When Frustration Breeds Historical Distortion In The Interest Of Desperation The public comparison made by one of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's...
When Frustration Breeds Historical Distortion In The Interest Of Desperation
The public comparison made by one of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's lawyers between Mandela's influence on his group during his years in prison with Mazi Nnamdi Kanu's IPOB movement has raised serious concerns over what many observers termed a troubling moment, signaling an internal leadership crisis in the movement.
The indigenous People Of Biafra (IPOB) led by the incarcerated leader, Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, is a global self-determination movement seeking the independence of Biafra through Referendum. IPOB is a movement with an existing leadership structure – The Directorate Of State(DOS), charged with the day-to-day administrative and operational duties, for the sole purpose of actualizing the movement's objective — Biafra Restoration.
However, the African National Congress(ANC) was an anti-apartheid human rights movement that sought political inclusion, participation, and equality of Black South Africans during the apartheid regime. The ANC emerged from the 1912 South African Native National Congress (SANNC), which began as an all Black Peoples' protest against White marginalization of Blacks in South Africa's political and social system.
Before comparisons are drawn between the two leaders of the above groups, Mandela and Kanu, who now share the same pattern of state-sponsored persecution, it is imperative to highlight the striking differences in their struggles and cases.
Mission: Political Participation vs Self-determination
Kanu is seeking his people's right to self-determination via a referendum for Biafra out of Nigeria, while Mandela sought for the human rights of political association and inclusivity for Black South Africans. Both struggles are different but share the same pattern of state persecution.
Charges and Offences
Mandela's charges were based on sabotage, inciting workers and attempting to overthrow government, unlike Kanu, whose sentence was hinged on terrorism charges. The conditions for Mandela's detention were not as strict as that of Kanu, who, up to date, is being monitored by state agents within the Sokoto prison.
Kanu's case is also different and borders on not just political but constitutional grounds; seeking for the restoration of a sovereign state from an existing nation state, Nigeria – unlike Mandela who only sought for a constitutional amendment of rights of inclusion; basically on human rights and against the political marginalization of Black South Africans.
Did Mandela lead ANC from Robben Island?
Contrary to claims by some mischief makers and historical revisionists, Mandela did not actually control ANC from prison. He was only a symbolic figure of his struggle; an uncompromising leader of the struggle and resistance to apartheid regime. He did not sit at the decision-making position of the group's advocacy, though he was often briefed through letters and oral conversations by his visitors. Mandela did not oversee the leadership activities of his group from prison.
Interestingly, what many poor students of history refused to acknowledge was that Mandela's group had an existing leadership structure and hierarchy, even before Mandela was imprisoned, which ensured smooth communication and continuity of the struggle.
Below are Mandela's court cases:
1952 (Defiance Campaign): Arrested for his leadership in the Defiance Campaign. He was sentenced to nine months of hard labour, though this was suspended for two years.
1956 (Treason Trial): Arrested in December 1956 along with 155 other activists on charges of high treason. This marathon trial lasted until March 1961, when he and all other defendants were finally acquitted.
1962 (Final Arrest): Apprehended on 5 August while driving disguised as a chauffeur. He was sentenced to five years in prison on 7 November 1962.
1963 (Rivonia Trial): While already serving his five-year sentence, he was charged again during the Rivonia Trial. This led to his conviction on four counts of sabotage and a sentence of life imprisonment on 12 June 1964
Mandela could not have successfully galvanized and led his group from the dungeon of the apartheid government throughout these years of incessant state persecution without official leaders controlling the affairs of the group.
Consequently, the African National Congress(ANC) was headed by individuals like Chief Albert Luthuli (who served as the President General from 1952- 1967).
Meanwhile, recall that Mandela was finally arrested in 1962 after years of back and forth and life imprisoned in 1964 and released in 1990.
Another leader of the group was Oliver Tambo (President-General, 1967–1991 took over from Luthuli): Mandela's former law partner and lifelong friend, Tambo led the ANC from exile (abroad) for over three decades. He was the movement's primary international diplomat, successfully building global support for the anti-apartheid struggle and keeping the various factions of the ANC united while it was banned.
These leaders assiduously rallied around and sought international support for Mandela's release based on the pretext that his conviction was politically motivated and a violation of his human rights to association and expression.
Mandela allowed the leaders of his group, ANC, to carry out their jobs and neither his family, nor his legal representatives were mentioned to have in any form interfered with his group's leadership role in the process of actualizing his release 27 years after.
Also, IPOB and ANC are not in the same category in history.
IPOB and ANC are not and can not be the same.
If we were to agree with the narrative peddled by some characters that 'Mandela managed ANC from prison', then it means that those surrounding Mandela were highly professional, ethical and sincere with their communications, duties and engagements with the Tambo led ANC group, their foreign and local allies, including the former Eastern regional government in Nigeria led by Dr. Michael I. Ọkpara. But, such professionalism is far from those surrounding the IPOB leader today.
Apparently, when frustration sets in due to overwhelming professional misconduct, individuals tend to fall back on distorting history and blame shifting to evade accountability. It is intellectual dishonesty for anyone, let alone a lawyer representing a high profile case of Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to engage in spinning historical narrative to fuel public outrage. It reveals a clear obsession with power and control than in ensuring their client gets released by the court.
Family Writers Press International
No comments
Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.