by Rasheed Ojikutu
Although Nigerians are missing the hard copy of ‘My Watch’ by Olusegun Obasanjo, but the solace is that there are scores of websites on the Internet displaying summaries of the book and if one is to judge by the power of epitomised versions in telling the whole story concisely, then, it could be inferred that the book had been read by those of us who had the opportunity of appraising the summary.
However, the ban on the book by a Nigerian Court has increased the appetite of the citizenry for the revelations of the decade by a man who in similitude of a door is well positioned to see within and without the Nigerian polity and its actors. It is worthy of note that the prohibition of ‘My Watch’ has exhumed the carcass of Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s other books from their quiet grave onto the streets of Nigeria where they sell like hot cake in lieu of the proscribed book.
Nigeria continues to do and act in a ludicrous gyration, not settling down to a definite standard expected of a country that intends to be counted amongst the progressives of the world community. There seems to be so much self-denial in the country as we have institutionalised the act of settling for less, even when we have the capacity to do and achieve a lot more. It is unthinkable that an intellectual work would be banned several years after the dark ages just because the content is displeasing to some people. Now that the book has been banned, what are the sanctions for those who read the legions of summaries on the Internet? One wonders if there are laws to charge some of us who are readers for contempt of court, at least for not closing our eyes when we stumbled on these materials on those web sites.
Wikipedia explained that banned books are books to which free access is not permitted. It further observed that the practice of banning books is a form of censorship, for political, religious, moral, or commercial motives. Some consequences of book banning include: general increase in the demand for the book which may lead to piracy because the publisher is being incapacitated from production and it could make the author or the publisher of the material more popular and sometimes more hated. The American Library Association while differentiating between book ban and book challenge explained that books are challenged to remove or restrict materials, based upon the objections of a person or group while banning is the removal of those materials from circulation. Books could simply be censored.
Contrary to general belief, book prohibition is not only undertaken by a Central administration alone as the ban could be imposed by World bodies, Federal, State or Local Governments or by Schools or religious bodies or even a library. For example, the book Satanic Verses written by the Indian born British essayist Sir Ahmed Salman Rushdie, which was banned by some Islamic countries in 1988 with a Fatwa placed on the author became popular amongst Christians while the author was intensely hated by the Muslim community in the world. The first known attempt of censorship could be traced to the establishment of the Office of Censorship by the Romans in 500 BC. It should be noted that Socrates was executed in 396 BC because the Romans feared that his ideas were capable of polluting the minds of the youths in Rome.
Seasoned and professionally competent judges in the civilised world today would not ordinarily grant interim injunction to ban or challenge a book. In fact, most advanced countries would only ban books to protect children and not government or aggrieved individuals. In this regard, the words of two American Judges taken from ALA.org are apt. According to the website, Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas (“ The One Un-American Act.” Niemen Reports, vol. 7, no. 1, Jan. 1953, p. 20) observed that
“Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.’’
Also, Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan, Jr., in Texas v. Johnson, was quoted to have said
‘If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable.’
No matter the perspective that one may want to look at it, book banning is primeval, inane and naïve and any judge in the modern world who bans a book to please or satisfy the grieve of the government or any individual is doing a great damage to freedom of expression which going by the words of William.J.Brennan is “the bedrock of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.’’ It is indeed a grave abuse of the law.
The ban on ‘My Watch’ is more comic because the author rather than the publisher is being sanctioned by the court from releasing the book, which is an indication that the judge is unable to separate the writer of the material from its publisher.
It should be noted that in most cases, the author is different from the publisher while the publisher may be different from the printer and the distributor or marketer. Moreover, if judges pre-empt or prevent people from saying, writing or showing it the way they feel or perceive, then the law on libel and slander would become redundant.
Those who gnash their teeth while reprimanding Chief Olusegun Obasanjo for purportedly disobeying court orders banning his book, should ponder on what would have been the fortune of our country if there is no one to challenge the status-quo and if a man of Obasanjo’s status has remained taciturn in the face of tyranny… Who will protect the masses of our people from draconian and primordial laws, if a man of his calibre fails to hold the bull by the horn? After all, if gold rust, then iron must be careful.
Reaction to the book has been equally ridiculous and nonsensical. Imagine our respected Wole Soyinka putting the content of the book in the trash because, according to him, Obasanjo has a “capacity for infantile mischief.” Comparing the former president to Olowo-Aiye in D.O. Fagunwa’s novel. Wole described him as a “master of mendacity,” writer of ‘ignoble fabrication’ and an “indefatigable peddler of lies.”
With due respect to our great Nobel Laureate, his words seem to be restoring Olusegun Obasanjo’s paint about his character. One would have thought that Soyinka would join other writers in condemning the ban on a book whose content is unswerving and too regular to be a lie. For Soyinka should have looked beyond the denunciation of his personality by the writer and stick to the principles he fought for and stood ‘gidigba’ against when “The Man Died” was banned by the administration of General Yakubu Gowon in the 70s. After all, “truth is constant” and, therefore, it does not matter whose horse is gored.
Rasheed Ojikutu wrote this article for The Guardian. He is a professor at the Faculty of Business Administration, University of Lagos.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.
