1. By Any Means Possible
Conversations with Wole Soyinka
By
Kayode Fayemi
1

2. Kayode Fayemi was born in Ibadan, Nigeria. He was educated at Christ‟s School, Ado Ekiti
and then at Lagos, Ife and London Universities where he studied History, Politics,
International Relations and War. He earned his doctorate degree in War Studies from King‟s
College, London with his path-breaking study on threats, military expenditure and defence
planning in Nigeria and has worked as a journalist, political consultant and defence analyst.
He lives in London with his wife and son.
2

3. Preface
This work started life as a newsmagazine interview for a journal I contribute to in Nigeria,
TheNews. It gravitated towards what you are reading due to the magazine‟s inability to
publish the entire interview leading somewhat to a garbled interpretation of some of Wole
Soyinka‟s responses in our conversation. As the first extensive interview given to any mass
circulating medium since he left Nigeria in September 1995, after accusing the country‟s
dictatorship of “murder by instalments” and embarking on a worldwide campaign against the
regime, it naturally drew immediate responses from many. The interesting comments elicited
ranged from the cynically negative to the fawningly adulating, with the majority steering a
middle course. What they represent is the diversity of opinion and richness of views in the
country especially when certain individuals are involved, such as Africa‟s first Literature
Nobel Laureate and now one of Nigeria‟s foremost democracy campaigners. Love them or
revile them, you can hardly be indifferent to their actions and utterances.
Even so, without seeking to accept the positive comments that almost always attend Wole
Soyinka‟s actions as given, or rubbish the occasional negative ones as bloody minded, the
responses to the interview underlined, for me at least, the need for this short introduction to
my conversation with Professor Soyinka, first as a way of addressing some of the issues
raised by respondents, and second, as a way of dealing with a more genaral problem faced by
many achievers in political activism, moreso within the shifting quicksand of Nigeria‟s
democratic development: how....?. He has started this process in Ibadan: The Penkelemes
Years, his book of memoirs from “boyhood to young manhood” which did not address his
post-Nobel political involvement, of interest to many in my generation who have read The
Man Died and heard heroic tales of the immediate post-independence years, some of which
are now confirmed in Ibadan. Until the „grandson‟ of Ibadan perhaps addresses this period
in the life of Wole Soyinka, let us consider this a tentative attempt at deciphering the twists
and turns of the period.
Let me declare my interest early on. I am not what anyone can call a detached observer of
Wole Soyinka‟s life and works. I am more close to being labelled a passionate enthusiast
and defender of the Soyinka mystique, especially having moved closer to his world view of
seeing the Nigerian struggle as one between authoritarianism and democracy, and not purely
an ideological fixation between socialism and capitalism. Since his exit from Nigeria last
September, I have also had the privilege of working closely with him on a number of
projects relating to reclaiming Nigeria from the marauding goons now running the show.
But perhaps there is a deeper, more enduring connection elsewhere. To those who have read
his latest memoirs, I am a child of „Ibadan‟, born in that rustic city, in the thick of the Wild,
Wasted, West. I came into this world smelling „the roast yam‟, that fire of destruction and
degradation that engulfed the Nigeria of yore and probably became a rebel of sorts, as a
result. I came to the conclusion in my formative years that unless we seized our future and
dictate its direction as urged by Soyinka and others before him, nothing can pull our country
back from the road to perdition. Since the „smell of blood,‟ continues, „to hang in the
lavender mist of the afternoon‟ as the late poet and Soyinka friend, Christopher Okigbo once
3

4. lamented, the reality of that early conclusion continues to haunt me. So, in that sense I share
with Wole Soyinka a natural distaste for injustice and inequality and a spontaneous urge to
challenge authoritarianism in my search for enduring freedom.
In spite of my natural admiration however, I have also had worries. I once shared some of
the concerns our conversation drew, especially those relating to his role in “legitimising” the
Babangida dictatorship. Indeed, as editor of the London based pro-democracy journal,
Nigeria Now, I published two responses to Wole Soyinka‟s BBC Television documentary on
the Babangida transition programme in December 1992, from two prominent Soyinka fans
who felt short-changed by the less critical treatment given to the whole farce over which
Babangida presided. As someone who jealously guard his reputation.
4

5. Introduction
Kayode Fayemi In Conversation with Wole Soyinka
Kayode Fayemi: You‟ve said several times that we must not lose this struggle. With
the military still in office and a huge pall of disillusionment in the land, some are already
saying this is not a winnable one. Even the Ooni of Ife invited some people to his palace to
urge them to abandon June 12 and fight another day. Outsiders also say Nigerians are
cowards. Do you really see this as a winnable struggle?
Wole Soyinka. I believe Oba Sijuwade got good answers from the leaders he invited,
so I won‟t dwell on his own perfidy, but I can understand people‟s frustrations. Who
wouldn‟t be? After doing all that the military required of us: adhered to a flawed transition,
voted in a free and fair election, demonstrated, protested and campaigned vociferously, all in
our bid to rid our country of this malignant cankerworm, all that we seemed to have gained
in return was the murder of over two hundred harmless Nigerians, mowed down by Abacha‟s
goons and, a beleaguered country caving under the influence of rapacious ogres like Abacha.
Yet the reality is different from this semblance of helplessness. Look, a friend of mine
visited Nigeria during the two month oil strike last year. A permanent cynic. He used to
believe too, that Nigerians are cowards. He called me up one morning and said, “Wole”,
“This is revolution in the making” He would argue prior to that time that Nigerians will
never fight for what they believe in, but on the ground he had to change his mind. So, the
point I‟m trying to stress is that people should not be carried away by mere appearances. I
can also understand foreigners who say we are cowards and go on and on about Nigerians
being doomed to a life under military dictatorship but they should also understand that our
main weapon against this regime is the unshakable truth and moral superiority of our
position. Yes, there is a certain gun induced eerie calmness in the land but then if the regime
is so sure-footed, why is it so threatened by the power of words, looking for enemies all over
the place? In the last one week, I hear they have picked up Wale Oshun, Femi Falana and
many others. Why are they paying lobbyists to tell lies to the foreign audience. Deep down,
Abacha knows that the peace his regime enjoys now is superficial and temporary. So for me,
the debate is not whether this struggle is winnable or not. It is simply that we cannot afford
to lose it. The choice for us is stark. We either win it and begin to restructure our society or
we remain slaves forever. People should not let their frustration translate into despondency
but I urge them to listen, watch and see. This struggle is ours, we cannot abandon it.
K.F: You say that, but as we approach another anniversary of the June 12 election, what
people see is the unmistakable return of the NPN, the nightmare visited on them over a
decade ago, in bed with the people who sent NPN parking, while the person who won the
mandate of the Nigerian people remains in jail, and several prominent leaders banished to
foreign lands?
W.S: I‟ll try to elaborate on my earlier point by referring to a lecture I recently gave at
Harvard University. In the lecture, I stated that if there ever was a successful coup staged
5

6. against the opposition, it was the Buhari/Babangida/Abacha coup of December 1983. As I
indicated, that was one coup engineered to save a defaulting wing of the hegemonic
construct in order to save the oligarchy from itself. And, you will notice that immediately
the regime was in place, it was business as usual, despite all pretensions in the opposite. The
main instrument for sustaining the decadent class in society was kept in place - import
licence. Hence, while it appeared that change was taking place, a lot of people were still
reaping from where they did not sow. Only after Babangida came in did things change
slightly, and even then, not for long. But it was that regime that struck a financial blow at
the heart of those who had always felt that Nigeria belonged to them. Unfortunately, what he
did was to create his own alternative power base in competition with the old guard, not to
change anything, the ban on import licence notwithstanding, but to perpetuate his stay
through the redirection of patronage. So, what Abacha is doing now is a culmination of all
that by bringing in the likes of Uba Ahmed and Ofonagoro, that vile character of the Verdict
83 infamy. What this does however, is to bring into clear relief what this huge joke is all
about, and what should concern us is how to expunge this malignant tumour. How do we
cutlerise it permanently? We have tried demonstrations, we have tried strikes, our people got
killed needlessly.
I forgot to also mention that we have worked very hard to win the support of the
international community to assist us in isolating this regime and treat it as a pariah regime,
untouchable by any decent, human society. We have had moderate successes in that. We
have also had some reverses. For instance, we have the very stubborn, cynical governments
like the British government, which, until very recently, suspends her values, in order to
support Abacha. So when you have a lot of that what is left? Perhaps we need to be
addressing our minds to other mechanisms of expunging this cankerworm. Definitely, it
means an intensification of the internal struggle at all levels. It is quite possible that we may
be witnessing the beginning of a civil war if these characters, Abacha and his goons insist on
continuing their act of subverting the will of the people. I don‟t see any peaceful solution to
the crisis. I‟ve never said this before, but everybody, including Abacha himself, know that
we have now got what amounts to a terrorist cell which is a law unto itself. Goons that are
only there to carry out Abacha‟s orders, not the state‟s needs. The army itself resents this
subversion of its raison detre. Of course, I mean the real army, the professional army. They
consider what is happening a disgrace. There are many people in the real army, who see
Abacha as the ultimate nightmare, and who Abacha see as an obstacle to his desecrating
agenda. These people resent the kind of image they have, deservedly, acquired, from
Nigerians. Some of them will like the opportunity to redeem their image, reform the army
and place the army at the service of the people. They are thoroughly ashamed by the
shameless rapacity of their leaders like Abacha and Diya, and they are looking for a chance
to restore their credibility, and they know they can only do this by turning their guns against
their leaders. And they know that sooner than later, they have to do it. That is the stage we
are now at in Nigeria
6

7. What then happens, when something triggers on this division and you have a sanguinary
section of the army. That is chaos! Another civil war, possibly! And there is no doubt at all
that we are nearer this juncture. The second angle is, of course, when the people intensify
their resistance, their demonstrations, and Abacha‟s goons are ordered to shoot at sight and
kill the people as they did in July 1993. At this point, I believe, they will turn their guns
against their masters. So that is why I am not very optimistic about a peaceful solution to
this crisis.
K.F: The scenario of another civil war is extremely worrying, especially when one
considers that very few countries have fought two civil wars and remained intact. Isn‟t this a
premature autopsy?
W.S: I know it is very difficult for any nation to experience two civil wars and continue to
exist as one country. But you see, we have here a treasonable situation. We have the closest
to the condition of treason in which the criminals are the ones who are holding power. And
by criminal, I mean anyone who subscribed or still subscribes to the annulment of the June
12 election is guilty of treason against the Nigerian state. Yet, we have here at the head of
those holding the reins of power, and I distinguish between power and authority. Abacha,
just like Babangida before him last year, whilst they can claim they have power, they do not
have authority. The man whose authority is recognised is the president who languishes in
jail and that authority rests ultimately in the hands of the people. Abiola is the custodian,
Abacha has the power. When the people reassert that authority that belongs to them, I don‟t
think it is going to be very peaceful, and I don‟t see the survival of Nigeria, much as I would
like that to be the outcome, automatic of that challenge. So, it is no premature autopsy at all.
In fact, it is no autopsy as yet, it is simply an assessment.
K.F: You have been outside for a few months now shuttling from one continent to the
other, even returning to Africa occasionally, all in the bid to keep the campaign against the
dictatorship in Nigeria alive. Do you worry about your safety in exile since you have
become a permanent feature on CNN and BBC Television?
W.S: This has come up in discussions with people in the pro-democracy movement. As
you know, I have also met some Heads of states and this issue has also come up in various
discussions. There is no doubt that one has noticed one or two tails, in gatherings, lectures
and so on. But while it raises questions about my personal safety, all one can do is to take
elementary precaution. Let us face it, I am 61, way beyond the life span of a Nigerian male
these days, so if I worry too much about that, I won‟t do anything and that is what they want.
But then, what about the safety of millions of Nigerians being trampled under Abacha‟s
jackboots. Seriously, those who are at home have more to worry about in terms of safety
really. If they are not targets of armed robbers, Abacha‟s goons are out to get them.
Here in London where I am speaking to you, their tailing methods are simply laughable. The
amateurish style make their efforts extremely laughable. I particularly recall the coincidence
7

8. of being picked up by the same taxi-cab twice within thirty minutes one occasion. When the
poor fellow was confronted, he could only mutter that he was just around my abode once
again, I simply laughed. Most of the time, we just keep going with the necessary precautions.
We also have our own intelligence and counter intelligence networks. And this is the other
problem they face. Even people who work for them are patriotic in their own way. Call it
perverse logic but they resent what they are being asked to do.
K.F: What do you mean by that, Prof?
W.S.: The truth is that these people are not legitimate even among their own operatives. No
matter how well they pay them or the manifold increases in their salaries, this people also see
the sense in giving our relevant information about their masters. I‟ve heard how my
unannounced departure created scenes of horror in the intelligence service. Innocent people
were hounded as a result and the Director of Road Safety Corps who knew nothing about my
departure also removed. Yet the regime‟s problems is not with the low ranking officials,
who have little or no respect for them anyway, but among their so called loyalists who
surround Abacha in Aso-Rock. The story of my departure will be told when we have dealt a
final blow on this cankerworm - but, yes, I take serious note of what we are lining ourselves
against - especially the extra-territorial activities of Gwarzo‟s goons. Ultimately though, the
work has to be done and this is the very serious issue. And, I have stated over and over again,
I do not see myself in exile, as long as I am spending every day, every second of my free
time in advancing the struggle against the dictatorship in Nigeria; being able to say to some
governments to try and accept an objective analysis of the Nigerian situation. To be able to
go back to foreign governments, as I have been doing since the collapse of the January 1996
exit date for Abacha at the Constitutional Conference, and say, “Look, didn‟t I tell you this
the last time I was here.” To be able to pick up the phone and call the foreign desks of some
western countries, and say, “Look, have you heard what happened in Nigeria recently?
Now, do you begin to believe what I have been saying to you, as an integral part of what is
happening.” Now, I have a sense of fulfillment doing all these. Therefore, I do not feel in
exile. That is why I‟ve no base, I have only my suitcase and flight tickets. My base is often
my hotel room wherever I am. When I wake up every morning, I have to re-orientate and re-
discover where I am. So, I am not in exile. Admittedly, this itinerant lifestyle can be very
disruptive, in the sense that I cannot now do some of the things I am used to doing at home
but I don‟t want to be too lost thinking about the disruption as long as the work gets done.
K.F: What is your own objective assessment of the concern about Nigeria in the
international community?
W.S: I have to say that some damage has been done to our efforts within the last few
months, the most damaging of which was President Carter‟s uninformed remarks which I
had personally taken him up on. Sometimes this happens, one has to go back to correct new
lies or new versions of old lies. And there has been a blitz, a real propaganda blitz in the last
few months by the government. And you can always tell that something sinister is underway
8

9. when certain things happen. There is a kind of relay or follow ups. When one lie is told, it
is followed up by yet another set of lies. Their officials just happen to address conservative
bastions like the Centre for Strategic and International Studies[CSIS] in Washington and the
lies are always ancient ones. I was obliged recently to intervene in a programme on the
Internet called “NAIJANET” A letter was sent to Randall Robinson of TransAfrica, a copy
of which appeared on the NET. The letter was written by some faceless character, who calls
himself Chijioke. This letter was backed by a heavy dossier which contained newspaper
cuttings from West Africa Magazine as far back as 1985, which at one point or the other
were supposed to be positions or responses by certain individuals. It contained various
fabrications on Abiola, Beko, Ken Saro Wiwa, even me and a host of other people now
involved in the democracy movement. I read these things and simply wanted to ignore it at
first, but then I changed my mind. The internet operates around the world and quite a
number of gullible people are out there who will read this, and, like poor President Carter,
swallow their lies. Equally, the recipient of that letter, Mr Robinson of TransAfrica had not
yet arrived at the point where he recognised the centrality of the winner of that election. His
own approach at the time was, let us get rid of this dictatorship and so on. For him, at that
time, it is not very relevant to harp on the June 12 election. And, you can imagine - this
package goes to him - containing at least on every page two lies, not to mention the
deliberate falsification of the context of events referred to in this letter. So, for a long time, I
thought I don‟t want to get involved in this sleaze baggage but then I realised I had a
responsibility , which is to write to subscribers of NAIJANET and pick out the lies in this
letter to let them know that this is the method of the regime at home - having lost all
arguments. I was not interested in replying these character line by line, I just felt it was
necessary to deal with certain inaccuracies - for example, to pick up an issue in the letter,
and say - it didn‟t actually happen that way, I was there and I happen to know what
transpired. Who is this character who calls himself a student if he is not an agent of the
military disinformation unit? And, in the last 48 hours, it has indeed been found out that this
person is a paid employee of the Directorate of Military Intelligence who has been sent to
misinform world opinion.
To give another example, ANI, Anthony Ani - the character in charge of Nigeria‟s finances.
He had the guts to go to the CSIS in Washington to say that I, Wole Soyinka, wrote a letter
inviting Abacha to take over government. He said this letter was published in The
Guardian. This is someone who calls himself a Minister and a Chartered Accountant. Many
were taken aback when he told this barefaced lie about “these so called democracy people.
After all, they were the ones who asked Abacha to come in. Wole Soyinka, in particular, the
Nobel Laureate wrote an open letter to the General on this issue.” When those present
challenged him and dared him to come up with his evidence, he remained defiant and
unbridled. He first sowed the seed of these lies in Davos, Netherlands - at the World
Economic Forum there. There was a reception chaired by Sonnie Ramphal, former
Commonwealth Secretary General. There was no exchange at all. Everybody just gave set
statements. At the tail end of the symposium, Ani came back and said something about
people inviting Abacha to come in. I went over to him after the event and said, look, you
9

10. don‟t have to lie - it‟s not necessary. Say what you have to say, perform your master‟s task
like a good slave and go back home. It is not decent to lie. Emboldened by the fact that he
managed to get away with that sort of mild response from me, the man got to America and
repeated the lie again, adding this time that it was published in the Guardian. So, I have just
written an op-ed piece for The New York Times challenging Ani to produce this article that I
wrote in The Guardian. If it is true then I would abandon all I have done in the democracy
movement, apologise to Abacha and become his Chief Propagandist. But if he has told a lie,
then he should be sent back and not allowed to utter a word about Nigeria‟s finances or debt-
reschedule. He should be sent back as empty handed as he came to Washington.
K.F: But do you think that is enough. The World Bank and IMF would rather listen to
someone like Alhaji Alhaji, not Anthony Ani. After all, it is an open secret that he is just a
figure head in the Ministry. Consequently, don‟t you think he deserves to be punished for
this slander.
W.S: You are not the first to suggest this line of action since Abacha and his clique are
always quick to accuse the local media of lies and falsehood. But perhaps there are better
and more effective ways of addressing their lies within the international community. At least
here, they don‟t have monopoly over any medium. But coming back to my earlier point - the
sheer tenacity of their lobby machine, apart from spending millions of dollars, they actually
set about junketing abroad, collecting estacode and running around advertising agencies. But
with all their millions, we face them with our kobo and, we are winning . But sometimes, it
is a very frustrating having to correct their lies over and over again, even if there is no basis
for foreign exchequers or embassies to believe one word they say.
K.F: What seems more frustrating though is the increasing attempt to isolate parts of this
struggle by that same international community, as though they are more important than other
components of this struggle, rather than treating them as a part of the whole. For example,
the genocide in Ogoniland has been the subject of considerable international attention, and
rightly so. The problem is that some actually see it as the cause, rather than the symptom of
the inequalities ever so prevalent in Nigeria. This „pick and choose‟ diplomacy boggles the
mind. Does it worry you, and if it does, do you often make the point to your audience?
W.S: Yes, this is being addressed all the time. You have to recognise that people outside
prefer to latch on to a disaster situation - to a physical disaster situation, that is. The image
of devastated lands, and of course, with the help and assistance of the Chief Environmental
Officer, Paul Okuntimo in his ethnic cleansing programme - is the language which strikes at
the emotional chord of the international community. We cannot help the fact that this creates
an itemist concentration on the Ogoni situation. But we try to redress this all the time.
Remember, one of my early articles made it very clear that the Ogoni situation is an
experiment in ethnic cleansing. Don‟t also forget that this is the first orgainsied resistance in
that oil region against the military mind of the dictatorship with the backing of SHELL. If
they succeed in this experiment, then the door is open in other parts of the oil producing
10

11. areas whenever they complain about the plundering and pillaging of their resources. Hence,
it is important to make sure that this experiment ends in failure. And it will. So, it is
important to highlight the Ogoni situation, if possible to the point of saturation. We must
bring it out before the world so that when similar things begin in other areas in the country,
the world can be reminded of the devastation of the Ogoniland, and, hopefully, it will
respond much, much quickly. It took a while for the international community to accept
what was happening in Ogoniland. Now, with that consideration in mind, and the Ogoni
genocidal pictures permanently interred in the minds of many, courtesy of Okuntimo‟s
brutality as depicted in the recent Channel Four documentary, when a similar action takes
place and Abacha pretends as though nothing has happened, hopefully the international
community will understand that we are not just crying wolf. But I will agree with you
completely. The overall context is very important and, we cannot afford to lose sight of it.
It is our responsibility to hammer it into the consciousness of the government and people
here, especially as it involves the complicity of their companies here.
K.F: The last point about their companies also reveals aspects of their non-challance and
hypocrisy as far as our struggle for democracy is concerned. Records recently released by
the Exports Credit Guarantee Department, and published by the World Development
Movement show that weapons are still being sold to the Abacha regime, and all these
contracts have been approved by their Ministry of Defence in spite of outright parliamentary
denials and or euphemistic admission to sales of „non-lethal‟ material. This is crucial when
one realises that other countries look up to Britain for leadership and direction on the
Nigerian question.
W.S: What we have been trying to say to other countries in particular, is that it‟s about
time to stop looking at Britain for leadership or a sense of direction. I refuse to accept, even
though the facts point to the contrary. In principle, I refuse to accept when I speak to them,
any notion of Nigeria being a special interest area of Britain. I refuse to accept that. And it
is not just European countries who believe in this spurious notion. More importantly, is the
need now for the lead to be taken by African governments, not merely in denouncing, and
isolating and stignatising Abacha‟s regime but in stigmatising Great Britain in its treacherous
action towards Nigeria. In other words, it‟s time for leaders who represent the moral
conscience of that continent to stand up. We know what they‟ve been doing diplomatically,
we know all about their “quiet diplomacy” but it‟s time to come out openly and denounce
Abacha and denounce the actions of those who covertly, diplomatically or otherwise sustain
Abacha‟s regime. Once somebody like President Mandela take the lead, takeover the
leadership or the position of conscience on the continent, you find that European countries
will then ignore British claims to a kind of pre-eminence of direction where the
Commonwealth is concerned. Mandela‟s voice will, for instance, be of great assistance in
mobilising opinion against the participation of Abacha at the next Commonwealth Heads of
Government Meeting[CHOGM] in Auckland, New Zealand. We know what the rules are,
and we know the New Zealanders have made their position known in favour of the
democratic struggle, there are certain things that can still be done within the rules to
11

12. convince Abacha that he is not welcome by the people of New Zealand. A rabid dog must
be kept at a distance. It dismays me that some still want to feed this rabid dog rather than put
it down. That, unfortunately, seems to be the British position. And this is not a question of
giving the dog a bad name in order to hang it, the action or inaction of Great Britain, is rather
like the expression, “Perfide Albion”, almost as if the British government is determined to
live up to that historic, linguistic position. Their stance on arms sale to Nigeria depicts this
more than any other issue. Consequently, to come up with the kind of excuses we‟ve had is
insulting to our intelligence. Weapons have been paid for long time ago, yet the ECGD now
says Nigeria is their highest debtor, or the one about it not being a government to
government sale, but an arrangement by a private company - this time Vickers and the
Nigerian military, nothing to do with Her Majesty‟s government. The most ridiculous,
however, is the one about the non-lethality of the weapons supplied, whatever that means! I
find it very irritating that they can come up with these spurious explanations. Orisha bo le
gbe mi, se mi bo se ba mi, the simple proverb encapsulates my own reaction to the British
government position on Nigeria. But let them just know that they are also blood-stained.
People are being mown down by the same non-lethal weapons they have sold to this
dictatorship, their tanks, their armoured vehicles. This is what Abacha uses to dominate and
terrorise Nigerians. So the British should not escape international opprobrium for its tacit
support for this dictatorship. It seems to me therefore that there is a mystery surrounding the
British government‟s reaction to Nigeria‟s democratic struggle, a mystery that can only be
solved by psycho-historians - since it requires aspects of psychology as well as history. It is
not a field for writers like me.
K.F: I also find it interesting that you mention the moral conscience of the African
leadership. But when one juxtaposes this with an earlier comment you made about a club of
military dictators in the West African region, reluctant to let go, can one really expect this
club members to react to the moral conscience of other African leaders?
W.S: Yes, it can happen, whether they like it or not. This is going to be a civilian
initiative, then the military can come on board. I‟ve said over and over again that Nigeria
holds the key to that region‟s (in)stability. The misuse of Nigeria‟s troops in Liberia, for
instance, under the guise of regional security, to protect Doe in Liberia, is what Abacha is
now using to shore up other criminal regimes like Strasser‟s in Sierra Leone and Jammeh in
the Gambia. Up till now, we have not totally sorted out what role our soldiers played in the
ousting of Dawda Jawara‟s regime in the Gambia. They were there, whether they actively
participated is irrelevant, they had already seen the „light‟ through their Nigerian brothers in
arms.
This tendency, has brought to the fore the need to demystify guns in our body politic. We
have got to find a way of bringing the military to book, of subjecting them to the will of the
people. It‟s happened in Mali. And it‟s going to happen whether they like it or not. When it
happens in Nigeria, all the satellites members of that club, of which Nigeria is the - Capo-
Capo-chi chi - the Mafia chief. When that happens, we wouldn‟t even need to tell the others
12

13. before they pack and disappear. In other words, it is back to one of the reasons why the June
12 election annulment is criminal. It was in the confidence that Nigerians was on course for
the democratic dispensation that we started the African Democratic League. We knew then
that unless we export the democratic gospel, Nigeria was bound to stand alone. We were
already organising the first African Democratic congress in Benin republic before Babangida
annulled that election in order to further the interests of the military club. Since then, other
reverses have been suffered in the Gambia. What it then means is that those who are in the
pro-democracy movement need their own club linking up not just in West Africa, but sharing
experiences across the continent.
K.F: In other words, you are suggesting a pan-African assault that must be all embracing?
W.S: Absolutely, this is what I‟ve been saying. Ee have to make them understand that our
struggles are intertwined. We have to make them understand, especially in the West African
region, that they owe it to themselves, in their own interest to assist the Nigerian democratic
struggle in order to quicken the pace of others and improving the ones that are less than
genuine.
K.F: But even as you propagate this, don‟t you see a Gaullist disinterest almost bordering
on an expectation of Nigeria‟s dismemberment, as if there is something to be gained from the
disintegration of Nigeria by other countries on the continent?
W.S: Let us concentrate on the African aspect of it first. There is, as you know, an envy of
Nigeria on the continent. Some actually feel absolute contempt for Nigeria and Nigerians.
But there is also a genuine concern about the future of Nigeria. Indeed, other African
colleagues accuse one as though one is responsible for the whole mess. A recurrent question
is always “what is happening to Nigeria, When are you going to sort things out in that
country, “ and so on and so forth. Many of course are happy that Nigeria is cut down to size.
The hand of the clock has been reversed in Nigeria. And you can see what is happening in
Sierra Leone and The Gambia. Now, as for the other countries, even those that are very
ambivalent, some see Nigeria in terms of market, in terms of economic resources, others
however, whose friends and satellites are benefiting from the mess in which Nigeria has been
plunged, simply argue that the country is too large, it‟s cumbersome, splitting it up might be
the „ideal‟ solution as if all our problems will cease to exist when that is done. You know,
you can see where they are coming from and on the one hand, you accept that it is very
difficult to dispute. On the other hand, it also depends on the point from which they are
assessing the problem. Even some Nigerians say it openly that they are no more Nigerians.
They tell you to forget it - there is no other solution than to break up! You see, what has
happened has so traumatised Nigerians. To them, the argument is if this is what the clique
ruling Nigeria wants, well why can‟t we maximise our own resources and put it to use in a
smaller area. Why should we keep spending all our lives fighting for one Nigeria when the
unity does not exist. But the argument of those of us who have spent our time on the path of
unity is to persuade them that it is possible to have an egalitarian system within the country,
13

14. within the various interest groups - why don‟t they accept this point. It is very simple. The
level of sophistication we have in the country should make it possible for us to realise that
the ruling clique and their goons represent only themselves and that they are a minority in
their own area, resented by their own masses. We cannot say because they come from one
section of the country, everybody from their section should be damned. If one analyse
critically what happened on June 12, it is clear that it is the clique in the desperation to
perpetuate themselves, who would not let go. Their aim is to continue the master-serf
relations even among their people. This is what is driving their domineering disposition, and
it is what is responsible for the election annulment. So, one can understand the pall of
disillusionment behind the call for a break-up or dismemberment but we must not allow
ourselves to promote such hasty generalisations.
K.F: Let‟s talk about the role of the United Nations in all of this. I refer to the UN in
particular noting your role as a Special Ambassador for UNESCO. How long is it going to
take the UN to break its silence on Nigeria. Is it when it becomes a Somalia or a Rwanda?
W.S: First of all, I am not excusing the United Nations because I want Nigeria to be on top
of the UN‟s agenda but I am just trying to explain the United Nations system as best as I can.
The driving motor of the UN is more towards - medicine after death, not preventative action.
We have to change the entire psychology of the organisation if we are to get it to play more
pro-active role in world affairs.
K.F: But that was precisely what Boutrous Boutrous Ghali promised in his inaugural
programme - Agenda for Peace He stated categorically that his priority will be preventive
diplomacy and the development of UN‟s early warning mechanisms. Whatever happened to
that ideal?
W.S: Yes, thank you for reminding me. Boutrous Ghali has the right ideas but he is at the
head of a behemoth, a very cumbersome organisation that requires a sort of constant
prodding. Again, one can understand why this is happening since the Security Council holds
the ultimate power in the UN, not the Secretariat. At the same time, we have a responsibility
to keep plugging at it, and they have a responsibility to respond to our warnings. If you
have a potential Rwanda - although I don‟t think Nigeria‟s case will be that bad - I think the
worst case scenario is more akin to a Somalia - I believe they also get reports from their own
country risk assessors alerting them to the worsening condition in Nigeria, and from private
discussion I know they are worried. But any time the opportunity exists one always drives
the point home. I shall have another such opportunity early June to address the General
Assembly on a UNICEF programme, and I will seize the opportunity to re iterate how the
future of the younger generations is being destroyed by the venal criminals at the top of
many unelected regimes in Africa.
We believe Nigeria has to be placed on the agenda of the Security Council in the same way
that Haiti, and South Africa before it got there. This is what we want. But it will help a lot if
14

15. we first succeed in having Nigeria treated as a problem in the Commonwealth. If we
succeed in getting her [Nigeria‟s] participation downgraded at the next summit, we would
have gone a long way in highlighting the problem. We know that certain rules guide their
meetings but we have to get the Commonwealth to address the problem of Nigeria as well as
that of the other upstarts in Sierra Leone and the Gambia. This is where we are
concentrating our efforts now. If we get this done, the UN will find it difficult not to give
the same level of attention. We hope other governments, democratic organisations,
parliamentarians, Congress people will complement that effort. If an organisation like the
Commonwealth takes it upon itself to spearhead this diplomatic offensive, it is a lot easier
for others to come on board, I think.
K.F: It is interesting you are detailing all these efforts you and others have been making.
From what one reads in the Nigerian media of late, there is a huge dose of disillusionment
fed on rumours and deliberate disinformation. This is so rampant that some even begin to
question the motives of campaigners like yourself. It simply means the ordinary people need
reassurance about the sanctity of the mandate passed on June 12.
W.S: All one can say really to people we are interested in - those we believe we represent
is that , please be mature. They should know by now that this regime is capable of anything .
It has unlimited resources and has been wasting this on propaganda. We can only remind
them of how Babangida, Halilu Akilu and Chukwumerije lied openly, manipulating the
media before the cancellation and afterwards. We have to remind them of how they were
bold enough to lie that Abiola had berthed a ship load of mercenaries at the Lagos harbour to
come and kill the Hausa and non-Yoruba residents of Lagos. They used this in causing
disenchantment and drove innocent people away from their livelihood. In spite of that,
Chukwumerije was given a chieftaincy title in his village for work well done. That is
something on which Chukwumerije‟s people still owe me an explanation. And I/m talking
now about their leadership. I have tackled one or two of them, by the way and their
explanation was unconvincing. Somebody who had committed such treasonable acts against
the Nigerian people. Abiola scored over forty per cent of the vote in Chukwumerije‟s area
and that is substantial following - and how can somebody - how can a man who so betrayed
his intelligence, his calling...Comrade, he calls himself Mr Comrade, yet he behaves like
Goebbels, and actually damaged the sense of solidarity and unity brought about by that
election through irresponsible broadcasts on Radio Kaduna and despicable editorials faxed
from Aso Rock to New Nigerian. All this they deliberately concocted.
So, all I am saying to people is don‟t be fooled twice. If they tell you tomorrow that Wole
Soyinka is a child rapist, just nod and say yes, we hear but what about June 12, 1993. If they
say Beko and the NADECO people have now taken to pimping or trafficking in drugs, just
say yes, we hear but what about June 12, 1993. Listen, if people want to be gullible, they
will be destroyed. I hope someone like President Carter who fell for such gimmicks has
learnt a few lessons from it. It is the duty of traitors to try and split ranks - to try and tar the
other side with the same brush which actually applies to them - Ai tete m’ole, ole nkigbe ole
15

16. m’oloko. Let people just remember that simple proverb. Every lie, every pejorative lie
which is attributed to the pro-democracy activists is really a reflection of the reality
surrounding the traitors, those who have stolen power and the mandate of the people
Right now, interesting things will soon start happening. There are going to be some other
organisations that Nigerians will hear about in a very short while, a lot of re-grouping is
going on among the pro-democrats. The movement is reviewing its strategy and we are
deciding on certain novel approaches which will require some kind of parallel organisation.
There is nothing unique about this, it is the way the struggle has always evolved, it is the way
things develop. If you look at the history of struggle against all forms of tyranny anywhere,
especially the ones against colonialism. In our situation, there will be an evolution of
arrangements as long as the ultimate objective, which is the restoration of the mandate of
June 12, 1993 is concerned, people should not allow themselves to be hoodwinked by the
regime‟s intimidatory and divisive tactics. The objective now is not just to drive the
military from office, it is also to eradicate the militarist disease sowed in the minds of our
people, and we can only do this by keeping faith with the mandate of June 12, which is a
clear expression of the people‟s will as indicated in the election.
K.F: I don‟t think the man on the street will disagree with the broad thrust of the position
you have outlined. But it seems the intimidation has become so intense that they believe
only the leaders outside can make this happen. I think they have made the mental shift
necessary towards the evolution of the struggle.
W.S: That is why I talked about the evolution of the struggle. But first of all, let people
understand that there has to be a division of labour in every struggle. Even that division can
be reviewed from time to time. If there is a slack in one department, then the other side must
try and pick up the slack and assume responsibility which, may be, that section refused to
accept at the outset. This again, is in the normal order of things. The important thing, let me
just say, is for people not to lose their morale. There will always come a moment in every
struggle when everyone recognises what the most appropriate weapon of resistance is. It
will be so clear that people will need no goading, they won‟t need a reminder, there won‟t be
need for any special educational processes. Sometimes, it is even the enemy who dictates to
the people what the next stage is. Although, of course, that is not an ideal situation. We
want to be able to go ahead and have the enemy meet us.
If there is war in that country, It‟s Abacha that must be held responsible. If there is civil
strife, it‟s Abacha and the small military clique surrounding him and its civil society acolytes
who are responsible for it. All the people ask for is that the establishment of their will.
Nothing can be more peaceful than that. The moment comes when the people have to say - I
will not turn the other cheek. But we must be prepared in advance for that moment. Unless
our people want to remain permanent slaves...unless they want to be insulted, humiliated and
dehumanised by any tupenny, any ridiculous creature, simply because that creature has a gun
and wears a uniform. If that is what the people want, then of course, it is their choice and
16

17. they are going to remain slaves forever. But I don‟t believe a life of perpetual enslavement is
what they want. They have shown their preference through the June 12 election. I believe
they will recognise that moment of change and the necessary methods of resisting an
occupation army will have to be put in place. That is where leadership comes in - that is
where internal leadership as well as external leadership come in. There must be absolute
collaboration between the two as we cannot afford to lose this struggle.
17