The title is taken from an earlier write up by Dr. Olatunji Dare in his opinion article on Chief Gani Fawehinmi (herein called Gani). He titled the opinion article “Gani: A Postscript”. This suggests a tendency to end debate and discussion about the enigma, Gani Fawehinmi with his burial. This explains why many so-called ‘notable’ Nigerians were falling over themselves to participate in the orgy of accolade for the MAN before he was buried.
Gani is not just another important personality that will be celebrated for just few days and then forgotten. Gani Fawehinmi represented an idea of change which exploration is vital for the future of the millions of people he represented and defended in his lifetime, in Nigeria and Africa. To the Nigerian ruling class, their apologists and hanger-on, who represented what Gani fiercely fought against, the burial of Gani was a big relief. To the fake political heirs to Gani, debate must end with a call for “masses to fight for their rights”. But to his teeming millions of fans and supporters, who constitute the poor working masses of Nigeria and Africa, Gani was a Revolutionary Working Class Tribune, therefore, exploration of his life is vital for the working class activists and youth seeking to defeat capitalism, especially in this era of neo-liberal madness and utter failure of Nigeria’s and indeed Africa’s backward ruling class.
That the late Chief Gani Fawehinmi was enigmatic was further confirmed by the torrent of tribute to his memory by millions of Nigerians. Despite attempt by some media to concentrate on the 'eminent' personalities' view (a term Gani himself ridiculed openly) of Gani, the reality is that it is the poor, the working people, students and youth who actually gave the honour to Gani. One thing is significant in Gani's life, which could only be found in another enigmatic personality, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti: he stood against all corrupt and anti-poor governments from the beginning to the end. As Fela had hitherto sung, it was 'no agreement today, no agreement tomorrow'. For young people looking for role model, this aspect of Gani's life is a shinning example; they need to develop a genuine and resolved mind for social change. The young people, especially our students, should know that it is not how decently dubious you are or your commitment to current iniquitous capitalist system that can earn you eternal honour, but commitment to the common cause for an egalitarian society where public resources will be used for common good.
It is worth stating that Gani did not venture into human right and pro-democracy struggle as a rich man. In fact, he started human right struggle far before human right activism became a thriving industry. It was only the contradiction of the unjust capitalist arrangement that produced a capitalist out of Gani through his profession. It is apposite to say that he would have altogether become a richer man, if he had not ventured into the life risking human rights and pro-democracy struggles. Exceptionally, rather than being carried away by the wealth, Gani was able to a certain extent resolve the contradiction, by aligning with the poor masses in their struggles for better living. He risked his life and wealth to fight against privatization, commercialization (including law education commercialization), deregulation and fuel price hikes, low wages (even for the judges), etc. One doubt how many human right entrepreneurs will be ready to sacrifice subventions and grants (from foreign donors and governments) to these kinds of struggles talk much less of building a political movement against capitalism.
However, it is worth stating that Gani's relevance is not only on his commitment, doggedness and sacrifice. We are witnesses to several self-acclaimed anti-military, pro-June 12 fighters, who are as anti-poor as the military rulers they falsely claimed to have resisted. What stood Gani out was neither his expansive and unique philanthropy. But what placed Gani above his contemporaries, juniors and seniors, is the working class approach he gave to all this, which he peaked with his involvement in direct anti-capitalist political struggle for change along this working class approach. Despite, all attempt to hide this aspect of Gani's contribution it is this working class character he brought to all these endeavours couple with his political activism that will linger far more.
As a lawyer, Gani was a contradiction. Law, as Karl Marx defined it is an instrument for the sanctification of robbery of the poor by the rich in a class (read capitalist) society. Therefore, no matter the seeming progressive character of law, it is limited in challenging the status quo. But, Gani, especially on public interest cases, while he was unable to use law to change the capitalist status quo, was able to use law and legal system to expose the contradictions within our backward neocolonial capitalist state: the contradiction between the profit-oriented system and its so-called avowed social and jurisprudential transparency. Till he breathe his last, he was clearly showing the failure of the ruling class, which while claiming to be committed to rule of law continue to rape the fundamental aspect of the Nigerian constitution: chapter two, which guarantees free and quality education at all levels, free medical services, national minimum LIVING wage, old age and disabled social security, living pension (not extortive contributory pension), nationalization of the commanding height of the economy, among others.
Gani’s exploitation of the contradiction of the façade of law in an unequal society, pitched him against the legal establishment and many of his colleagues, who see law as a means of sustaining the system. This explains his battle with Nigeria Bar Association (NBA), not only on Buhari quasi-judicial military tribunal but also during Olisa Agbakoba-led NBA era when he combated the NBA’s uncritical romance with the Bench. On the former, it is imperative to comment on the one-sided critique of Gani by many pundits. For instance, Mr. Olakunle Abimbola writing in the Nation newspaper, had suggested that Gani’s acceptance to appear before Buhari’s tribunal, when NBA called for a boycott, gave the regime a lease of life, and further justified future military regimes. This argument is to say the least bizarre, as it deliberately ignored Gani’s arguments and previous history of NBA. It should be noted that while Gani appeared before the tribunal, he also played active role in combating Buhari regime’s autocratic laws against students, workers and journalists. He defended and supported students and workers during the struggles against the regime’s anti-poor policies. This is a far cry from the character and position of NBA. Gani has maintained, correctly that NBA leadership was hypocritical on his boycott position. The same NBA had kept mum when students and workers were attacked by previous regimes; the same NBA did not organise any boycott against the first election rigging, first coup or the civil war. Added to this is that many NBA did not issue any other action of protests against subsequent military regimes’ many military tribunals, repressive actions and economic policies.
NBA’s boycott call may be right but neither consistent nor principled. Criticizing NBA is not a justification of Gani’s decision. For a working class activist, opposition to the military, repressive regimes must be sacrosanct, but participation in the activities organised under military regime is tactical. For instance, it would have been wrong not to appear before Abacha’s military tribunal on Saro Wiwa’s trial, because abstention initially would have easily justified Abacha’s thirst for blood. But the two are not mutually exclusive. A working class fighter must know that any participation in activities under military regime must be linked with the struggle to topple such regime. Gani stood against military rule and participated actively in struggle to end it. It would have however made more meaning if Gani had mobilise the students, workers, etc to demand for not just probe of civilian politicians but also military officials since 1966, and to demand that such tribunal must be made open. This would have demystified the Buhari regime itself, and further undermine its basis of existence. On the other hand, NBA’s rejection was not based on long term opposition to military regime, neither did it mobilise people against repressive regimes. Is NBA of today better off?
Gani’s exploit in the philanthropic aspect is also exceptional. While philanthropist believes that through charity, wealth can be given to the poor while the system of inequality continues to produce a vicious cycle of poverty, Gani’s practice of philanthropy is oriented towards empowering the poor so that they can fight the system that makes them poor. Gani’s philanthropy is meant to undermine the basis for philanthropy itself. This explains why Gani’s material contribution to people’s lives is more pronounced in pro bono legal services, especially to activists in workers’ and student movement; education sponsorship and donation of books and materials to press houses, student organizations, civil society groups and professional groups. He even published books on national issues like the one on fuel deregulation. Also, his pioneering law report was a philanthropic gesture in many instances. He was not just a philanthropist but a radical humanist philanthropist, apology to Dr. Edwin Madunagu.
Aside the earlier stated point that Gani started his activism far before human "rightism" became an enterprise; Gani's definition of activism is different. Aside the fact that he was not reported to have secured financial aid from foreign donors (many of which are attached to spying agencies, multinational agencies and corporations, big moneybags, etc all of whom are contributing to the suffering of the working people in both advanced and backward countries), Gani's human right activism was directed at the contradiction between capitalist rule (both military and civilian) and people’s interests. His expansive definition of human rights activism to include opposition to neo-liberal capitalist policies of privatization, commercialization, deregulation, etc, which most human right elements can hardly openly oppose as a result of their commitment to their local and foreign donors, who benefit from these policies, stand him out.
Gani's approach to the defence of people’s rights during both the military and civilian regimes was political. He not only stood at the chambers of law courts to defend students, workers and their organizations, he would go to the streets along with them to defend their democratic rights. Even, during the military when the central demands were the ouster of the military and validation of June 12 mandate, Gani along with socialist and young activists in National Conscience Party (NCP) daily combated the anti-poor pro-imperialist capitalist economic policies that were being obscured by the demand for June 12 validation. This is significant, as many of the pro-June 12 elements were not fundamentally opposed to the military rule, economically, socially and to a certain degree politically, as events since the arrival of civilian rule has exposed.
Gani’s political method clearly stood him out which made him avoid the treachery of bourgeois opposition during and after the military rule. Socialists had maintained that the bourgeois anti-military oppositionists are not reliable, and there is need to build a genuine working class political platform that will transcend the demand for the ouster of military and validation of June 12 mandate, which will raise socio-economic demands vis-à-vis public ownership of the mainstay of the economy (oil and gas, minerals, power and energy, steel, etc) under the democratic control of the working and poor people through their elected representative from workplaces to national level. To concretize this, socialists also raised the need to build such a platform from the grassroots with the formation of local struggle and defence committees at local and workplaces to be linked up to the national level as a way of mobilizing the rank and file for a comprehensive struggle not only against the military but also capitalism and imperialism that bred the military rule in the first place. With such an arrangement, it would not have been possible for the bourgeois opposition to hijack the struggle and make rotten agreement with the military ruling class under the guise of engendering transition. Gani’s formation of NCP at a time the Abacha government outlawed alternative political platform; when many so-called pro-democracy elements and groups have withdrawn back to their shells, run away from the country, grumbled in their bedrooms or out-rightly sold their birthright to the regime, was an instinctive move in a genuine direction.
It will not be adequate not to explore Gani’s political activism in the civilian experiment. It has been severally alleged that Gani’s “one-man-ism” led to his failure politically. This view was expressed, among others, by Mr. Sam Omatseye (Editorial Board Chairman of the Nation newspapers) in his evaluation of Gani’s life. Aside other ludicrous allegation that Gani believed in dictatorship, Mr. Omatseye had posited that Gani’s lack of collective action led to the failure of his political career. This to be mild is ridiculous. In the first instance, flowing from the previous analysis, it was not Gani that failed politically but those shameless politicians of today, including the so-called opposition, who struck rotten alliance with the Abubakar regime in order for them to get political relevance. It is those journalists and politicians who kept mum when the right of the poor people to form political party in a civilian regime was curtailed by the Obasanjo regime in alliance with the so-called opposition. It is those who allied with the Obasanjo regime in 2003 for their own political survival that failed; those that claim to be opposition but continue to retrench tens of thousands of workers, victimize labour and student leaders, privatize and commercialize. Indeed, Gani had far succeeded politically when cowards refuse to even murmur their grudges.
Gani’s sustenance of National Conscience Party (NCP) post-military show his contempt for the Nigeria’s bourgeois opposition parties, which were (and are still) implementing anti-poor policies especially in the southwest, where over 50, 000 workers were retrenched by the Alliance for Democracy (AD) governments. It is the refusal of Gani to ally with political opportunists that earned him the opprobrium of the self-acclaimed progressive politicians. But to millions of working and poor people, Gani’s political integrity and formation of a pro-poor political party is legendary. Gani-led NCP was a huge success going by the prevailing conditions. Although, National Conscience Party (NCP) of today has lost all its genuine working class, radical political outlook as a result of the hijack of the party leadership by the rightwing elements within the party, the party’s role during Gani’s leadership is significant for the working and poor people, especially the activists looking for change from this rotten, capitalist system. It is on note that NCP was denied early registration by the ruling central government of Obasanjo, in alliance with the opposition party and some section of the judiciary, but the ‘miracle’ the party sprang up despite not winning in virtually anywhere is worth exploiting. The party was officially allowed to exist in late 2002 and the struggle to democratize the electoral space and right of contest was won early 2003. Against these odds and despite widespread rigging and massive monetary inducement of the electoral process by the major capitalist parties, NCP made significant gains. Graphical examples will suffice.
In Lagos State, despite financial constraints, where about N8 million (generally mobilized from members only) was expended on the governorship and senatorial elections, the party got over 150, 000 votes and over 77, 000 votes for governorship and (Lagos West) senatorial candidates respectively. The senatorial candidate for Lagos West, Lanre Arogundade a socialist, former student leader and unionist, who ran an anti-capitalist, socialist manifestoes including his commitment to collecting a worker’s wage and donation of the rest of his salary to communities and working class and youth movement, could have won but for the rigging character of the ruling party in the state. His votes (like others) were big blow to the nefarious propaganda that you need to join corrupt capitalist political arrangement before you can gain mass support. Also, Gani Fawehinmi, despite the aforementioned obstacles, came fifth in the presidential election. Compare this to the political collaboration of the capitalist parties. In Lagos State, according to a newspaper report, the ruling party, seeing enormous gain the party like NCP was making mobilized over N400 million overnight from the 20 local governments where they held control, few days to the election, not to print posters but to induce voters. Is this a sign of political success? It should also be recalled that against all sectional and ethnic politics being played, Gani stood for the alliance of the poor people nationally. Indeed, when Gani came to Osun State, precisely Ile-Ife in 2003 during his campaign he got his loudest ovation from the Hausa community.
It is on note that while other parties, claiming to be democratic imposed the views of the leaders on the membership, and in fact attacked opposition when they are power, Gani-led NCP allowed open critique of the party policies and programmes, which allowed socialists and other left forces to recruit members. For instance, socialists in NCP had maintained that while NCP was not yet a mass working class party then, its ten care programme must be linked with the ultimate struggle to change the capitalist socio-economic outlook of the country, as the programme, as beautiful as it was, could not be fully implemented without a revolutionary programme of public ownership of the commanding height of the economy. Politically, socialists argued that the party had to be a fighting party of the masses, leading protests against attacks on economic and democratic rights workers, students, youth, unemployed, etc, as it was doing during the military. With this, the party can become the official party of the working people. This critique helped NCP to develop and recruit the best of progressive minds.
On the other hands, the ruling parties were busy attacking workers and the poor. Gani was himself a victim. For instance, when he questioned Bola Tinubu’s (then Lagos State governor) academic credential in court, he was not only vilified, thugs were mobilized to attack him. In fact, some of those claiming to come from his human right constituency openly chastised him. For instance, one of those now posing to be his heir apparent was not only a lawyer to Tinubu, but openly called Gani senile. Ironically, this same person, who sought for gubernatorial ticket under AD (now AC), Tinubu’s party, is not only a central leader of NCP today, but one of the chief organizers of Gani’s burial! Also, in Osun State in 2002, Gani, along with several thousands others were tear-gassed by the police mobilized by the Bisi Akande government to quell a mass rally organized to resist retrenchment and high-handedness. Bisi Akande is now the national leader of one of the major bourgeois opposition party, AC.
Gani Fawehinmi as a human being made his mistake - “show me who never make mistake and I will show you a fool” – but such were product of circumstances and lack of rounded out socialist understanding of the capitalist system. For instance, his acceptance of Buhari as a presidential candidate in 2007 was flawed, but that in itself was a product of absence of viable political alternative. While not justifying Gani’s mistake, in reality, if there was a genuine party of the working people, even to the level of pre-2003 NCP with a person like Adams Oshiomhole, a labour leader contesting under such party as a presidential candidate, Gani might not have made such decision. Also, Gani’s relinquishing of party leadership to the rightwing elements, who were either in bourgeois parties or played no major role in the party’s struggles, led to the collapse of the party politically and ideological, with the party getting only 580 votes in the 2007 governorship election as against over 150, 000 it got in 2003. Fortunately, Gani was able to recognize that the NCP he built had veered off track politically and ideologically. In late 2007, he granted an interview with Vanguard newspapers where he openly admitted that the party had been bastardized by the rightwing leadership with himself not knowing what the party stood for. In the same year, in a symposium organized by the Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM) and United Action for Democracy (UAD), he openly reiterated the same point, going further to support the need for a socialist (working people’s) party, canvassed by Dr. Dipo Fashina. His promise to join and support such a party did not materialize as the party was yet to be formed before his departure. Also, Muhammed, his first son was quoted to have said that his father called for a Labour taking power will be his joy. All this show Gani Fawehinmi in his vantage revolutionary, working people position. Gani sought to build a sane, modern capitalist society that will serve the poor, but his endeavours met with the backwardness of neo-colonial capitalist ruling class, which drew him towards the anti-capitalist socialist direction.
The best honour genuine working class and pro-democracy activists and youth can give to the memory of Gani Fawehinmi is to hasten his struggle for the toppling of the anti-poor, neo-liberal capitalist arrangement through a socialist revolution by building a genuine mass working people’s political party. There is need for a summit of genuine left-wing and pro-labour forces on building this political movement. While Gani called for Labour (working masses) taking over reign of governance, the Labour Party that should serve as a pole of attraction to millions of workers and youth has been denied mass participation by the right wing leadership of the party, who want to use as a bargaining tool in 2011. It is not enough to ask masses to fight for their rights; we must provide the political platform for them to do so. While Gani’s fought all his life to ensure the sustenance of platforms of resistance, the students’ national platform has been destroyed; radical workers’ movement has been crippled by the pro-bourgeois leadership, while working people have been denied an independent political voice. However, as the ruling class in Nigeria continue to attack workers, students, the poor and the youth; destroy education, deregulate, etc, the need to build on Gani’s heroic and revolutionary zeal by the working and poor people will gain echo, which will fire the movement for overthrow of capitalism and enthronement of a just socialist society. This will be the real celebration of Gani Fawehinmi, the revolutionary tribune.
Kola Ibrahim (08059399178, [email protected])
Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU),
P.O.Box 1319, GPO, Enuwa, Ile-Ife, Nigeria.
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content1'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('comments'); });
googletag.cmd.push(function() { googletag.display('content2'); });