessions from the
dictatorship and eventually crystallise a political party that would
contest elections. But the position of some of us has always been
that PRONACO can never succeed if it factored into its agenda
from the very onset the idea of transforming into a political
party. And the reasons are many. The most important being that
only one thing unites the organisations in PRONACO: the fact
that they are all committed to the idea of a conference
independently convened by the people. Ideologically they are as
united as Heaven and Hell – there are conservatives, liberals,
socialists, communists, theocrats, socio-democrats, republicans
et cetera. Politically the goals also differ. There are those who
want secession, there are those who believe in autonomy within
Nigeria, there are confederalists, there are federalists and there
are even unitarists. Whence the basis for party formation?
But then this error was also born out of one fatal
assumption on the part of the leadership: that all the
organisations committed to the conference were committed to
Nigeria. Thus to these elements Nigeria was not up for
discussion. What was to be discussed was the type of federal
constitution and resource sharing formula. True federalism on
the basis of a formula proposed by the Movement for National
Reformation (MNR) Pa Anthony Enahoro’s organisation was
54
thus what they intended smuggling into PRONACO as a

working paper. Having laboured so much to build the
contraption the leaders are traumatised by the idea of seeing the
product of their wasted labour torn apart, even at the risk of
compromising the future of the younger generation. They were
held hostage by their past failures and painful present
reminiscences. They continue to bask in the euphoria of one big
country where no man is oppressed in theory but where the only
people that call the shot and live above poverty line and are not
traumatised by our reality are the oppressive and exploitative
minority.
But the most fundamental error and mother of all errors
was the assumption that the process we are into is a reformist,
not a revolutionary process. The leaders failed to see that the
PRONACO effort, for it to be genuine, must aim at hitting at the
basis of the Nigerian State; that it should aim at upturning the
present unjust system in a revolutionary way, deriving its driving
force from the direct participation of the people at various stages
of the conference. The leaders were more at home with the elitist
idea of the conference as a mere discussion of the people,
dominated albeit by this or that opinion leader, and what they
merely did was to pay lip service to the popular essence of the
conference, while at a stage a couple of the leaders even
attempted to call it quit and find a place in the Abuja charade
until they were threatened with damnation by the youth groups.
3.2 Errors of Praxis
Erroneous principles give birth to erroneous practice, which if

uncorrected further reinforces the errors of principle, ultimately
leading to perdition. One of the earliest manifestations of the
above-stated errors in practice was the attempt to foist on
PRONACO a bureaucratic structure. On excuse that
professionals were needed to man offices; that offices must
reflect geographical spread and ethnic colouration; and that
certain NGO formats must be fulfilled attempt was made to build
55
an omnibus structure without cognizance to the practical

demands of the process. Although this was combated, we were
never really able to fully right the wrong, until events took an
awry turn on 6th October. It goes without saying that some of
those elements that were the ideological leaders of the tendency
that favoured bureaucratism in the early days of PRONACO are
equally prominent at the head of the October 6 movement. The
issue of bureaucratism has been fully addressed elsewhere3.
Flowing from the elitist error of assumption that the conference
is all about discussion by leaders of the people, the PRONACO
leadership belittled work among the mass of our people. Work of
propaganda and agitation among the people was belittled. Rather
than encouraging organisations to return to the grassroots to
work among their people and let the initiative flow from below,
attention was paid to paper works that would merely give
appearance of seriousness. In fact it goes without saying that the
leadership was afraid of the masses. While occasionally showing
up at public meetings as exemplified in Ibadan on June 4 when
Pa Enahoro graced the occasion to mark the eleventh anniversary
of Kudirat Abiola’s assassination, the leaders were more at home
with those who danced around them in the boardroom than those
who wanted to go and agitate and organise among the masses.
To the leadership, costly foreign trips were more
important than work of propaganda and agitation among the
people. Rather than encouraging organisations that want to work
at local and zonal levels, the leadership devoted much attention
to the making and remaking of time-table for the grand
conference which it called the road-map and publication of a
PRONACO Agenda which is more like the manifesto of a
political party and clearly betrays the original intention of the
leadership.
The leadership failed in theory to see that the conference
as a process is more important and in practice could not have
been expected to take steps that would advance the process.
Eventually rationality of judgment and correct line of action
were thus superceded by petty scheming, cunning and playing to
56
the gallery. At least, to be taken seriously, they must also be seen

to be doing something, even when what they are doing does not
hurt the dictatorship’s fly in reality. Because of their inability to
convince or confuse the younger generation to their un-
revolutionary and reactionary approach to the SNC effort, the
leaders were forced more and more to adopt closed-doorism and
cliquism in addressing serious issues. Meetings, whether General
Assembly or the Governing Council, became merely platforms
to see through their own narrow agenda by stifling debates and
suppressing opposing views. Only those who were deemed their
people could talk freely at meetings without the leadership’s
hecklers and bootlickers interjecting. (This was amply
demonstrated at the Port Harcourt General Assembly Meeting
held on the 17th of September 2005). Things got so bad that
some of the Chairman’s men at the high table were always on
hand to ascertain the loyalty or otherwise of any prospective
speaker by whispering their assent before such speaker could be
recognised to speak. Some of us sincerely expressed pity at the
way they had caged the old man, misinforming him and
misdirecting his needless to say flagging strength.
The adoption of the October 1st date for opening of the
conference and submission of memoranda was the very height of
error in practice. Symbolically, it was the recognition of the
unjust contraption called Nigeria and its so-called independence
it attained on that date. Secondly it was predicated not on work,
not on mobilisation, but rather on the need to satisfy some
illusory predestination.
4. Consequences of Errors
We have seen how these assumptions and illusions led to the

debacle of October 1st, which unfortunately the people’s leaders
are yet to recognise as failure. We have seen how indeed the
occasion was well attended by pressmen and a few rented
57
crowds. We have also seen how the press reported the prominent
absence of the major leaders of the process.
Hence the move of 6th October, 2005 by a faction within
PRONACO to seize control of the organisation and sanitise it.
But the questions remain: was that move democratic? Was it
necessary? Couldn’t such elements have waited for a formal
structure of the organisation to convene and publicly present
their position?
We must recall that the first attempt to stage the “coup”
was on 21st July 2005. It failed because most of those who today
support the October 6 move were not yet clear on the issues;
there wasn’t also the commitment because many still basked
then in the illusion that changes could still be made without
undue rancor. We must not also fail to point out that many
comrades held in great suspicion the motives of the driving
forces behind the effort. September 17th was what cleared all
illusions and led many to conclude that there was the need for
change and that, as often as necessary changes would be made,
as what is at stake is not personalities but matters of principle.
The move made on 6th of October, though politically
unprocedurer, remains democratic morally and in principle so
long as it represents the popular aspirations and in so far as the
stakeholders who spearheaded the move immediately move right
on ahead to transform themselves from the minority to the
majority by calling a General Assembly meeting to discuss the
next line of action without tampering with the structure of the
organisation. But if it tampers with the structures before calling a
General Assembly or it calls the meeting of any other body then
it becomes a reactionary clique, which must be combatted with
utmost show of rage and force.
Apart from redefining the structure, the issues of popular
participation, sovereignty of the Conference, both in principle
and practice, and the revolutionary essence of the PRONACO
effort should hold our fancy. All other moves not connected to or
complementary to this should be seen as continuation of the past
and as such reactionary. This exactly is how things stand.
58
Citations
1. Obayori, F. (2005). Thesis on SNC: a critique of
unreason.http;//nigeriaworld.com/articles/2005/mar07
2.html
2. Obayori, F. (2004). Sovereign National Conference:

beyond glib and glitz. Paper delivered at the maiden
conference of the Oodua Youth Congress (OYC) at
Stagem Hotel, Okokomaiko on 10th July, 2004
3. Obayori, F. (2005). Breaking out of the shackles of

bureaucratism: a benign mud-slinging. A monograph
with restricted circulation.
Lagos, Nigeria
9th October, 2005
59
Whither PRONACO?
The October 6 Event: Matters Arising
1. On Democracy, Legality and Revolutionary Duty.
There was great enthusiasm among a cross section of our

comrades when on October 6, 2005 a progressive section of
PRONACO secured control of the organisation’s secretariat
from the retrogressive political leadership of the organisation.
This act, which had been variously described as illegal and
undemocratic in some quarters, particularly among those who
held the organisation hostage for months, was no doubt
necessary, progressive and popular. More, it was democratic
because it was an act meant to put an end to dictatorship within
the organisation and which doubtlessly enjoyed the support of
the majority. Thus morally and in terms of political principle we
are justified.
But then there is dearth of ideological clarity among us.
Many of us are yet to clear our thoughts on fundamental matters
of principle; we continue to moralise, pandering to the views of
our ideological enemies, in order not to be seen as being
undemocratic. Our comrades are afraid of what some people
would say and are already gambling with revolutionary
decisions. This must stop if we are not to lose in a jiffy what has
taken us months to gain. We must indeed be able to recognise
the revolutionary essence of the October 6 event. We must be
clear on the problems. We must be clear on the concepts. Then
and only then can we be sure that our perspectives on issues and
our actions would not lead us to perdition. It is operation show
your colour.
2. Take Over or a Mere Protest?
Let us call a spade a spade; the action of October 6 was a take

over. It was not a mere attempt to protest against the elders in the
60
organisation. It was a move made to create the necessary

conditions for rescuing the organisation from the clutches of
autocrats. It was a revolutionary act. To call it a mere protest is
to belittle the essence of the act and mask the depth of the rot
within the organisation. This, genuine revolutionaries cannot
afford to do. We must be ready to lay the issues bare before the
people and let them either identify with us as genuine fighters for
a just cause or pitch their tent with their class enemies. After all,
the process is the greatest teacher of the masses. Truth will
always prevail sooner or later
3. The Problem is Ideological, not Generational
It is wrong to admit the way the press has posited that the
problem in PRONACO is between the younger generation and
the older generation. It is an ideological problem. It is an inner-
organisation struggle between those who want a genuine
Sovereign National Conference and those who want a mere
People’s Conference without sovereign power. It is a struggle
between those who want a conference that include non-ethnic
civil society groups and those who want a mere conference of
nationalities. It is a struggle between those who want openness
and democracy and those who are committed to autocracy,
closed-doorism and cliquism. It is a struggle between those who
want a truly popular process and those who want an elitist
process. It is a struggle between those who want to work among
the masses and those who are afraid of the masses. It is a
struggle between those who want the organisation to advance
and those who want it to rigmarole and stagnate. This is the
essence of the struggle in PRONACO. It is a struggle between
those who are committed to the Conference and those who want
to transform PRONACO into a Political Party. It is a struggle
between those who want to uproot an unjust system and those
who want to use the popular will as a bargaining chip on the altar
of 2007. It is a struggle between the revolutionary mainstream of
PRONACO and a reactionary clique, which unfortunately is
61
being spearheaded by the chairman. There are factions in

PRONACO – factions based on ideology, based on principle. To
be afraid to admit that there are factions is to have lost the battle
in the first place. Generational difference is mere appearance. It
is the form taken on by this great battle of ideas, which needless
to say is a necessity for growth and progress in any organisation
with a great mission to accomplish.
4. Personalities in Struggle
It goes without saying that the problem in PRONACO is not

about personalities but about principles. But must this blind us
from the crucial role individuals, by virtue of their
consciousness, positions and powers, play in history? Individual
consciousness is a function of social consciousness. The
individual consciousness of any person is a subjective reflection
of the consciousness of his social class, group or party as the
case may be. It is a product of his experience as a human being
occupying a particular position in society. But Karl Marx said
somewhere (is it in the Manifesto?) that, the ruling idea in every
age is the idea of the ruling class; so also in organisations. In an
organisation taken hostage by a wrong idea we cannot separate
the individuals at the helm of affairs from the woes of the
organisation. To sweep away the wrong idea, the individuals
must be ready to be transformed or booted out. Those who
refused to be redeemed in months of ideological struggle cannot
be given the luxury of gambling with our future when the battle
is already in the street.
5. The Error of October 14
October 14 was the litmus test. When the Stakeholders met on

October 14 to take stock of the event of October 6 our
ideological clarity and revolutionary zeal were put to test, and
we almost failed. That meeting, though strong enough to convert
itself to a General Assembly and take far-reaching decisions, was
62
bogged down by arguments over trifles. Rather than seizing upon

the moment to advance the process, we decided to give fourteen
days to the enemy in order to prepare against us. The decision to
postpone the evil days for the enemy till the 29th was a service
to reaction. This was an error of procrastination. And what have
we gained from this? Confusion of the issues in the press and in
the minds of the public; the blossoming of a reactionary view
that we were unfair to the elders; and more importantly the
nurturing within our ranks of an ideologically barren and
revolutionarily docile section that is more committed to the
“corporate image” of PRONACO than its popular, revolutionary
and truly democratic essence. Such lack of clarity and
procrastination as was demonstrated on the 14th when we failed
to define the status of the meeting from the onset and
consequently failed to prepare the grave of the enemy more often
than not impose limits on the popular cause, limits with dire
consequences.
6. The Goal of October 29
We are revolutionaries. We are progressives. We are democrats.

October 29 must reflect all these aspects of our struggle. It will
provide the opportunity to put a democratic stamp of the
majority on the event of October 6. It will provide the
opportunity to make a radical departure from the past. October
29 will not lead us an inch forward if it fails to strip the
reactionary leadership of all powers. It must fundamentally
affect the structure of PRONACO as a basis for reinvigorating
the organisation. The organisation must be restructured to fit into
its popular role. October 29 must redirect us away from
bureaucratism. High-sounding structures such as Governing
Council must give way. There is the need for practical structures
such as the Conference Planning Committee and Task Force on
SNC. Structures that make us look like political parties must
give way. Our concern should not as much be the Grand
Conference per se as the process leading to it. We must depart
63
from elitism and take the road of populism. Karl Marx said
somewhere that, revolutions are the festivals of the oppressed.
We cannot afford to keep the masses in the dark. It is their
struggle. October 29 must arrive at how to propangadise, agitate
and organise the people for this great assault against the people’s
enemies. We must not shy away from the fact that we are poised
to fundamentally affect the polity. Those who want to make
change must not themselves be afraid to stand up against the
status quo, nor are they to be forgiven by posterity if they
continue to assess themselves by the values and standards set by
the very enemies they are out to oust. This is how things stand.
23-10-2005,
Lagos, Nigeria
64
PRONACO ‘s Death Throes: The Price of

Procrastination
1. Some Remarks
On January 12 and 13, 2005 the inaugural meeting of the Pro-

National Conference Organisations (PRONACO) convened at
the Airport Hotel, Ikeja, Lagos; On October 1, 2005 the People’s
Conference kicked off with PRONACO in death throes as the
conference was boycotted by some of the major players in the
SNC effort; On October 6, 2005 the progressives within
PRONACO seized the Secretariat of the organisation; on
October 14, 2005 the progressives, dubbed stakeholders, met at
the Airport Hotel but could not seize the initiative; on October
29, 2005 the stakeholders again met to refashion the
organisation’s charter; November 12, 2005 saw the failure to
convene the proposed General Assembly by the progressives; on
November 30, 2005 the progressives and reactionaries were
thrown together in a unity meeting spearheaded by Professor
Wole Soyinka; on January 7, 2006 the joint General Assembly
billed for Enugu and agreed to by both parties could not hold
having been unilaterally called off by the reactionaries.
Such is the story of the rise and fall of PRONACO; such
were the circumstances in which the struggle for Sovereign
National Conference (SNC) has grown from strength to strength,
from boardroom to the street, from theory to practice.
We must pick the threads of these events one by one,
without delving into unnecessary details, more so that there isn’t
much to be said on principle and even on praxis that we have not
said in previous papers. What we are merely doing is a sort of
post mortem. The regrettable events of today and the great
lessons to be drawn, the losses and gains, as it were, were well
embedded in the pleasant and unpleasant prognostications
contained in previous intellectual materials which, needless to
say, have earned some of us the sobriquet “Prophet of Doom” in
some quarters and in others quiet acclaim. Those who want to be
65
enlightened and are committed to the struggle should look

beyond the motive of this or that writer to the dialectics of their
works, for ingrained in these are not only the facts but the real
motives. Exaggerations, prevarications, falsifications and all
suchlike negative sallies cannot be hidden from the slashing
scalpel of discerning dialectics. Those who before now read my
previous works in a hurry and could not discern anything beyond
“ego” should not bother to read the following pages until they
have acquired the humility to properly digest my “stupidity” as
expressed in the previous works. As for some of us, the duty of
trying to cut a path through the dark forest of radical politics
goes beyond mere intellectual exercise; while our worldly
adversaries are searching for how to acquire escape velocity, we
must endeavour to seek that singularity where all the laws
known to the officialdom and conservative lackeys must break
down and a general theory of social progress holds sway. In
analysing social events the first thing to banish is the fear of
deviating from official norms and standards. We must not be
afraid to say what has to be said. For PRONACO the rites of
passage must be thorough; for SNC the process of reawakening
must be hastened but well managed.
Let us begin.
2. Some Elements of Procrastination
Procrastination is a birthmark of the October 6 Movement. The

earliest sign of this ailment was the failure to keep the in
operation in the early hour of the day of the take over of the
secretariat. The inability to convert the stakeholder’s meeting of
October 14 to a General Assembly was built upon this
foundation of faltery start.
But need we quickly point out that such procrastination
was merely a reflection of the understanding of a sizeable section
of the progressives who saw the crisis more as that between this
and that leader, this and that secretariat staff, rather than a tussle
based on the principle. Those who saw the ideological battles as
66
mere sentimental disagreements cannot be expected to champion

or support a radical action with any measure of consistency. In
order not to rock the boat, such elements would rather concede
its stewardship to charlatans.
The failure on the part of the majority of the
progressives to the see the action of October 6 as coup d’etat or
take over meant to create the necessary condition, viz., an
extraordinary General Assembly, for overhauling PRONACO
was what made them to let go the initiatives at the most
auspicious moment. If a man plotting a coup d’etat realises the
full implication of his action, then he would definitely be more
ruthless and decisive in dealing with the enemy, annihilating his
forces and forging viable replacements. But so long as the action
is not clear to him and he could still recognise some ‘brothers’,
‘Elder’ or even ‘comrades’ among the key players in the old
order, then he is as sure as noonday going to prepare his own
grave or, worse still, forge his own manacle and handcuffs.
Because our people were afraid of what the public would
say, they seized power with one hand and with the other
stretched it forth on a platter of gold to our reactionary
adversaries. This has been demonstrated by our inability to carry
along all the groups that supported the October 6 Movement in
the short period between 14th and 29th.
It must, however, be said that the greatest thing that
happened to the October 6 Movement happened on October 29
with the preparation of a new draft charter which attempted to do
away with such unwieldy and autocratic structure as the
Governing Council, putting in place more democratic and
pragmatic structures (see draft charter and compare with the old
charter). However, it is noteworthy that the reduction of the
Planning Committee representation to six-geopolitical zones
rather than member-organisations betrayed poor understanding
of relationships by the majority of delegates. Clearly, they failed
to see that PRONACO as it were is not about regions or zones
but rather about organisations that are committed to the SNC
67
idea and their varying ideological principles, which cut across

zones, and regions.
The pretension on the part of the leadership of the
progressives and the Committee of Four that leaders of reaction
had genuine excuse for not coming to the 29th meeting also
smacked of an effort to forge unity at all cost. Nobody would
have expected such leaders of reaction, some with over six (6)
decades of history of intrigue behind them to come to a
stakeholders meeting or General Assembly to be disrobed and
sent packing.
But nonetheless, some of the firebrands at the 29th
meeting had allowed these “little, little” signs of procrastination
to pass bye in hope that more giant strides would be made come
November 12 when the General Assembly would meet in Lagos
to ratify the draft charter and hold election to elect a new
leadership. But November 12 was never to be. Indeed, many of
the participants at the 29th meeting did not even notice it when
the date came and passed. It was like a Shakespearean death of a
beggar without any heraldic comet or suchlike signs.
What went wrong?
3. A Basket Full of Procrastination
The four-man committee was neutral; but this was a kind of

neutrality that played into the hands of the reactionary faction. It
goes without saying that every act of indecision in a moment that
calls for radical change is tantamount to decision in favour of
reaction. Refusal to move is in relative terms tantamount to
backward motion. By marking time and hoping that we could
convince our adversaries to see reason and change their ways,
we committed an unforgivable error which price is the type of
crisis we now find ourselves in - tailing behind events, clinging
to the tailboard of the vehicle of reaction instead of being at the
steering wheels of the truck of the revolution.
68
The argument that November 12 had to be postponed

because of an effort by Professor Wole Soyinka to bring together
the factions at a reconciliation table was reactionary. By his
position as an international figure, a Nobel Laureate and elite, it
is expected that a Soyinka is well fitted into the role of a
moderator, or a peacemaker. But it is now left for those of us on
the field to provide him with information that would sharpen his
perception and enable him to adequately bring his wealth of
knowledge to bear on the process. Unless furnished with
accurate information, no matter how brilliant, a great intellectual
is bound to come to erroneous conclusions on matters of
practical political importance. Such matter as we are considering
is not a subjective or sentimental thing; it is objective and has
both its organisational and national importance. The nature of
PRONACO on the field, among the key players and the mass of
the people in the civil society matters a lot. This is not subject to
the sentimental appeals of good-thinking personalities or
respectable figures. The most important thing is that there are
factions - one progressive and the reactionary. Such factions
cannot be united around a reconciliation table.
This has been borne out by the outcome of the
Wednesday November 30, 2005 reconciliation meeting between
the factions - the squabbles, the tantrums, accusations and
counter-accusation, petty intrigues and scheming and all that. As
far as some of us are concerned, November 30 was an effort in
futility. It was not a unity meeting. And what is more, rather than
plummet, intrigues have blossomed since November 30. The two
factions continue to meet differently, and fail to form quorum at
joint meetings.
The culmination of it all is what was manifested on
January 7. Yes, we can say the reactionary faction called off the
meeting because they knew that they were going to lose out. But
need we ask, what in the first place made it possible for them to
call off the meeting? If really they could take such a unilateral
decision after several “joint meetings” why is it we the
progressives still harbour the illusion that a process of
69
reconciliation is on? Why do we appear to be more committed to

reconciliation with reactionary elements than to the advancement
of the cause? Is it out of lack of understanding or out of fear of
the opposition? But rather more disquieting is the way we have
not only accepted their January 21 date but also their venue.
People might think these things are simple; that they are
immaterial so long as we are sure of victory, sure of defeating
them at the Joint General Assembly. But that is not true. The fact
remains that how we arrive at the General Assembly matters. If
you do not control the process leading to the General Assembly
and the venue then how are you going to be sure that even with
preponderance of delegates you would have a successful General
Assembly, by your own standard. The fact is that inexperience
and political naiveté have become the source of so many
illusions and assumptions, which direct outcome have been and
will continue to be failures, unless we mend our way. The same
reason our people could not understand the role of the people in
the process, the same reason sovereignty in the theory could not
be translated to sovereignty in practice, is the same reason we
today are progressives in the theory but backbones of reaction in
practice.
4. The Benefits of Procrastination
Bedeviled with problems as it is, the fact remains that our

struggle has advanced tremendously in the last one year. Our
disagreements, the wrong perceptions and the glaring inability to
translate theory into fruitful practice have gone a long way in
sharpening the perspectives of those who want to learn from the
struggle, those who do not see themselves as some repository of
knowledge of popular democratic struggle.
But more importantly, it has helped us to expose some of the

opportunists in our midst who pride themselves on certain
ancient and world-acclaimed declaration as eminent personalities
and defenders of the masses. It is now clear as noonday that what
70
they are defending is their own position and interest in the polity
and they only see PRONACO as another structure, which could
be used to bargain with the ruling civilian dictatorship. Indeed it
is now clearer to some of us that these elements are in the
process to water it down for the status quo. They are agents
provocateur occupying prominent positions on the popular
platform. Their present self-denial before the public parliament
is only because all avenues for clandestine operations have been
blocked by more progressive and committed elements. Hence
they now have no option but to play their intrigues in the open.
They are for the dance of shame in the open arena, as their only
remaining survival strategy. What they had hitherto done in the
dark of the boardroom they now openly render in the light of
public squabbles. They certainly are good laboratory animals for
discerning some salient facts and relationships of our struggle.
We must thank them so much for this.
Finally, one of the greatest benefits of the crisis is that it
has helped to expose the pervasive lack of knowledge even in the
ranks of the progressives. There is a wide gulf between
commitment to a process and the understanding of the process. It
is not enough to be determined to wage a struggle with all the
assiduity it deserves; it is equally important to have the requisite
Theory-Base for such. And this is not acquired overnight. Native
intelligence will only help the struggler to survive individual
battles or squabbles, but in order to be strategically placed to
combat reaction, we must be steeped in practical struggle as well
as in study. Those who are afraid of “big books and big
grammar” need to do a rethink. We are not clairvoyants who
have extra-sensory access to truth. Our cadres need to be
disciplined enough to learn, and not disparage those who
endeavour to draw on the lessons of the past. It is the height of
naiveté to think that we can combat reactionary elements who
have over half a century history of blowing hot and cool, of
flirting between progress and reaction, of whoring between
North and South behind them by relying on newspaper opinion
articles and local proverbs. It is most foolhardy to think we can
71
respond to our better-resourced, better-educated adversaries by

sitting on our asses before the television and stealing phrases
from mere charlatans.
So long as we do not want to always stand bemused
before the battering verbal barrages of our reactionary
adversaries, so long as we do not want to lose out in the battle of
words and intrigues in which our adversaries are well-tutored, so
much must we be committed to the study of our struggle. We
must make our history, as Marcus Garvey said, the guidepost by
which we are directed into the future. Those who are afraid of
knowledge need not present themselves before our adversaries,
for apart from money, knowledge of evil and good is the other
weapon they wield. But with knowledge, good knowledge, we
can turn their money against them and equally expose the fatuity
of the all-knowing halo in which they garbed.
5. Some More Remarks
The PRONACO that convened on January 12, 2005 has reached

and passed its zenith. The opportunity for greater performances,
which opened on October 6, 2005, has since been squandered by
undue procrastination on the part of the progressives. It would
take extra-ordinary progressive ventures to regain what has been
lost. It is foolhardy to expect much from the proposed January
21, 2006 Joint General Assembly. Such marriage between a
sickler and a carrier is certainly going to produce sicklers and
carriers. There is the need to look forward to new accretion of
forces that could bear forward the popular quest for a Sovereign
National Conference (SNC) and the total liberation of our
peoples from the clutches of our present dictators and tyrants.
But then we must be seen to have allowed event to run
its course without retreating unduly from the process and the
challenges it presents. The struggle for SNC has just began.
Welcome to January 21, 2006 Joint General Assembly, the only
and last Joint General Assembly post October 6, 2005.
72
Femi Obayori
11-14, January 2006
Lagos, Nigeria
73
Age of Unreason: A Fraternal Critique of PRONACO’s

Peoples Conference
1. Some Useful Remarks
On April 3, 2006 the plenary sessions of PRONACO’s Peoples

National Conference opened in Lagos. On April 5th it broke into
committees, which began sitting on the 6th until the 7th when the
conference went on break, even as the committees continue to
sit. Detailed examination of the conference, both quantitatively
sand qualitatively, we shall save for some other time. But what I
think is important for now is to again examine those points of
disagreement in theory, which validity or otherwise is now being
brought to the fore in practice.
Today the fact that what appears like a conference is
holding, the fact that there is no visible, more viable reality, is
being taken as evidence that a sham and mere farce could pass
for the real product. The airwave is jammed with croaks of
congratulatory ejaculations on successful commencement of a
great event in the life of a people. And what is more, name-
calling, that stock-in-trade of most inferior intellect in all matters
of serious political and ideological discourse, has once again
become the order of the day. Rather than admit the fact that
errors that could lead the socials movement to perdition have
been committed by trying to circumvent objective laws of social
change, our fraternal adversaries have resorted to blackmail,
seeing state agents and spoilers where there are none and
inventing new moral values that ironically stand above class,
national and group interests. But some of us cannot afford to run
away from the incontrovertible truth. An SNC in not an SNC
merely because we proclaim it so. The apparition of SNC cannot
be the SNC itself. The idea of SNC in our head remains mere
idea until it has been translated to reality. If we fail to
successfully midwife the birth of this brainchild, if it becomes
stillborn, then there cannot be any reasonable grounds for a
naming ceremony.
74
****
It is amoral to want to shy away from critique because we are
part of the process under scrutiny, just as it is equally wrong to
avoid discourse in order not to offend the sensibilities or
sentiments of some elders or eminent personalities. Objective
reality, laws of nature and society, are superior to personalities.
Whereas the personality is the product of interactions between
social laws and subjective reality (as exist in other humans and
himself), objective reality flows in and around him as a thin
wave which may not be perceived but which weighs heavily on
him, on his consciousness – his humanity.
****
The fact that we live in an age when unreason prevails
everywhere, when lack of sense and nonsense gallivant around,
riding roughshod on the popular intellect all in the name of
democracy, human rights and triumph of neoliberalism and
certain hyper-class knowledge society is not an excuse for some
of us to trade our thinking cap for a mess of pottage. Surely, such
eclipses and dark ages are not new in history. We shall see the
light yet. Let us begin.
2. Our Original Theses are Still Alive!
What are those points of argument and principle on the basis of

which we have always tried to make a distinction between a
genuine (Sovereign) National Conference and a fake (Non-
Sovereign) Conference? What were those things that made us
recoil from Obasanjo’s National Constitution Reform
Conference (NCRC) or National Dialogue? Those essential
theses on the basis of which we declared all other conferences
and dialogues save an SNC as anti-people and unacceptable?
Now we shall merely itemise these. Those who may not have
read previous write-ups should please endeavour to look up the
references. Now our theses.
75
I. The Conference is a National Conference and not a

mere constitutional conference. It aims not at writing
a constitution for Nigeria but at providing the
opportunity to discuss so as to reconstitute or
dismember Nigeria, as the case maybe. Thus
whereas discussing the nation is fundamental and
primary, writing a new constitution (or constitutions)
is secondary and rests on the outcome of the former.
Restructuring to achieve true federalism is not the
aim of the conference, although it could become its
outcome. Just as dismemberment of the country is
not an unalterable end in view.
II. The conference must have sovereign powers. Its

decisions cannot be censored, upturned, modified or
turned down by anybody or group of persons, be it
legislative, executive or judicial. Its sovereignty
supercedes any other type of existing sovereignty.
III. The conference must be democratic. Representation

must be on the basis of election and not selection or
by fiat. It is not a conference of opinion leaders,
experts or professional drafters, but rather a
conference of representatives of ethnic groups,
professional associations, human rights and pro-
democracy groups, trade unions and special
categories such as women, youth and even the
disabled.
IV. The conference must be popular. The grand

conference must be preceded by pre-conferences at
group, community, local, state and regional levels.
The conference must rest on the mass initiative of
the people. It is a conference that can only be
popular in essence if it rests on the participation of
76
the masses through propaganda, agitation and

organisation. It is only when the fever of the
conference has caught the people, when they have
become possessed and drunk with the liquour of
democratic freedom and revolutionary ferment, and
are drawn into a kind of bacchaic, political
Dionysian madness that they can be depended upon
to defend the outcome of the conference. Thus
sovereignty as expressed in I above can only become
reality on the basis of popularity of the conference as
expressed here; that it is not enough to arrive at
decisions favourable to the majority of our people
but that the way and manner we arrive at such
decisions will go a long way in determining whether
or not we will be in the best position to defend such
positions.
V. It, therefore, follows from IV above that the

conference cannot be called by the (fascist)
government. From the point of view of individual,
self-interest and from the point of view of class
interest of the political class (sic), it cannot be
expected to pave way for the conference, unless the
government has by reason of revolutionary ferment
become weakened and left with no way out.
VI. In our own circumstance, given the blossoming of

civilian fascism, antecedent in struggle, particularly
the June 12 Struggle, the ethnic and civil society
organisations are best positioned to seize the
gauntlet and initiate such a conference.
VII. In so doing, these groups must realise that the legal

canopy is not a good enough hiding place from their
adversary’s thunderstorm. What is important is the
legitimacy of their action. Act of treason against the
77
existing order is the essence of their action. The

conference is, therefore, an act of war, of
insurrection against the existing fascistic, dictatorial
and unjust order.
VIII. Finally, we posited that in order to achieve our

objective there is the need for a bureaucracy; but that
in building such a bureaucracy we must be weary of
bureaucratism; that the structures we create must
match the functions, be dynamic and not unwieldy.
Comrades, friends, these theses are still very much alive today
and what is simply happening is that we are being put to test on
the basis of these fundamental theses. Thus when questions are
being raised, rather than resort to name-calling and vitriolic
declamations flavoured with time-honoured oratorical wizardry,
our fraternal adversaries only need to juxtapose the arguments
being raised against such fundamental principles. Thus if we
rejected Obasanjo’s dialogue because it wasn’t representative
enough, because it wasn’t gender-sensitive or Beijing-compliant,
in what way have we been able to advance beyond this? Are we
also engaged in one of those hypes, glib and glitz, meant to
backup the fabrication of a document meant to add to the volume
of suggested constitutions for Nigeria? Or are we really
involved in a process that poises to help enlighten and organise
the peoples of Nigeria to be able to properly organise themselves
and assume glorious positions among the peoples of the world?
We must not be afraid to say what has to be said.
Hesitation and prevarications are the worst enemies of great
historical possibilities.
****
Now to what extent have we adhered to these principled
positions before the plenary sessions opened on 3rd April? Our
theses are still alive; they cannot be destroyed by merely
proclaiming them irrelevant. If we had put a mirror before our
78
leaders to see themselves for what they were, and they felt so
vexed by what they saw as to smash the mirror, does that change
their essence, their reality? Definitely not. And thank goodness
we are all students of Frantz Fanon.
3. Two General Assemblies
In an earlier paper title PRONACO’s Death Throes: The Price of

Procrastination, which was written mid-January 2006 but only
became widely circulated a few days before the opening of the
plenary session, I had remarked that the January 21, 2006
General Assembly was going to be the last joint General
Assembly of PRONACO post October 6 event. This has come to
pass. Granted, many fundamental changes were effected and
agreements reached. But nothing fundamental was effected as
regards leadership change. There was only an agreement that
elections would hold at the next General Assembly. There will
be time enough in the future to look into the details of this
meeting. But, have we not warned earlier that such a marriage
between a sickler and a healthy individual was bound to give
carriers? Contrary to what some of our friends thought, the
Enugu meeting was a victory for the Enahoro faction. The result
of it is what we have today – a caricature conference.
The death of Dr. Beko on February 10 and the frantic
effort by the Enahoro faction to postpone the General Assembly
indefinitely from February 17, then the attempt to stop the Kano
General Assembly held on February 20th using all sorts of
intrigues and perfidious interactions with state agents and agents
provocateur is a vindication of our position that the unity of
PRONACO was a farce. Thus while the Enugu General
Assembly was a victory for reaction, disguised as progress for
unity, the Kano meeting was a meeting of progressives shrouded
in so many layers of halo of illusions. The elections never held.
The leaders retreat held from 17th to 20th of March
again n Enugu, although attended by representatives of both
factions, was actually a smokescreen for a sectarian conclave of
79
the Enahoro Caucus meant to fine-tune the coup de main of

April 3, 2006.
That was the trajectory of the travesty of popular
struggle which is now being passed off as a successful
conference.
*****
The position paper of the United Action for democracy (UAD)
titled This Talkshop Cannot Be The Sovereign National
Conference will remain a most apt, landmark critique of the on-
going process. Those who want to see our arguments beyond the
subjective or sentimental ranting of some spoilers and prophets
of doom need to read through this document.
*****
It also needs to be pointed out that the fact that many civil
society organisations, including prodemocracy, human rights,
labour and students unions recoiled from the April 3rd event and
the fact that only ethnic organisations that had associated closely
with PRONACO from onset were present speaks volume on the
popularity of the conference. Equally important is our inability to
carry along those in the North who shared some ideas of
National Conference with us. The prominent Northern
opposition to Obasanjo’s Third Term agenda could not find a
place in such a “big” opposition as the Peoples National
Conference.
4. Comedy of Errors
Now let us hold the mirror of reason before the conferees so as

to see how we have conformed to our theses.
I. The conference is not an SNC but a mere people’s

conference that is afraid to declare its sovereignty.
80
II. It is not a conference to discuss the “Nation” but

rather, one meant to produce an acceptable federal
constitution for Nigeria even when there are those
people such as the Yoruba, Ijaw and Igbo self-
determinationists who either want to secede or desire
some form of autonomy or the other.
III. The conference is not popular. It is a talkshop. The

masses are not part of it. There is no accompanying
political ferment.
IV. Representatives at the conference were not elected

by the various ethnic groups through a democratic
process. There were no pre-conferences at local and
regional levels.
V. The only major difference between the on-going

conference and Obasanjo’s Dialogue that held in
2005 is the fact that this was convened by some
leaders of popular organisations and not by the
fascist government, and also that at least some
people were not barred (openly) from participating.
But need we ask what difference it makes whether people were

barred, frustrated to quit or menaced and messed up enough to
make them recoil from the process. Indeed, only one phrase
summarises the events from January 12, 2005 when the
inaugural meeting of PRONACO held at the Airport Hotel, Ikeja
to the opening of the plenary sessions of the People’s National
Conference at the Grandview Plaza Magoodo, Lagos on April
12, 2006 – COMEDY OF ERRORS!
5. On Ideology and Sentiments
In an earlier paper (Thesis on SNC: a Critique of Unreason) we

had posited that the first battle of the Sovereign National
81
Conference is the battle of ideas; that unless we clear our

thoughts on the correct idea of conference; unless matters of
principle, of theory, are taken seriously and resolved in relation
to the practical demands of the process, there cannot be any talk
of a successful conference. We argued that the first battle to be
won is the battle of ideas. But some people (perhaps more
sentimental in their commitment, but largely opportunistic) felt
otherwise. Events in the last fourteen months have borne out the
correctness of our position. Clearly, there is dearth of clarity on
the part of many of our people, even among some of the eminent
personalities at the head of the process. And really, while
sentimental derailment and outbursts can be excused on the part
of the followership and inexperienced cadres in the social
movement, eminent and seasoned participants must not be
allowed such luxury, lest they drive the train headlong into the
ditch.
It is wrong for anybody at the head of our process to
think it is enough for the masses to expect something good from
the conference, while standing aloof from it. The problem is not
that of document, not that of an acceptable constitution which
the masses can then be mobilised to defend or fight to legitimise
and legalise through a referendum. The people must have
participated actively in the making of such document; they must
have been drawn through the fire and brimstones of the struggle
to make such document (in spite of the fascist intrigues of the
autocracy) in order for them to be able to stand in opposition to it
with the kind of force that would drive the fascist dogs
scampering. But to claim that the masses are merely waiting for
a document, that they expect so much from a conference, for
some of us is pedestrian on the part of anyone directly connected
to the process. The example of June 12 Struggle often cited by
advocates of this position is being cited in error, out of context.
Why? Because the circumstances during June 12 were quite
different. Also, many people who thought they were in the thick-
and-thin of the June 12 Struggle were actually ignorant of the
various undercurrents, alignments and realignments of forces,
82
the revolutionary conclaves, conspiracies and supreme sacrifices,

and could only see the masses responding spontaneously to a
popular summon by Campaign for Democracy. For those who
are still in doubt, the June 12 Struggle was a revolutionary
struggle, with input by real revolutionaries and not mere political
jobbers. Don’t let us digress.
****
Some of our cadres think it is morally wrong to oppose the
elders. Balderdash! Arrant nonsense! Let them be informed that
some of us are also very strong believers in the Platonic
proposition that the time for any serious effort is when you are
still young (Plato’s Republic). And really many of us are not
very young again. The elders who waterdown the process in
order to make things work out in their lifetime are justified when
we take a sentimental look at the matter. And really, you will
momentarily sympathise with them. But issues go beyond that.
By being sentimental and resorting to a wishy-washy, farcical
conference they are merely defending their past and their
present. They want to be seen to have done something
meaningful with their lives. But at whose expense? Is it not
enough to, like some other elders are doing, join the younger
generation in preparing the ground for a genuine process of
emancipation even if such would not come to fruition in their
lifetime? Does what they are doing, trying to shunt and short-
circuit in order to be relevant, not amount to political gluttony
and covetousness?
As for the younger generation who insist along with their elderly
ideological allies that things must be done properly, we aver that
this is the only way to correctly defend their present and secure
their future. If we fail to say the truth because we are afraid to
oppose some elders what about those elders with whom we share
positions? Won’t those ones also feel offended?
83
But more importantly, if we fail to do things right on the basis of

sentiment or gerontocratic morality, how will we be able to stand
up to defend ourselves before our own children when we become
elders. As good students of Frantz Fanon (Wretched of The
Earth), whom we are fond of quoting verbatim every so often
(perhaps as showoff), are we really ready to sit back, study, toil
and out of relative obscurity discover our generational mission
and fulfill it? Would it not amount to a betrayal of the mission of
our generation to pander to the views of a class and a generation
that cannot appreciate our reality - a class whose mission is
different from ours? Really, before we start fumbling on the
question of morality, there is the need to again revisit the
Nietzscheian concepts of master morality and slave morality, the
intensification and spiritualisation of cruelty masquerading as
high culture (Beyond Good and Evil, section 229).
If some elders demand respect from us at all costs, even at the

risk of mortgaging our future, by the same token we are also
equally justified in demanding that they guarantee our future,
even at the risk of losing some respect among their peers. Thus
as the street boys would say: two ge four (four divide by two is
equal to two). That’s all. As Governor Kalu said recently at the
Anti-Third Term meeting: You can’t chop your own and chop my
own.
So those people who malign us and resort to vituperative

ejaculations instead of facing the facts and dialectics of the
matter had better do a rethink and redeem their future. This is
because, surely, the future tilts in the direction of the prognosis
of the so-called prophets of doom and arrogant young men.
That’s all.
84
6. Catechism on Errors and Comedy of Terror
The question that arises is: in the prevailing circumstance, what

do we do as progressives who are committed to the cause in spite
of its bastardization by supposed people’s leaders? What is the
safest way out, one that won’t portray us as enemies of the
process who are bent on rocking the boat at all costs or make us
play into the hands of the fascist government?
I. Our first task is to go on a propaganda and agitation

spree (using direct interaction, mass media and
Internet), to embark on catechism among the people
and their organisations to expose the fatuity of the
present effort by the supposed people’s leaders. At
this stage we have no option than to expose them.
The argument that the conference could lead to an
acceptable document is not enough reason to hold
back.
II. We must come out openly and actively against the

oligarchy, seeing the SNC effort not only as a
continuation of the struggle which we have been
waging since 1990 when the first attempt was
botched by the IBB Junta, but also as a response to
the Third Term agenda. We cannot separate the
conference effort at this stage from an overall effort
to put an end to OBJ fascism.
III. It therefore follows from above that as the UAD

posited, we need to create the objective condition for
the creation of a Government of National Unity or
Interim National Government which will pave way
for a Sovereign National Conference, as it has
become clear that a genuine conference can hardly
take place with the oligarchy still in place,
unweakened or unshattered.
85
IV. There is need to crystallise a structure around this

effort. There is need for a new accretion of forces to
carry through this agenda. We must rally all those
forces that have recoiled from the on-going sham on
the basis of our own disagreement and all those
other forces that have been deliberately marginalised
by the sham conferees. So what we are saying is that
there is the need to form a parallel organisation to
PRONACO; an organisation that openly and
unequivocally canvasses for a Sovereign National
Conference, an organisation whose slogans and
nomenclature are clear and unambiguous, an
organisation that makes a clear distinction between a
Sovereign and a People’s conference, an
organisation that recognises that there is a world of
difference between Constitutional and National
conference, an organisation that is ready to match its
structure with functions, its set goals, and abhors
bureaucratism.
Let us begin.
April 15, 2006

Lagos, Nigeria
86

Theses On SNC: A Critique of Unreason & Other Essays

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Theses On SNC: A Critique of Unreason & Other Essays

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Femi Obayori Theses on SNC

© Femi Obayori 2008

N o part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a

ISBN 978 088 395 9

Published by OBABOOKS ENTERPRISES

Printed and bound in Nigeria by Arymson Publicity

2. Sovereign National Conference: beyond glib and glitz 9

3. SNC is a Popular struggle 23

4. Thesis on SNC: a critique of unreason 28

5. Breaking out of she shackles of bureaucratism:

6. PRONACO’s People’s Conference: Continuation of

errors of assumptions, illusions and failures

8. PRONACO’s death throes: the price of procrastination

9. Age of Unreason: A fraternal critique of PRONACO’s Peoples

Sovereign National Conference Revisited

The call for Sovereign National Conference (SNC), which

independence. They have the right to be shiftily scared because

regulated, directed, goal-oriented, socio-political ferment. After

Written 3-4, October 2001 and later published

Sovereign National Conference:

Once again the call for National Conference is on top of the

struggle in a ceremonial applause because of lack of knowledge

2. The Sovereign National Conference

The reduction of the idea of National Conference to a mere

2.1. The Conference Must Be National

The conference must be national and not constitutional

and Bureaucracy - are structurally and functionally relics or

2.2. Sovereignty of the Conference

Some people are courageous enough to advocate National

sovereignty of the conference. Then there are those opponents of

address issues bordering on the conditions of relation of the

What then is the real meaning of the conference?

But that is in principle and theory. In practice, what does

3. SNC is a Popular Struggle

Yes, SNC is a popular struggle. It is not an armchair thing. It is a

brimstones of the struggle for them to become born again and be

4. SNC and June 12 Struggle

demand of a foresighted clique to a popular idea approximating

and its relevance to the struggle against our emergent fascists

5. SNC in the Era of Fascism

shied away from a pointblank declamation on SNC. They failed

they buried uncle, congregated

6. Leaders of the SNC Struggle

June 12, 2004 was a reunion of self-acclaimed heroes of June 12,

In this lecture, we have deliberately ignored the issues of

i. that the conference is not a mere conference of

This is the way things stand.

Friday 18th June to Saturday 19th June, 2004

Sovereign National Conference is

The SNC is a popular agenda. It is a struggle of the masses. It is

from hammering on it is to begin to collapse under the

As we have said before, SNC is not a forum or platform for some

popular movements often bring out some of the hidden potentials

basis of such understanding respond logically to events as they

Thesis on SNC: a Critique of Unreason

1. Struggle as Intellectual Discourse: Some Clarification

Lest we are accused of verbosity or literary turgidity, the point

The National Dialogue is going to end as it started, as a farcical

assembling some eggheads, is the mother of all errors. A

3. Nigeria is not Sacrosanct: On Law and Justice

One of the objections being raised against a Sovereign National

nations and nationalities in Nigeria, the insistence that the

We must be permitted to digress a little. It is a positive