By James Pam
It was Prof. Wole Soyinka who wrote in 1972 that “The man dies in all who keep silent in the face of tyranny.” Today, tyranny has got defenders. They must be the living dead because they cannot keep silent.
Yesterday, I read an article titled Prof. Odinkalu: A Man in a Glasshouse Throwing Stones,” authored by one Bitrus Atta from Lagos. The article appears to make a simple but troubling assumption that a person must come from Shendam Local Government Area before he can speak about an alleged breach of human rights arising from Shendam or the abuse of public resources in doing so.
Prof. Odinkalu did not need to be an indigene of Shendam to express concerns about an alleged threat to the rights of Barrister Gabriel Tsenyen. Human rights are universal. When they become the exclusive preserve of the people of Shendam, we would all request Prof. Odinkalu’s Shendam Local Government Indigeneship Certificate before entertaining his opinions on them.
The article therefore misses the point when it begins by telling readers that Prof. Odinkalu is not from Northern Nigeria and that he knows little about Plateau State. The question is not where he comes from, but whether the rights complained about are truly under threat or being unjustly violated.
From the facts in public records, Barrister Tsenyen is being subjected to a criminal prosecution, a process Prof. Odinkalu has consistently questioned the propriety of. The DSS, the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation, the courts, and other public institutions being used in this process do not operate with the resources of Ngotugu’ut Community to preclude other citizens from probing it.
It is therefore curious that Mr. Atta from Lagos sought to impeach the competence of Prof. Odinkalu to probe the unjust deployment of federal might over issues that are supposed to be resolved in Ngotugu’ut Community or in Shendam Local Government. Are Mr. Atta’s motives inspired by hypocrisy, ignorance or mischief?
The article also makes an unfortunate attempt to portray Barrister Tsenyen as someone who opposes development. It overlooked the fact that some persons within the community unlawfully transferred over 2.8 hectares of his family land to an organisation for the organisation’s business development. It overlooked Barrister Tsenyen’s numerous failed attempts to have the matter resolved as a community.
The mischaracterisation and attack on the personality of Prof. Odinkalu in the article did not address the issues yearning for determination in this circumstance. References to his alleged “legacy of disharmony and chaos” do not answer the specific questions arising from the matter in Ngotugu’ut or the abuse of federal might in resolving civil community issues.
Mr. Atta is right about one thing, though: development is urgently needed in rural communities and Mr. Tsenyen and his family have certainly contributed to the development of Ngotugu’ut. However, no community can fully develop without justice.
Thus, the real question here is whether the claims made by Prof. Odinkalu about the treatment being meted out to Barrister Tsenyen are true and substantiated. That question deserves factual answers, not geographical analysis.
That point has to be made that Nigeria belongs to all of us. A threat to one Nigerian is a threat to all Nigerians. The use of public resources to unjustly prosecute Barrister Tsenyen over community issues, in light of the numerous problems bedevilling this country, is indeed a worrying development.
It is only a matter of time before Mr. Atta and his ilk discover that threats to the rights of Barrister Tsenyen are direct threats to their rights.
The debate should therefore move away from who has the right to speak and to what matters: What happened, whose rights are affected, what does the law say, and what is the truth as it relates to Barrister Tsenyen?
-James Pam writes from Jos.
