Posted by By Kayode Matthew on
FORMER Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, weekend, reviewed the Nigerian Civil War between 1967 and 1970 and recounted how he tried to help the Igbo to recover from the effects of the war when the hostilities came to an end.
LAGOS - FORMER Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, weekend, reviewed the Nigerian Civil War between 1967 and 1970 and recounted how he tried to help the Igbo to recover from the effects of the war when the hostilities came to an end.
General Gowon who spoke as guest on the Chinua Achebe Foundation Interview Series also compared the indigenisation policy of his administration with the President Olusegun Obasanjo's privatisation programme, saying there was a difference between government taking command of the economy and the citizenry doing so.
The former head of state who led the federal troops to prosecute the war against Colonel Emeka Ojukwu said in his address that his government would have executed Chief Ojukwu, the Biafran leader, had the federal forces captured him during the war.
Expressing regrets that some people had to suffer various inconveniences to life during the war which should have been avoided, General Gowon, however, said 'if there is a situation like that, there is nothing you can do. People are bound to suffer in any crisis situation no matter how small it is.
'When, during the war you hear that your people are suffering in some area, because of lack of food, you hear of kwashiorkor and the likes, and you hear of some of the exaggerated news from abroad, yes, you are bound to feel concerned.
'Honestly, if you think that one enjoyed seeing the harrowing experiences of the Igbo in various parts of the country, especially in the Northern part in 1966, I can assure you, you are wrong."
On indigenisation decree and how he tried to help the Igbo after the war, General Gowon said: 'The indigenisation decree - I think it was 1972 or 73 - that decree was really to ensure the participation of every part of the country, unlike the privatisation policy now in place. Businesses are indigenised within one's own area - in the North, in the East in the West, etc. And who are the beneficiaries in those areas? It is mostly the natives to the particular area. And I am sure that by 1972, many Igbo had recovered sufficiently enough to participate, not only in their own area, but also in Lagos. You tell me, who owns most of Lagos?
What was being indigenised before it was speeded up were some of the small Lebanese businesses like textile stores, in which, in any case, the Igbo were very well established, yesterday, today and even tomorrow. Probably in Lagos, they were not able to buy into as many such businesses as they would have desired. Otherwise, certainly I know that by 1972, there was sufficient recovery enabling the Igbo to participate.
'I think the policy of £20 was never an attempt to impoverish the Igbo people. The government was very generous in giving funds to Ukpabi Asika so that the government of the East could circulate money and get businesses off the ground as well as embark on various rehabilitation and reconstructions that were taking place. Probably, the exchange rate in Nigerian currency for the Biafran pound seemed not to be on equitable terms.
Commenting on the privatisation programme of the Obasanjo-led Federal Government, General Gowon said: 'There is a difference between government taking command of the economy, and the citizenry doing so. And my government did not begin with a policy of privatisation, but one of indigenisation. Gradually, we would have gone into various other areas, but in such a way as to have added value and strength, and the participation of Nigerians in the running of our economy.
'With privatisation, foreigners take over areas where Nigerians should rightfully take advantage of and control. But, I think that what pertains now is simply a difference in government approach. Perhaps, the present leadership, in its wisdom, has decided that what you refer to is the best way of accomplishing things, and it may have received acknowledgement from the powers that be - the World Bank or the IMF - the powers that virtually enforce control of the economy of the world. Now, that is what we have to live with. But let us hope that whatever decision is taken, profit does not only go outside the country. Otherwise it would be really counter-productive. That is my own personal view.
'I would probably not have moved on things as quickly as the present government; but even if the reality of the situation demanded immediate action, I would move very sensitively on the issue of subsidies. The countries virtually forcing us to take these actions they provide substantial subsidy to areas such as agriculture. Look at what America and Europe are doing for their farmers. I believe that there are certain areas where the private sector and the government may be encouraged to invest in, and if the government manages better, all well and good. Where the private sector accomplishes things more successfully than the government, good; the government can learn from this."
On the fate of senior officials who were involved in the war, General Gowon said: 'In such an instance, all the senior officials involved - politicians as well as in the military - would have been strung up for their part in the war. This is what happened at the end of the Second World War in Germany; it happened in Japan at the end of the campaign in that part of the world. This is the civilised world's way of doing things. But we did not do even that. We did set up committees to look into cases such as where rebel officers had been members of the Nigerian Armed Forces, and their loyalty was supposed to be to the Federal Government. When the war ended, we reabsorbed practically everyone who was in the Army. But there were officers at a certain senior level that we insisted had to accept responsibility for their role in the secession. It was the only thing to do. Probably I could have given pardon. However, I was not the one who gave pardon to Ojukwu.
'But in the case of Ojukwu, he had committed treason against the country. No matter how you see it, as far as the Nigerian context was concerned, he was the guilty party. In other areas, he would have been eliminated, and I thank God that He never put him in my hands. Otherwise, I would have found it very difficult to save his life, even though I would try my best to save his life, because he was an old colleague, an old friend. But the public pressure would have made it impossible. So that was what happened in the case of people like Effiong. A few of the senior ones that were directly involved, we felt they should go. I think Effiong was dismissed. All that happened to the others was that they lost the few years of seniority gained during the period of the civil war."
General Gowon also explained what led to the famous statement credited to him that the problem of Nigeria was not the money but how to spend it.
Said he: 'The important thing was not to fritter away the money. I said to the Central Bank Governor: look - the government has pledged to improve small scale industries as well as the agricultural sector and the educational system; we can go ahead and invest in all of these, or defer our plans for a short period and find something else that would provide us with even more funds. As a matter of information - Nigeria had even lent to the World Bank or was it the IMF, at the time - with the proviso that when the country's economic programme took off, and we needed to pay off some of our commitments, the money would be released to us! At no time, did we borrow or incur unnecessary debt. All the country's debts were institutionalised and paid off by the due date. My Finance Commissioners and Economic Advisers were truly very upright. It was never a question of having money, not knowing what to do with it, therefore, steal it. At least, no one can say that my government was involved in any case of embezzlement or that we siphoned away money for personal use."