Introduction

The Nigerian political climate, particularly from the civil war period or immediately after 1966, was characterized by lack of commitment to the virtues of honesty, equality, social justice, accountability, trust, peaceful co-existence amongst co-ethnics and respect for human rights.  This is the thrust of Wole Soyinka’s The Man Died, an autobiography, which takes the form of prison notes.

At the beginning of the Nigerian civil war (1967-1970), Wole Soyinka was arrested by the federal authorities and imprisoned, only to be released in 1969.   Unfortunately, the same picture of Nigeria presented by Wole Soyinka in his 1972 novel still prevails in Nigerian politics today.  This article examines the political crisis as presented in Wole Soyinka’s The Man Died, its bearing with present crisis and the prospects for the future.

The Nigerian Civil War

P.C. Lloyd observes that “Nigeria’s problems do derive in large measure from the tensions which had arisen between the larger ethnic groups and that the hostility derives not from the ethnic differences, but from competition between peoples for wealth and power” (Lloyd,1970: 1-13). This elite competition becomes a basis for ethnic mobilization, in which people are mobilized for political conflicts to serve personal ends.

The Constituent Assembly of September 1977 worked out a presidential constitution for the country as a result of the failure of the 1963 Republican Constitution, whose undue emphasis was on regional autonomy with the predictable result that at different times the various regions threatened to secede from the federation.  The Nigerian elites who took over from the British (at independence in 1960) made no serious effort to evolve any nationally shared values essential for national unity.  The factors which led to the Nigerian civil war include North–South division and ethnic conflicts, minority group politics, the structural dilemma of the Ngerian army, the census controversy and the federal election crisis of 1962 and 1965. All these structural problems, though real, were manipulated by the political elite in their competition for power and resources, which led to the civil war of 1967-1970.

The immediate background to the civil war was the January 15, 1966 military coup carried out by seven army officers, six of whom were Ibos. The effect of the action was that other Nigerians, particularly the Northern political elite, were afraid that there was a Machiavellian plot by the Ibos to dominate the country,  which led to the attack of the Ibos in Northern Nigeria. As Dudley observed, “The Ibos were attacked not because they were Ibos but because the name Ibo had become more or less synonymouswith exploitation and humiliation.  It was essentially an attack on a mental stereotype” (Dudley, 1973: 132). This incipient crisis precipitated a leadership question between Odumegwu Ojukwu and Yakubu Gowon., both military officers. Gowon was seen as a symbol of northern  domination, which was considered a threat to the very existence of the Ibos. The rivalry between Gowon and Ojukwu  invariably led to the civil war.

The questions that could be asked at this juncture are:

(a)  What kind of a society is Nigeria where power and wealth play a more significant role for the leaders than the interest of the people? 

(b)  Is there a possibilityof moving forward for a positive change? 

(c)  How will Nigeria be salvaged?  (Cf. Oyediran, 1980:28)

The Military Regime and General Yakubu Gowon

A military regime cannot properly be described as operating within a normal political system.  All military governments come to power through illegal and unconstitutional means, particularly through coup d’etat, involving the use of violence. Also, they mostly use unconventional means to rule, legislating through decrees with a personalized rule. General Yakubu Gowon ruled for nine years, from July 1966 to July 1975.  Immediately after his fall, his regime was denounced as being  inefficient, indecisive and authoritarian.  Under the military, the civil service amassed enormous powers, as military rulers had to rely on the bureaucracy not only to implement policy, but also in its formulation. The ideological character of the military, the institutional form of the civil service and the nature of the social organization of the Nigerian society all contributed in no small measure to the civil war.

Wole Soyinka’s The Man Died is situated within the context of the civil war in Nigeria and its aftermath under the Gowon regime.  It is an account of his sordid experiences in detention under the Gowon regime.

Wole Soyinka and the Prison Experience

The prose work The Man Died could be referred to as some form of prison notes.  It does not only discuss Wole Soyinka’s own prison experience, but also the experiences of those he came across whose lives and manner of arrest and treatment as detainees interested him.  Dr. Seinde Arigbede, for instance, in the course of his duties as a medical doctor was caught up in the violence unleashed on the citizens of Ondo by the Nigerian State after the disputed 1963 elections.   Dr. Arigbede was taken to an empty cell, where he was hung up by the wrists and left dangling, while he underwent serious beating and torture.  He heard the cries of other inmates who were subjected to even worse treatment.  Some of the detainees even went through the agony of having broomstick switches driven up their penis.

Others who were tortured include Gogo Chu Nzeribe, whose offence was undisclosed during the Gowon regime.  Nzeribe was imprisoned in Dodan Barracks where he died.  Dr. Adeyemi Ademola, another victim, was mysteriously gunned to death while conducting a sensitive autopsy on a highly placed military official,  the head of one of the armed forces divisions.  Wole Soyinka was moved from one prison to another and queried on  many issues.  He was taken away from Ibadan to Lagos under the pretence that Gowon wanted to ask him some questions.  He never saw Gowon; rather, he was questioned with a view to determining his political stand.  The major question they asked him or their major comment was:

But what gives people like you and Tai Solarin the right to think that you know everything?  What makes you think from your Ivory Towers that you have solutions to the problems of the country?  When the government has already laid down a policy what makes you think you know better?  You are intellectuals living in a dream world.  Yet you think you know better than men who have weighed out so many factors and come to a decision (Soyinka, 1972:  34- 35).

When Wole Soyinka did not cooperate with them, they ordered that he should be handcuffed.  As a result he went on a hunger strike.  He was later moved from the maximum to the medium security prison. He lived under unhygienic conditions and when he fell sick they never wanted him to be treated by his personal doctor.   It was only when his wife visited him that they made some provisions for his needs. However, immediately after his wife left, they took away all that was given to him under the pretence of living well in detention. Soyinka puts it thus:

You staged a farce!  You wanted my wife to leave satisfied that I was now receiving humane treatment at your hands.  You went through a performance, which lasted nearly two hours.  You made sure that she saw me off to my cell laden with books and paper, even a radio.  Then your goons come here and sweep it all off.  I want to know Mallam A, if these were part of your instructions (Soyinka, 1972: 285).

Wole Soyinka was put under severe pressure to confess and co-operate at all times.  When a note was smuggled out on his behalf,  Soyinka was threatened to reveal the name of the man that helped him smuggle the note out, but he insisted he did not know (Soyinka, 1972: 79).  He neither co-operated with his jailors nor did he tell them the truth throughout his prison life.  Although he was finally released,Wole Soyinka suffered in detention for an offence that he did not commit.  He was detained solely because of the state’s impression of him (Soyinka, 1972: 24-35). 

Many Nigerians have suffered from the period after 1966 to date, especially under repressive and brutal military regimes, which have ruled the country for the larger part of its post-colonial history. Military rule and militarism have in no small measure contributed to the agonising social and political crises in Nigeria.

The same situation that prevailed then also persists till the present, with a high level of corruption, unlawful arrest, and a lack of commitment to the values of honesty, social justice, equality, fairness, accountability, and the rule of law.

Nigerian prisons are still in a sorry shape.  With the situation presented above, the question that may be asked is: Which way forward for Nigeria?

Policy Options

Policy options should address:

(a)        The long standing issue of military intervention and militarism.

(b)        Human rights violations.

(c)