2011-2020: Ten Years Research Review

 2011-2020 Research Review by Sesan Michael JOHNSON

With all modesty and Thanksgiving, my research trajectories in the last ten years cut across the following research and training institutions among others:

1. French Institute for Research in Africa, IFRA Ibadan as Research Fellow. Where I co-authored a research article on Debunking the Myths on Violence in Nigeria. I have also been part of many research training under the auspices of IFRA.

2. Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, Virginia, USA - winning the 2018 Brian Bertoti - International Scholarship Award for Innovation in Historical Scholarship in the History of Public Health.

3. The Royal College of Physicians of the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK emerging as one of the three finalists for 2019 McCarthy Award for History of Medicine Research. I gave an Award Talk on Cholera as an epidemic in Ibadan, Nigeria.

4. University of Manchester, UK. On June 28 2019,  served as a panelist and gave a talk on a paper titled "Ibadan Water Bodies as Carriers and Transmitters of Disease: Historicising Cholera Epidemics in Ibadan, 1970-1996" during a conference tagged as  "Shaped by the Sea: Histories of Ocean, Science, Medicine and Technology".

5. Oxford-Ife Conference (Oxford University and Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria). In 2016, alongside other early career scholars I gave a talk on a Call for History of Medicine Research in Nigeria.

6. Cambridge University. In September 2016, I actively participated in the Cambridge Schools Conference held at Homerton College.

7. Toyin Fálọlá International Conference (TOFAC) held at Redeemer University, Ede, Nigeria where I presented three history papers.

8. Toyin Fálọlá @ 60 Conference held at University of Ibadan in 2018 where I presented a paper on History of Science in Africa.

9. Obafemi Awolowo University, Nigeria. I presented Term Papers and Research Proposals at the Department of History.

President Muhammadu Buhari as Bayajidda of the 21st Century - By Sesan Michael JOHNSON

 President Muhammadu Buhari as Bayajidda of the 21^st Century

-        As written by Sesan Michael JOHNSON

History is not just what happened but attempt towards understanding and interrogating what happened for proper understanding of the present and future trajectories. The northern fridges of this country have continued to be decimated with various disturbances such as the unending Boko Haram onslaught, unchecked marauding of banditry, cankerous cattle rustling, perennial farmer-herders classes, etc. Historically, while Napoleon Bonaparte was becoming an Emperor in France in 1804, the Hausa-city states of Nigeria were experiencing the Uthman Dan Fodio’s 1804 Revolution. Evidently, this revolution upturned the socio- cultural, political and economic fabrics of the Hausa city-states. The Habe rulers could not stop the revolution, hence the demise of their forms of leadership. It should be recalled that the Habe rulers acquired their authority from the dynasties established by Bayajidda and his seven children.

Within the remix of the cacophonous histories of the Hausa city-states, the myth of Bayajidda legend had remained sacrosanct. Bayajidda, a prince of a Baghdad kingdom was said to have traversed Kanem-Borno kingdom before reaching Daura, only for him to become a heroic migrant after killing a notorious snake that was always tormenting the Daura people by preventing them from fetching water from the main Daura’s Kusugu well six days a week, except on a Friday. The Queen of Daura was said to have married Bayajidda because of this historical feat. What a daring and courageous woman! In spite of 1804 Uthman Dan Fodio Jihad or Revolution, this myth remains sacred and generally acceptable. Fodio’s Caliphate with its intellectual and revolutionary propensities did not overturn this legend. Evidently, this decision was very unusual. As a matter of historical fact, the Caliphate adopted the Hausa language as official language instead of Fula or Fulfulde. Consequently, this resulted to a seemingly Hausa-Fulani amalgam, a political synthesis.

Fast forward to the 21^st century, the myth of Bayajidda legend still shines as ever before, especially as ‘another larger than life personality,’ a son of Daura became the president of Nigeria in 2015. On Jun 20, 2015, the Emir of Daura, Umar Faruk appointed President Muhammadu Buhari as 'Bayajidda Daura II' of Daura Emirate when the president was on a private visit to his native Daura. The emir later presented a gold plated sword and horse to the President to symbolise his appointment as Bayajidda II. Coincidentally, in November 2020 when the president was on another private visit, he was gifted another colourful sword by the Emir as he welcomed the President with an array of horse riders and courtiers representing the glory and royalty of the Daura Emirate. Methinks, the sword is a reminiscence of the sword legendary Bayajidda used to kill the iniquitous snake at the Kusugu well.

The crux of today’s piece is to interrogate the paradoxes and corollaries of two personalities, that is, the legendary Bayajidda and Bayajidda II (Muhammadu Buhari). On the one hand, myth has it that the local blacksmiths forged the sword used by Bayajidda to kill the terrorizing snakes. You will agree with me that beyond the well serving as source of water; the well was also an economic source. So, the snake was a threat to life and the economy of the generality of the people of Daura at that time of history. Notably, legendary Bayajidda was successful in removing the tormentor of the people of Daura. On the other hand, Buhari as Bayajidda II was supplied with a well decorated sword when he was appointed in 2015. One would have concluded that as the Dauran Bayajidda II, safety of lives, properties and businesses will be the hallmark of Buhari’s government. Remarkably, he was gifted sword twice (2015 and 2020). Why? Someone deduced that perhaps the 2015’s sword was not effective, hence, the need for 2020’s sword. Maybe a sword in use for five years needs to be replaced. By this symbolism, this shows that Bayajidda still have a lot to do to improve the security architecture of Katsina, the North and the country at large.

Strangely enough, on the evening of December 11, 2020, the same day Buhari landed in Katsina state, over 300 boys were kidnapped. There were reports of other abductions afterward. Significantly, the return of the Kakanra boys was orchestrated by the FG, the state government, the Army, and other non-state actors. Without gain saying, I do not need to lay too much emphasis on the fragility of the security network of the North and the whole nation. The vulnerability of the citizenry is increasing every day.

Permit me to remind, Bayajidda II (President Buhari) his words as captured in his 2020 Christmas message to the nation: “For me, providing security for all residents in the country remains an article of faith. It formed a vital segment of this Administration’s three-point agenda right from inception, and we must follow through with it. I cannot in good conscience shirk this cardinal responsibility to secure lives and property. I feel pained each time a breach of peace and security occurs in any part of the nation. I am even more distressed when our youths, especially school children, are the targets and victims of mindless and malevolent elements in society. As a parent, I share the emotional torture and agony parents and guardians go through whenever their children and wards fall into the cruel hands of these enemies of decency and good society.”

As the Commander-in-Chief and the President of Nigeria, President Buhari has all the constitutional (political and military) powers to protect the citizens. Symbolically, he has been gifted with swords twice (2015 and 2016) to kill all the ‘snakes’ threatening the safety of lives, properties and economies of the people of this nation. Howbeit, can President Muhammadu become Bayajidda of the 21^st century?

 

 

...............................................

 

Sesan Michael JOHNSON is an award winning historian/researcher who presently serves as News Analyst at Impact Business Radio/IATV Ibadan.

Dele Momodu Pinches Peter Obi on Leadership problématique in Nigeria - As written by Sesan Michael (SMB) JOHNSON

Dele Momodu Pinches Peter Obi on Leadership problématique in Nigeria - As written by Sesan Michael (SMB) JOHNSON

Within the realms of the Internet-of-things, one of the frenzy, currency and problématique of the period of COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria is IG chat session - a Social Media showmanship and social craft stage by celebrities, opinion moulders, social commentators and statesmen to open up new thresholds and to create progressive trajectories for the people and for the nation. Such was today’s exotic dialogue between two icons who are both businessmen-cum-politicians.

With little pinches of technical convolution, encrusted with contested tensions in the chat rooms and without the shenanigans that usually greet conventional press briefings and interviews, Chief Dele Momodu’s IG chat with Sir Peter Obi began around 7: 26 pm on Friday, 17^th April, 2020. It is apt to note that the tête-à-tête was also syndicated on Facebook and Youtube. It started out with a friendly opener when Dele Momodu asked how Peter Obi has been able to go far as a success brand. Expectedly, Peter Obi just like every other successful Nigerian replied pointing to the grace of God in his life. Who else will argue against what has to do with God, after all, Femi Otedola said the same thing when he was asked similar question sometimes ago.

Anyways, the next question of Dele Momodu centred on the main problems or challenges militating against the progress of Nigeria. In his characteristic manner, Peter Obi harangued that lack of effective educational system is the foundational problem of the nation. On the part of leadership, he reiterated that Nigeria’s leadership is not presently anchored on business orientation. Hence, no direction and no progress! He argued that leadership must be premised on understandable vision/mission that is measurable and embedded with clear-cut plan of actions that will practically lead to a destination. Peter Obi is here recasting the SMART framework for a successful business. Whereas, such leadership configuration will invent proactive public pedagogy to aggressively educate the masses about the new progressive trajectories the whole nation must collectively follow.

In his disquisition, Peter Obi did a binary comparative analysis between Nigeria and Ghana within the frameworks of the nations’ GDPs, external reserves and national budgets. He acquiesced that Nigeria’s leadership sky-rocketed internal and external vulnerabilities of the masses as a result of bad decisions. He wondered how citizens of Ghana are faring better than Nigerians. Markedly, Dele Momodu interjected him by highlighting the fact that perhaps Ghana is better because of its small population when compared with Nigeria’s population. However, Peter Obi swiftly referred to nations such as China and Indonesia with huge population higher than that of Nigeria.

When he was pinched by Dele Momodu on the leadership problématique of the country, Peter Obi categorically submitted that it is not just about the Presidency alone, as all leaders (ward councillors, local government chairmen, state and federal legislators, state governors, president, etc) must understand where the ‘vehicle’ of the country is heading to.

Consequently, Dele Momodu asked, how can we now solve this leadership debacle? With affirmation, Peter Obi argued that the process of selecting leadership in Nigeria is faulty. Without mincing words, he retorted that the electorate is at faulty also because they are habitually complaisant, credulous and uncritical.

Appearing not done with the ruling elite, Peter Obi pointedly mentioned a time during his stint as the governor of Anambra state. He recalled when there was a sudden gush in crude oil revenue leading to swell in National Foreign Reserves of the country. With catalogue of back and forth arguments on what to do with the largesse, the majority opted for outright sharing among the federating units. This was against few dissenting arguments. 

Surprisingly, while blaming this unproductive decision by the nation’s leadership then, Peter Obi did not exonerate itself. His submission was that, if the Sovereign Wealth Fund was well managed then and probably, was thereafter well managed by the current government, the nation will currently be having billions of dollars in its Sovereign Wealth Fund. Evidently, this would have been useful in this period of COVID-19 pandemic. In an unprecedented manner, Peter Obi said leaders in Nigeria do not usually feel remorseful by tendering apologies for their boorish decisions that had caused national misfortune, talk less of being subjected to the nation’s justice systems. He opined some should be rotting in jail. 

Paradoxically, in his words, ‘all of us are still in charge’.

As if not satisfied yet, Dele Momodu squeezed Peter Obi again, then, what political template could the nation adopt to produce good leadership? Peter Obi emphasized that the proletariat (workers) are not ready for a change – a paradigm shift. He grieved that politicians will always seek for the dividends of their ‘investments’ in the electioneering process. Dele Momodu quickly asked, what must be changed then? We must change the process of selection, Peter Obi replied. The electorate must not support the people that do not have capacity. He opined that the electorate are not ready to make the political leaders accountable and accountability is sacred.

Dele Momodu bickered that lack of men and women of capacity and competence is not the problem. He cited few high performers like Peter Obi, himself, Donald Duke, etc. He once again pinched Peter Obi by asking, how come good performers has not ended up at the presidency? While aligning with the agitation of Dele Momodu, Peter Obi argued that these so-called high performers who are presently interested in engaging the political process in Nigeria are very few compared to poor performers. In his words, it is a case of 5% versus 95%. For Peter Obi, there is a great need for critical mass engagement. The generality of the people must know and believe in the new threshold for the progress of the country.

Not done yet with the issue of good leadership for the country, Dele Momodu further asked Peter Obi on how do we form or forge a mass movement in Nigeria, since this appears to be a herculean task. He hypothesised how the trilogy of ethnicity, religion and money (cash! cash! cash!) are rapidly and consistently becoming spanners in the wheel of progress of this country. Categorically, Dele Momodu declared that ‘I don’t see this happening’. Peter Obi concurred that the trilogy of ethnicity, religion, and cash (ERC) cannot lead the nation to progress. He elucidated further that the populace should shirk the whims and caprices of money sharing politicians. According to him, what has become of the money we shared from the revenues from coal, petroleum, etc? For him, what we need is ‘Smart and Creative Governance’. We need leaders who have something to offer. Leaders, who are past performers with good antecedence. We do not need a man with no known resume or job coming into leadership. Our systems must be engineered to evaluate and assess peoples’ past performance in order to be so sure of their future trajectories.

Following comparative paradigm utilized earlier on by Peter Obi, Dele Momodu cited how things changed dramatically in Liberia after its Civil War, though not perfect. How in Ghana within three years, light was becoming regular premised on rationalizing along a zoning system that make power available at specific times on a regular basis. Dele Momodu put it to Peter Obi, how do we deal with the issue of bureaucracy? Among other things, according to Peter Obi, the President must speak out and challenge any one creating bottlenecks for effective running of government. For instance, he berated the meddlesomeness in the way the present government is handling the issue of Nigerians in Diaspora who are planning to come back home due to COVID-19. He lamented on how can a nation be saying it does not have enough bed space in isolation centres for these returnees? He referred to how Ghana handled that effectively without any national embarrassment.

In retrospect, Dele Momodu recounted 1978 Ali Must Go struggle in his early days at Obafemi Awolowo University. He lamented that such agitation for progress in Nigeria still persist till date. Premised on that, he asked Peter Obi to take a punch on the issue of restructuring, being one of the main agitations in today’s Nigeria.  Peter Obi’s cogitation centred on the need to totally embrace ‘True Federalism’ and to shun over centralisation of the federal frameworks of Nigeria. He opined that most of the agitations and issues of insecurity in Nigertia point to leadership failure at all levels of government borne out of insincerity of purpose to restructure Nigeria.

When charged on the issue of corruption, Peter Obi retorted that there is no nation that is free of corruption and criminality. He said what must be done is to always follow due process and also to create and strengthen systems and institutions of governance. Using his experience as governor of Anambra state, he practically described how he dramatically cut down costs of governance and blocked loopholes that would have facilitated huge corruption.

On a lighter note, Dele Momodu asked Peter to express his thought on the current cash transfer going on the country. Jocularly, Peter Obi wondered how we are physically distributing cash in this period. He added that Mexican and Brazilian templates on conditional cash transfers are there for Nigeria to reference. He emphasized that government must provide for the needs of its citizenry in a precarious time like this if the government does not want contravention of laws and orders.

On the issue of insecurity in Nigeria, Peter Obi stated that internal mechanism that guarantees security infrastructure must be forged. He enjoins governments to provide internal security infrastructure for markets, churches, local governments, schools, communities, state, etc. He reiterated the effectiveness of this security model in Anambra when he was the governor.

Dele Momodu climaxed the IG conversation by asking Peter Obi to share his experience in the last General Election. Peter Obi succinctly replied that they (Atiku, Obi, etc) believed the electoral process was faulty and that was why they challenged the validity of the outcome of the election up to the Supreme Court. In his words, ‘we did so because we believe in Nigeria... I have no other country other than Nigeria’.

Finally, Dele Momodu picked on Peter Obi when he asked, ‘before you ventured into politics, you are a wealthy man, how come you are stingy? (Dele Momodu put on a smiling face). Shrouding himself up on his chair, Peter Obi in the affirmative declared that ‘wealth must be for a purpose and not for weekend parties; money has its purpose – not just for wearing nice shoes. We must use money purposefully’. As his final words on the IG chat with Dele Momodu who is also a fellow businessman-cum-politician, Peter Obi, a former governor of Anambra state and Vice Presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party during the 2019 General Election concluded that ‘let us work collectively to move this nation forward’. 

Dictatorship and Reframing the Title of the President – By Sesan Michael Johnson

Dictatorship and Reframing the Title of the President – By Sesan Michael Johnson

The Punch newspaper’s use of the title of Major General for the president and Wole Soyinka’s use of President-General are just pointers to the agitation about the alleged dictatorial propensity of the president of the country. Without mincing words, the president was once a Major General and it is generally believe that once a military man, you are a military man forever. Who can even deny the fact that the president is constitutionally the Head of the Armed Forces, i.e., the Commander-in-Chief (C-in-C).

Whereas, the brazen actions of the DSS on Sowore amidst other allegations of frontal flouting of court judgments by the Presidency and its agents are continually affirming this agitation. Is this accusation tenable? Is the president really a dictator? In what ways has Buhari manifested dictatorship? As a Rtd. Major General and former Head of State, Buhari was a dictator when he ruled this country between 1983 and 1985 before he was toppled via a coup by another dictator (IBB). This is markedly supported by Nigeria’s political history. Evidently, Buhari’s dictatorial antecedents cannot be deleted from our collective memories. What is arguable or questionable is whether the president is currently a dictator?


After all, Buhari himself asserts that he is now a converted democrat. What do Nigerians tend to gain or lose with the possibilities of the resurrection of Buhari’s dictatorship? Pro-Buhari groups argue that at worst Buhari’s dictatorship will help fight corruption to a standstill in Nigeria. Can Buhari’s dictatorship help the country to recover looted funds? Judging by the antecedents of some historical benevolent dictators, can we allow Buhari to become a democratic dictator? If Buhari’s dictatorship will help Nigeria achieve progress and development, why can’t we allow him to become one? Too many questions begging for answers and we may not exhaust them all in this (single) piece.


What are the socio-political and economic conditionalities in Nigeria that could reconvert Buhari to a dictator? Buhari’s ‘Cult of Personality’ and the locusts of die-hard online crusaders with the flowery and sponsorship of their dedication by political shenanigans at the corridors of power portend grave concerns. History reminds us that Hitler and other world dictators enjoined ‘Cults of Personality’ that eventually beclouded their sense of humanity. In the same sense, there have been different accusations that Buhari is pursuing a Fulani agenda. Many had pointed to the seemingly ambivalence of Buhari’s presidency to some of these ethnic-based clashes particularly to those orchestrated by some marauding herdsmen and Islamic chauvinists. Has anyone proven this Fulani agenda to be true? I am afraid that even OBJ’s claim of Fulanisation agenda has not proven this beyond doubt. However, what cannot been questioned is the special sensationalism the president has for his tribe and the large dose of Fulani nationalism the president enjoys. If as alleged, Buhari is truly a stark promoter of Hausa/Fulani agenda or Islamic fundamentalism, the current situations can increase his propensity towards dictatorship. Consider Hitler’s Germany as one of the most paradoxical and striking cases. While there were some German anti-Semitic agitations during the late 19th century, Germany did not seem the most likely place for dictatorship to thrive. Hitler manipulated the polity by arousing Germany’s nationalistic jingoism to promote his dictatorship not only against the rest of Europe but also against non-Aryan people in Germany (German-Jews, etc).


In the same manner, Russia’s Bolshevik regime leveraged its dictatorship on the general hatred for the ‘bourgeoisie’ (capitalists) who were blamed for the Soviets’ ills. Afterwards, Lenin’s subtle dictatorship became exemplified through his ‘command economy’ he executed during the Russian Civil War between the White Army and the Red Army. Lenin’s successor, Stalin (a brutal dictator) pushed that philosophy farther, exterminating the so-called ‘corrupt rich’ who came to include rich peasants (kulaks) through his ‘purge’. It is on historical records that Stalin’s Steel Hand eventually fell on the masses thereby leading to full-fledged tyranny and totalitarianism. It is germane to point out that economic recession/depression suffered by Germany and Russia also promoted the dictatorships of the leaders mentioned above. This was applicable to the emergence of Mussolini’s dictatorship in Italy. You can reframe these conditionalities within the Nigeria’s political dynamism.
Since Buhari’s Nigeria has begun, Boko Haram’s insurgency/terrorism in the Northeast, bandits’ attacks in the Northwest, and IPOB’s discordant secession demands for the Republic of Biafra in the Southeast and other national challenges had drastically increased the military involvement in governance particularly in the public and political domain. Whereas, an active and continuous romance between the military and a president who has military background portends a call for dictatorship. Thus, amidst these cacophonous seas of conflicts and challenges pervading Nigeria’s polity, the country remains vulnerable to emergence of a dictator.


Beyond the above discussion, some have pointed to the vulnerability of Lawan’s Senate and credulity of Gbaja’s House, as well as the conniving ambivalence of Tanko’s Judiciary to allege that, it will not be out of place for the president to mature into embracing or unleashing his dictatorial propensity. In the same vein, it is will be easy for the president to demand for arbitrary power to deal with a national emergency and restore order, even though underlying problems might have been caused by bad government policies. Likewise, all in the name of protecting national sovereignty, many people are often willing to go along with and support totalitarianism that would be unthinkable in normal democratic times.


Whereas adverse economic situations are also creating opportunities for dissidents, activists, and opposition elements to rise against the state, however, an aspiring dictator can then use this as his social capital under the guise of national security in order to accomplish his ultimate desire to silent critics and destroy opponents.


With two decades of uninterrupted democracy in Nigeria, many had argued that it will be very difficult for a dictator to emerge in Nigeria. Some opine that this is impossible since the nation’s constitution is anchored on democratic principles. Many people are pointing to the complexity and complicatedness inherent in Nigeria’s heterogeneity. However, dictatorship had surfaced where it is least expected. It had been brewed among prosperous, educated and civilized people who seemed safe from a dictatorship – in Africa, Europe, Asia and South America. Historically, Nigeria has had her dose of dictatorship through military leaders such as Abacha, Babangida, Buhari, etc.


Those who dismiss the possibility of a dictatorial regime in Nigeria need to consider possible developments that could make our circumstances worse and politically more volatile than they are now – like endemic corruption, soaring taxes, pogroms, inter tribal wars, inflation and economic collapse. No doubt, the Nigerian political system with a separation of powers and checks and balances as entrenched in the Constitution does make it more difficult for emergence of a dictator.


To be fair to the government, a president cannot sit down and allows undesirable elements to undermine the security of the state. Governmental powers within the ambit of the rule of laws and the country’s Constitution must be utilised to stop anti-national agenda and retrogression in the country. The president is voted for to protect the nation and the citizens. National interests must be projected and protected above individual and sectional agenda.


Like my readers, I am fully aware of the 1948 fundamental human rights and the rights entrenched in Nigeria’s Constitution. As an advocate of social justice, I strongly believe in freedom of speech, association and expression, freedom of every person of worship, freedom from want, freedom from fear according to Roosevelt’s understanding of a ‘moral democracy’.

SHOULD HISTORIANS ROMANCE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS? By SMB Sesan Michael Johnson

SHOULD HISTORIANS ROMANCE QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS? By SMB Sesan Michael Johnson
#WorldStatisticsDay with the theme #BetterDataBetterLives
Cheers to all fellow #STATISTICIANS

Preface: Many do not know me as a statistician but a historian. I did study Statistics at the Premier University. Don't forget, I became and becoming a historian @ Oba Awon University (Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria).

Whereas, the binary challenge of being a statistician and a historian underscored my entanglements of historical scholarship both from qualitative and quantitative orientations thereby pushing my research interests into the thresholds of epidemiological studies, histories of diseases, death, pains, griefs, and memorialisation; as well as medical humanities, digital humanities and environmental humanities. With a bit of reservation, I consider History a Science. Historical Science is my 'religion'.

Because of today's uniqueness, historians must face the realities and imperatives of today's data driven lives and IoTs. Though, to the historians, facts (historical facts) are kings, yet, stats are increasing becoming kings. Whereas, statistical presentation is becoming the ideal module. For proper appropriation and interpretation of facts, historians must adequately romance analysing and presenting using quantification vis-a-vis graphs, tables, etc. I suspect that Economic and Medical historians will have no qualms with this disquisition.

If the historians who as custodians of the nation's heritage must continue to remain relevant they must cut up with the frenzy and currency of using quantification in their historical analysis particularly as the reality of Data Driven Development (DDD) and Data Governance (DG) is dawning on humanity. If you doubt it, rethink the notion of Internet of Things (IoTs). Can humanity escape the billions of digital prints we daily produce? significantly, historians can not deny the fact that these are continually becoming the facts of history that historians are gonna werk with.

"I am Not Yoruba: Rethinking the Entanglements in Femi Fani-Kayode's Disquisition" - By SMB Sesan Johnson

"I am Not Yoruba: Rethinking the Entanglements in Femi Fani-Kayode's Disquisition" - By SMB Sesan Johnson

#Prelude: Recently, as an adjunct I taught a new generation of Nigerian students of history the theme: SOURCES of HISTORY. It was indeed an exciting learning curve both for them and I. I showed a hard copy (scanned copy) of the first Indigenous newspaper in Africa - IWE IROHIN Fun Awon EGBA ati YORUBA to the students when I was teaching on newspapers as sources of history. I was flabbergasted when one of the students pointed to the fact that IWE IROHIN or its author or publisher labelled the Egbas as different from the Yorubas. This further led to more questions about the history, myths, legend and traditions of the Yoruba people.

The other day, Fani Kayode bursted the Twitter space with its salvo that he's not Yoruba but a son of Oduduwa. This had attracted reactions and counter reactions.

I opine that the bone of contention is not the group of people referred to as Yoruba. The argument is on the name YORUBA, its origin, it's originator, the meaning and its affects particularly in this current socio-political milieu.

Identity crisis one may say. Does Yoruba as a word has its root in any of the dialects spoken by any of the Oduduwa's sons or grandsons or by any group that falls within the Yoruba category? Reportedly, chief ElebuIbon, the renown Ifa priest has declared that the word is never mentioned in any Ifa verse. I am still searching for any other claim.

Extant records had reiterated that the word "Yoruba" was first recorded in reference to the Oyo Empire in a treatise written by the 16th century Songhai scholar Ahmed Baba. It was said that it was later popularized by Hausa usage and treatises written in Arabic and Ajami during the 19th century...... In all of these, Yoruba was used to refer to Oyo exclusively. (Ref: Sultan Mohammed Bello's Treatise). Michael Ajayi Crowther and the likes proliferated and frenzied the notion of referring to the people of southwestern Nigeria as Yoruba. Arguably, this had political undertone, partly because they tended to promote the supremacy of Oyo town, who they claimed as their origin. Without mincing words, this ideation aligned with the morbid and sordid interests of the colonial master. Whereas, historians and other scholars will agree that the general acceptability and usability of the Yoruba categorisation of the people of southwestern Nigeria is arguably a late 19th and early 20th century phenomenon. Perhaps, this was also partly a colonial imposition to facilitate colonial rule and was partly accepted by the people themselves because this also helped to promote collectivism among the people. However, pre-colonial histories of different stocks of the people of southwestern Nigeria showed that they didn't at a time consider themselves as Yoruba collectively. This, in spite of external usage of the identity for them. For example, at a time in history (particularly during the Yoruba Civil War), the Ijeshas, the Ekitis and other other people of Yoruba eastern countryside didn't consider themselves as Yoruba. They too referred to Oyo people exclusively as Yoruba. The Egbas too did in the mid 19th century consider themselves as the Egbas, not Yoruba. A reference is why was the first and foremost newspaper (IWE IROHIN) titled "Iwe Irohin Fun Awon Egba ati Yoruba"? By interpretation, the Egbas were distinguished here from the Yorubas. I agree on the plausibility of other interpretations.

But what's the much ado about this Yoruba label for the people of southwestern Nigeria? What is in a name? Whereas, the Ashanti were code named by the French. The Tuareg were named by the Arabs. The Fulani and Hausa were named by outsiders. Suffice to mention here that other groups of people of the world are also cut up in this carnage of external labelling or categorisation or name giving. Britain, France, Germany and Italy as names had external roots. The people themselves didn't give these names. Just like Yoruba, outsiders or external factors or forces directly or indirectly or subtly imposed these names on these countries and the people. The French saw/see themselves as the Gauls but later accepted the usage of France (Francais). The case of the Italians has commonalities with the Yorubas. Until it's unification, the Italians with their different dialects just like the Yorubas didn't consider themselves as Italians or one people. But the need for Unification within the urgency of becoming independent from external suzerainty foisted on them their externally imposed category.
By and large, we can't just flog aside the import of names particularly within the realms of Yoruba's cosmogony. Ile la wo, ka to so'mo loruko...... Oruko omo, lo n ro omo (apologies to non-Yorubas). The Yorubas believe that there's more to one's name. Name can be a label or stigma. In all it's Yoruba name for the sons and daughters of Oduduwa is an exonym but has become an endonym.

Significantly, the name Yoruba has been accepted and had been in use for years. Whereas, amidst the convoluted matrix of cacophony of myths, legends and theories of migrations about their origin, the Yoruba speaking people are acclaimed to be sons and daughters of Oduduwa.

"Igbe Gburuu, Eebi Gburuu at KUDETI: Rivers and other Ibadan Water Bodies as Victims, Carriers and Transmitters of Cholera, 1970-1996" as presented by SMB Sesan Johnson

"Igbe Gburuu, Eebi Gburuu at KUDETI: Rivers and other Ibadan Water Bodies as Victims, Carriers and Transmitters of Cholera, 1970-1996" as presented by SMB Sesan Johnson
 
#Note: This is an abridged version of my paper remotely presented @ "Shaped By the Sea: Histories of Ocean, Science, Medicine and Technology" Conference @ University of Manchester, UK

Ikudaisi left Gege Oloorun early in the morning to make some heaps at his farm only to be proclaimed dead in the evening. Aghast, Ikudaisi's wives and children could not believe that they were seeing the 'dead body' of Ikudaisi. He was well before he left this morning. He was only complaining of vomiting the day before. Like a terrorist and a scourge, cholera had snatched life out of Ikudaisi declared Mogaji Ikulanbe, the family head. Cholera is presently ravaging the whole city opined the Mogaji. It's now becoming a case of 'je amala ni Oje, lo Shan Owo ni Adeoyo". This described some of the public health problematics of Ibadanland between 1970 and 1996.

It's clear that the present generation is faced with a series of unique environmental dilemma and public health problematic, largely unprecedented in human history. While the environment has been a perennial theme in human thought, water bodies (seas, oceans, rivers, lakes, etc) as subsets of the environment and how humans value and think about the environment has become a vital aspect of recent social history. On the one hand, the 1970s signalled a period of intense academic research into the processes of environmental appropriation. On the other hand, during the same period, the environment in Africa (particularly Ibadan) was experiencing a sea of effects from human actions just like other parts of the world. Within the realms of environmental problematic, Ibadan between 1970 and 1996 was characterised with open defecation by riversides (Ona, Kudeti, Ogbere, Ogunpa) and lakesides (Eleyele) and Asejire Dam; abysmal wastes disposal protocols (Gegeoloorun, Foko, Oja'ba, etc.); poor sanitation and illicit WASH framework.

From Lagos, cholera spread to Ibadan in December 1970. Cholera was considered a stranger and a scourge because of the quantum effects in terms morbidity and mortality rates.

Cholera remains a killer disease and a major public health problem in Africa. In the public health discourse of the Yoruba speaking people of Nigeria, "igbe gburuu, eebi gburuu" is the generic description of cholera symptoms, that is, severe vomiting and acute defecation.

It's was great serving as remote speaker/panelist alongside Dr Cristiano Turbil (University College London) and Elina Maanitty (University of Helsinki) at the ongoing "Shaped By the Sea: Histories of Ocean, Science, Medicine and Technology" conference at the Centre for the History of Science, Technology, and Medicine at University of Manchester, UK.