[dropcap]I[/dropcap]t is somewhat disheartening that a person who goes by the name Oyegùn, akin to that of the Yoruba god of Iron and war, Ògùn, has picked no lessons from his mythology especially as it relates to what transpired at iré èkiti culminating in the decision of Ògùn not to set eyes on his son.
Going by historical accounts, Ògùn who was frequently sought after by towns within Yorubaland to fight on their behalf on this particular day had returned to Iré èkiti, his town after many years of absence. He had been at Ondoland for many years, where he had gone to fight for the people of Ondo. While he was away, his young son Iré held brief for him as the traditional ruler of the town.
On this day of Ògùn’s return to Iré èkiti, after many years of absence, and while his town had advanced both in culture, tradition and population, he met the town’s chiefs meeting about the welfare of the town. As had become customary in Ògùn’s absence, the chiefs didn’t speak during meeting but spoke in sign language until they were done after which they drank palm wine and spoke freely among themselves.
When Ògùn met them at the meeting, he greeted them and enquired of his son but got no response, then he became infuriated by their silence and unsheathed his sword and began to behead them. Some of the chiefs took to their heels, due to their vow of silence during meetings, to where they could speak and told Ògùn that they were offsprings of Iré his son, the king of Iré èkiti.
Feeling terribly guilty for his impatience and undoing, Ògùn swore never to set his eyes on his son, Iré, after realizing that he had killed his grandsons and other chiefs in anger. That incident led to Ògùn’s eventual exit from cohabiting with humans. History has it that he never saw his son again and retired to the earth thenceforth.
This story has powerful lessons for people in power today especially anyone who goes by the name of Oyegùn and heads a political party in a country called Nigeria.
The first lesson is that long absence from a position of power requires a period of re-education and re-orientation to be abreast with latest operational trends and procedures for achieving superior results. Believing that things will stay fixed or that old strategies will work in a new order is not just a recipe for crisis but the grandest of all delusions. Besides, there’s a whole world of difference between running a military government and running a democracy.
It is understandable, and we empathise with them, that both Oyegùn and his fundamentalist sect operating in the name and business of a political party have been out of power for many years and do not quite understand the workings of a democracy. But it behoves on them, if their motives are genuine, to get acquainted with the ethos of democracy and the rule of law rather than seek to militarise a fledging democracy just to get their way.
The vow by the Chiefs at Iré èkiti was as sacred as the oath sworn to by the Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria to uphold the law. To expect that because a new government is in power should mean that the significance of that oath would diminish is barefaced wishful thinking. The law, especially in a democracy, is not a respecter of persons, no matter the stature or power possessed. An oath is an oath and remains abiding for as long as its objective subsists.
In fact, that Oyegùn said something was fundamentally wrong with the verdict of the Supreme Court was itself a self-indicting statement by him and his Party, the All Progressives Congress (APC). The reality is that rather than speak as a nationalist Oyegùn was motivated by partisan and fundamentalist considerations, which, in their strict senses, are both inimical to nation building. How then do they intend to build Nigeria?
The same party hailed the Supreme Court when its decision was to their advantage but was quick to call for probe when the decision didn’t favour them.
The question then is: Do they think the Supreme Court is an arm of their fundamentalist organisation? Do they even think that by seeking to arm-twist the judiciary to cow-tow to their party’s whims and caprices and vagrantly undermine the rule of law in Nigeria, they stand to obtain any valuable benefit?
Oyegùn has called for a probe of the Justices of the Supreme Court of Nigeria by the APC for losing a case in their court. Who then will probe the like of Justice Ambrosa of the Rivers State Governorship Elections Petition Tribunal who departed from all known legal principles which the Supreme Court by its landmark judgment affirmed? Does this call to probe also mean that Justice Yakubu of the Court of Appeal, who unlike Justice Ambrosa, upheld legal principles would also be probed? Since judicial probes are now limited to and directed at those who give ‘unfavourable’ decisions to the APC, does it not mean that the APC, a political fundamentalist sect not fundamentally different in operations from the religious fundamentalist sect, Boko Haram, is bent on derailing Nigeria’s democracy?
Although from the mythology of Ògùn, he was swayed by impatience and strong passion to wrongfully kill his own offsprings for not understanding the importance of their silence, he was humble enough to acknowledge his error and courageous to impose judgment on himself; Oyegùn on the other hand, along with his party, carry on as though they command the unconditional obeisance of the elements and have bluntly refused to heed the call to reason. It is laughable; very laughable. For the APC to think that this is a sustainable route to good governance is to deliberately put itself on self-destruct mode and it’s only a matter of time.
Oyegùn and his anarchist regime will soon find that not everything bows to Baal. The Supreme Court has spoken and quite clearly. The effect is reverberating across the land. The Nigerian people will surely be the next as this was definitely not the change they sought.
Oraye St. Franklyn, a strategic communicator and good governance advocate, writes from Port Harcourt, Rivers State. He tweets from @RealOraye. He is also on Facebook.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the author.
