Riding on the back of the tiger
When Tudor King Henry VIII (1491 – 1547) became desperate and wanted to divorce his legitimate wife – Catherine of Aragon – over what he perceived as her inability to give him a male heir to the throne, and following repeated refusal of the Pope to sanction a divorce, some officials and individuals (such as Thomas Cromwell, Thomas Cranmer [who was to be appointed Archbishop of Canterbury], and Anne Boleyn [Henry’s mistress who hoped to replace Catherine as Queen])– motivated in part by their desires to further their political and personal interests – took it upon themselves to help the King achieve his goal by all means possible. They urged Henry VIII on, making him to realise and put to use his latent and untrammelled powers and advancing theological and political arguments to enable Henry circumvent the difficult Catholic guidelines for annulment of marriages.
They – together with Anne Boleyn’s family – facilitated the appointment of the relatively unknown Cranmer as the Archbishop of Canterbury when the seat became vacant. Cranmer helped build the case for and sat as head of the tribunal that annulled Henry’s marriage to Catherine of Aragon. To do this, they championed the separation of the English Church from papal authority and union with the Holy See, establishing the principle of Royal Supremacy, in which the king was considered sovereign over the Church within his realm and Supreme Head of the Church of England.
Crucially however, all those who helped Henry VIII realise and put to use his absolute powers – including the Chief Minister, Thomas Cromwell, and the Queen, Anne Boleyn – ended up on the King’s execution table, just like the officials they displaced. Even Thomas Cranmer, the Archbishop of Canterbury, met his own fate subsequently in the hands of Queen Mary I in 1556.
But what is the use of this excursion into English history? It is simply to drive home the point in a metaphor made popular by John F. Kennedy in 1961 that “those who foolishly sought power [influence and favours] by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.” History is replete with individuals, societies and nations trying to ride on the back of tyrannical leaders, systems or countries only to end up being victims of that same system.
But Nigeria is a country that despises history. A former President even listed History as one of the “useless” courses of study in the university that students should avoid. Consequently, the subject has almost been abrogated from the secondary school curriculum. But like George Santayana argues, “those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it”, Nigeria has been going in circles reinventing the wheels of history and never able to learn any lessons from its or other nations’ histories.
If we could, we would have long known that the abridgement of human rights by the government under any guise is unacceptable and should be unanimously condemned by all. But no! There are fanatical supporters of governments here that urge the governments on; even question why those accused should enjoy any right at all and call on the governments to circumvent the law, go harder and to even brutalise accused persons to serve as deterrent to others.
But if history and experience is anything to go by, we know that in Nigeria most of the cases of corruption that go to the courts do not end up in convictions. One of the reasons, among others, for this is because the government isn’t really interested in prosecuting the accused or is sometimes incapable of diligently investigating and prosecuting such cases. Most times, its aim is to try and convict the accused in the courts of public opinion and on the pages of newspapers. Once that is done, the government itself looses interest in the cases.
Hence, since 1999, Nigeria’s anti-corruption bazaar consist of using the media to demonise, to persecute, to destroy people’s integrity knowing that most Nigerians believe that every accused person is guilty. Is it surprising therefore that majority of Nigerians are ready to give the Buhari administration pass mark in its fight against corruption even when it is yet to secure a single conviction fifteen (15) months after beginning the so-called war!
But I digress. Haven urged the government or pushed it to become fully authoritarian or tyrannical, those fanatical supporters soon discovered they have helped create a monster that would also consume them once they step out of line.
That was the case of one Abubakar Sidiqu Usman, a fanatical pro-Buhari supporter, blogger and social media soldier who, besides vigorously championing the cause of the Buhari regime and urging it to go harder (read become more tyrannical), also specialises in harassing and heckling those arrested or questioned by either the Department of State Security or any of the anti-corruption agencies on social media. He received his own bitter pills when he published a report, an unfavourable story about the Chairman of the EFCC, Ibrahim Magu. According to reports, operatives of the EFCC stormed Usman’s house in the early hours of the morning in commando fashion, fully armed to the teeth, to effect his arrest in the presence of his terrified wife and children for allegedly “cyber stalking.”
But unlike him, the Nigerian online community did not rejoice over his fate. They quickly rallied to his aid by speaking out resoundingly against the unconstitutionality of his arrest. The pressure paid off and he was released on administrative bail after 36 hours in detention. Usman, who was hosted by President Buhari alongside other bloggers, last year, wondered aloud: “This is a government that I fought for but occurrences like these are not the experiences that myself and millions of Nigerians fought for. I hope we can use this to rectify the wrongs in our system towards the attainment of a more sustainable democracy.”
We only hope that Usman and his like who specialise in propping up tyrannical regimes will realise that those who ride on the back of a tiger always end up inside its belly.
Christopher Akor