Two vernacular phrases in Akwa Ibom – ono owo nkpo and isinoho owo nkpo – have been trending recently in the petrodollar-rich state to a point that those who do not understand the native language could know their meanings. The former means “the one that gives” while the latter, an antonym of the former, refers to “the one that does not give”. Though informally, the expression has become parameter, to distinguishing between those to reckon with and those unworthy to count on, particularly in political calculation in the state.
From account of the narrators, the givers are those in the political class that use the spoils of their offices to “turn boys into men”, and, to be fair to gender sensitivity, “turn girls into women”. The names of the acclaimed givers are also mentioned with grandiloquent appellation such as, “Final Obongowo”, “Oba”, “Mother Theresa”, “Uncommon transformer”, among other superlatively flattered sobriquets.
The mind-set that gives rise to the phrases also serves as yardstick for measuring achievements of successive administrations since 1999. To such minds, the maturity, visionary disposition and doggedness of pursuing a course that characterised the era of Victor Attah are immaterial. To such diminutive thinkers, Godswill Akpabio’s bold signature in domestication of Child Rights Act, which put paid to stigmatization of vulnerable children with tags of witchcrafts, is intangible. It is also in the same vein that Udom Emmanuel’s personal quest in stemming the tide of politically associated killings counts little.
That school of thought also put cloaks on people’s eyes, hence obscuring certain questions that would have held the political leaders accountable to the people: Do the trillions that have triped into the state treasury since 1999 have commensurate bearing on the lives of the people? Why were (are) Attah’s edifying projects only adorning their faces on the drawing board of the architect? Why is the free education introduced under Akpabio not worthy for wards and relatives of any government functionary to attend? Why does beneficial effects of billion naira worth of almost 20 industries said to have been provided under the Udom Emmanuel administration only accessed on the internet and social media platforms, or are they located in a planet only within the reach of those in political offices?
Depending on the lens use by an assessor for assessment, the narrative has contributed to what make or mar development in Akwa Ibom. Attah saw it as inhibiting factor to overall development of the state, hence coming up with an agency for attitudinal orientation, but unfortunately, typical of Nigerian system, the impact of that department has not added value beyond enriching the financial profile of the occupants of the office. To worsen matters, either out of helplessness or political expediency, since he could not beat the gladiators, Attah joined them, yet even on that score, he was not counted as a very good performer. At the end, he lost on both sides.r
Fom the outset, Udom disliked it and called it exactly what it is: an act of begging for a living instead of earning a living. At least from what has been proceeding from his mouth, he has stepped up efforts far beyond Attah. In addition to the social orientation programme, he launched a political philosophy called Dakkada (Arise) with the aim of rejuvenating self-reliance on the part of the people. Even so, the mumbo-jumbo narrative remains a strong factor in the appraisal of his administration.
As a great student, or a great teacher, as he would prefer to be called, Akpabio has a twin traits of navigating his way: his ever-readiness in sparing no expenses in having his way; and innate ability of mastering the sociological characteristics of a given society as well as the desirability and philosophy of a person or people concerned. Knowledge gathered on such expedition becomes tonic sol-fa guiding Akpabio in swiftly switching to the desired tunes with the aim of singing to the approval of, and warming himself to, the hearts of a person or people relevant to him at a giving time. And so, once upon a time, while scores of individuals that had access to those in power were smiling to the banks, the rest of the populace, millions of them, were salivating in amazement in the course of listening on daily basis to tales of how some persons had overnight transmutation from impecuniosity to opulence.r
There are quite a number of persons who are not counted among the “givers” even as their modest personal effort has had mega and timeless impact on many people from Akwa Ibom. Those in this class belong to a category ironically described as the “The foolish ones” by Ayi Kwei Armah in the Beautyful Ones Are Not Yet Born, because they “cannot live the way it is lived by all around them.”
To be counted among the “givers” in Akwa Ibom of today one does not only have to hire those who beat the drums and blow trumpets with choruses circling around the person’s name in the streets and social media spaces, cash must be openly doled out to the audience, including those constantly on the dole queues. That is why Don Etiebet’s name would not be mentioned, in spite of using his private enterprises to leapfrog many people from pedestrians to pedestals. That is why Edet Akpan’s name would not be counted, notwithstanding his immense assistance to certain individuals from Akwa Ibom to become entrepreneurs in Lagos in 1990s, which had concomitant value chain through a number of young school leavers that got employed.
Still, anyone believing that those behind Inoyo Toro Foundation, which has lived to its self-tasked mission of mentoring and training teachers as well as provision of scholarship for indigent students in Akwa Ibom for the past 12 years, should be commended for the humanitarian gesture deserves to be pardoned for having crass misunderstanding of the substance use in evaluating people in Akwa Ibom. Same thing could be understood of why Udom Emmanuel’s philanthropic deeds to certain people of Akwa Ibom origin in Lagos before becoming a governor would not worth mentioning.
Let us it get it correct: The act of giving is not bad. In fact, it is a virtue. The Christian Holy Scripture attaches blessings to it, which Lucky Dube alluded to in one of his songs that says “Blessed is the one that giveth than the one that taketh. In a society such as ours, where there is no institutional socio-economic pillars with which challenges of life could be cushioned, an act of generosity from the rich and the government is elixir and its desirability cannot be overemphasized. But the kind of giving talked about in the streets of Uyo is not real in the true and deeper meaning of the word.
The act of giving, which those living in fool’s paradise sing hosanna with loudest voice to heaven is called tokenism. The essence of it is exactly as defined in Merriam Webster dictionary: “the practice of doing something (such as hiring a person who belongs to a minority group) only to prevent criticism and give the appearance that people are being treated fairly.”
The tokenism has paid off. That is why certain other fundamental questions revolting in the minds of those that think things through are not asked in the public: When did the “the givers” start embarking on the act of giving? Where is the proceeds of their generosity from? What is the mandated roles of the givers to the public and have they judiciously rendered that account? Why is there no General Hospital in Uyo vicinity even as the University of Teaching Hospital and St Luke’s Hospital at Anua have been stretched beyond their elastic limit? Why are social welfare nets not provided for the poor and the vulnerable as a matter of rights in the state?
If Akwa Ibom’s resources belongs to the Akwa Ibom people why then is the act of giving out the wealth considered benevolence, and the supposed dispenser of the wealth, who should be a servant of the people is celebrated as a master and venerated as a benefactor?
Why are those working in the oil producing companies go home every month with package good enough to take care of certain luxurious need after they might have adequately taken care of their basic needs yet the civil servants in the oil producing states, except those who soil their hands with corruption hardly foot bills such as feeding, shelter and clothing, let alone secondary needs, which become luxury owing to their miserable incomes? Let us compare working with “a stingy” boss or client, who pay handsomely to commensurate with meritorious services rendered, and working with “a generous giver”, who pays peanut but gloatingly dole out awuf to a few stakeholders and non-stakeholders. The questions to ask are certainly interminable.
The irony of the matter lies in the fact that those chorusing the fake act of giving are just scores of individuals, who on account of passing through schools ought to be described as educated. Their voices, like that of the empty vessels, are louder than that of millions of their fellow citizens.
Notwithstanding having the effrontery to engage in the taunting buffoonery of who is a giver and non-giver in Akwa Ibom, they deserve our pity and not condemnation for they do not know what they are talking about. Though they have passed through appreciable level of schools, they are benighted and therefore need to be properly and urgently enlightened to come out from their blissful ignorance.
Ekanem, a journalist, sent this piece from Lagos through nsikak4media@gmail.com
Comments
Post a Comment