Former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon (Rtd)
By Y. S. EHODA -ADI
Early this week, there were media reports in which a former British Member of Parliamentarian (MP), Tom Tugendhat, was quoted as allegation that Nigeria’s former Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, “stole half of CBN.”
According to one of the online news media, African Examiner, Tugendhart made the allegation while discussing with his colleagues on the need to sanction Nigerian considering the way security forces attacked #EndSARS protesters.
The report quoted Tugendhat as having stated: “What we are seeing in Nigeria today is part of that story. It is a tragedy we are all witnessing because we see things falling apart.
“The problem this time is not foreign pressure known as colonialism. The pressure instead is corruption and violence and attempts at control (of power).
“We need to call out the corruption, we need to use the powers that we have in this country to stop those who are profiting from the wealth of that great nation and hiding it here.
“Now some people will remember when General Gowon left Nigeria, he took half of the Central Bank, so it is said, and moved to London.
“We know today, even now in this great city of ours, there are sadly some people who have taken the wealth of Nigerian people and hidden their ill-gotten gains here.
“We know that our banks sadly have been used for that profit or that illegal transfer of asset and that means that the UK is in a unique position in being able to actually do something to really exert pressure on those who have robbed Nigerians.”
It should not be difficult to understand why the allegation by the former British MP has continued to elicit reactions from Nigerians at home and in the Diaspora.
First, this British Member of Parliament was not born when General Gowon ruled Nigeria. Gowon’s administration came to an abrupt end in 1975 when he was toppled in a coup d’etat, by which time he was away in Kampala, Uganda for a conference, organised by the continental body, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU).
It was pretty difficult for Gowon to settle down anywhere because he didn’t have the resources needed. Starkly, Gowon had simple contentment and refused to benefit from the spoils of office. He eventually settled in London through the generous interventions of friends from Nigeria and other countries. And much later, General Murtala Mohammed eased his stay in London.
At what point did he empty half of the Central Bank of Nigeria? Before the coup or after the coup? If it were so, why did he find getting a house in London so difficult? He stayed in a hotel with his family for quite some time. The bills were being settled by well-wishers.
This British Member of Parliament said Gowon brought the money to London but concluded by saying that it is hearsay. It’s ludicrous that certainty gave way to speculation(hearsay).
Tom Tugendhat appears to be 35 years of age or thereabouts. He was born after Gowon had left office.
Mr. Tugendhat must be held to account for his reckless use of hearsay.
At the time Gowon came to London to settle down, he had little or nothing. If he brought half of the Central Bank, it can easily be traced; even now in London. The little comfort around Gowon now came much much later. The banks in London keep records.
Mr. MP should be taken to court to show evidence, and not hearsay.
Why are we so beholden to the foolish talk of white men? Our local education should be de-coupled from mental slavery enshrined in our colonial relations. 1960 has been a long time for our necessary mental and physical emancipation from the evil effects of colonialism.
Gowon’s student days at Warwick University, after leaving government, showed he could not afford luxury. Apart from help from friends, Gowon’s Christian faith has been a huge sustaining force.
Over time, Gowon has been rehabilitated. If he had emptied half of the Central Bank, the coup plotters would have used that to justify the coup.
Let us learn to think deeply.
Not all our leaders are corrupt. The present standard of crude acquisition of wealth by public office holders can not and must not be of general application. Gowon, Shagari, Umaru Yar’Adua and the incumbent president, Buhari are not corrupt.
In the present case, the onus is on the fatuous British MP to show clear evidence, not hearsay.
It’s apt to conclude by saying that latching on plausible history of corruption, especially oral history of corruption in Nigeria is not sufficient premise to tar Gowon’s reputation in public office.
The plausible context of some other leaders who might have stashed away so much of corrupt proceeds outside Nigeria cannot be generalised. It’s too trite to say that Gowon must be implicated because a British MP said so. It’s therefore grossly puerile to so conclude because some of us attribute higher wisdom and superior knowledge to white men; even when it is clearly discernible that they lack factual information or historical facts, for that matter.
The utility of history is found in the accuracy and appropriateness of irrefutable records, not mere fantasy conjured up from hearsay.
