The chasm between the typical Nigerian elite and the masses is such that the masses clap for joy whenever any of the members of the elite encounter adversity. Senator Ike Ekweremadu’s situation in the UK now is a good illustration of that. There has not been much sympathy for him because of the belief that he was just lost in a race against himself in amassing wealth for family and friends. The preference is: let him stew in his own juice. Most people would say it serves him right because, back home in Nigeria, he would have used his powers to block justice.
So, the insensitive use of power by the elite for a long time is such that the average citizen is unwilling to bring the geopolitical and pastoral lenses in looking at when an elite member falls into a ditch. We cannot blame the masses and the citizens whatsoever but we must still situate the letter Chief Olusegun Obasanjo has written to the British authorities on Ekweremadu’s case.
An elder statesman once described Obasanjo as a huge cauldron that is impossible to comprehend at one go. Obasanjo, a two-time president of Nigeria who made a false move not quite a month ago is also the one who has written a plea to the British authorities to take another look at Senator Ike Ekweremadu’s case before its judicial system.
There is no knowing how the British authorities will respond to the letter which has come to them from someone they know very well. We will only know later in the month of May 2023 when the courts eventually pronounce judgment on the senator.
But whatever happens to Ekweremadu on the Day of Judgment, it would be on record that there was a plea for him from a very notable Nigerian. It can be difficult to really know Obasanjo’s motives in doing what he does. It is obvious a circle has approached the former president to deploy his name to possibly save Ekweremadu, for whatever reasons.
Might he be able to score this goal?
But Obasanjo’s intentions do not matter as meanings are not determined by intentions. Outside of whatever intentions drove his action, it is possible he took a geopolitical view of the entire case: that once a citizen is trapped outside his or her country, his or her plight cannot be understood strictly in terms of rule of law or as nothing more than a judicial outcome. All such instances are understood in geo-cultural lens: the law in question was written for those whose ancestors understood it as such. It is rather unfortunate that he got caught up in a law his own ancestors might have a different understanding of.
The second point that might have influenced Obasanjo into writing the letter must be the logic that power does and should have a pastoral dimension. Power should not be about punishment and destruction all the time. The idea that the thief knows the difference between right and wrong and chose to do the wrong and must, therefore, be punished is not such a sound idea in all cases. Sociologists of imprisonment are yet to agree that the prison system is about reform. Many of them think it is more about endangering the possibility of reform of the prisoner at all.
There is something of a challenge for the larger society in managing what Ekweremadu got himself into. The challenge is for the larger society to transcend Ekweremadu’s own limitations and teach him as well as his types the lesson of the pitfalls of not being able to see beyond one’s nose. It may not be that Obasanjo wants him to come and go back to the Senate or carry on as if nothing happened. Obasanjo might only be suggesting that the Nigerian society loses nothing if Ekweremadu is given another opportunity to show to the people of this country that he never showed that he would ever need them. And that he has realized the imperative to be fairer to the people, particularly the masses.
Let all who might have turned opportunities to serve into opportunities for mindless selfishness have a second chance to reflect and repent, particularly in this case where the potential victim has yet to suffer the deprivation. That way, society itself would have transcended the temptation to the thoughtlessness of a Shylock insisting on nothing less than a pound of flesh. He turned out a miserable loser.
For the three reasons pointed out here, Obasanjo has done well by writing the letter.
