THERE have been daggers out for Dr Reuben Abati, co-host of the Arise TV’s ‘Morning Show’, following his recent comments on Senator Godswill Akpabio’s witty remark at the night of tributes for the late Senator Ifeanyi Ubah. Senator Akpabio had declared that the Igbos are “mercantile” people, who build houses and settle wherever they go. He contrasted the Igbos with members of other ethnic groups, who, he said,  can live in his state of Akwa Ibom for 15 years without trying to build their homes there.

The subtext of Senator Akpabio’s remark is that members of   other ethnic groups come for what they can get from the state, while the Igbos who build homes and houses come with the intention to settle and live there. Senator Akpabio’s remark, made at Nnewi, the late Senator Ubah’s hometown,  to fit the mood of the moment, was obviously an exaggeration, but people understood the point he was trying to make. 

Dr Abati, while commenting on Senator Akpabio’s quip, took exception to the use of the word ‘mercantile’ and admitted the said industry of the Igbos. And to a remark that the Igbos took over and “developed” about two local government areas in Lagos State, Dr Abati humorously remarked that the Oba of Lagos, Rilwan Akiolu, who in 2015 threatened to drown the Igbos in the Lagos Lagoon if they failed to vote for his preferred candidate in the state governorship election, Akinwunmi Ambode, candidate of the All Progressives Congress, APC, would not be happy to hear that. Dr Abati further commented on the said Igbo enterprise, including mentioning that if you go to anywhere and do not see an Igbo, you should pack your things and leave because “there is nothing there”. He then added the story of T.O.S Benson, in his words, “for balance”.  

As Dr Abati put it: “Chief TOS Benson, former minister of information, now late, on one occasion at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs — and I’m not making this up — he said it publicly, if anybody can contradict me let them do so… he said something about Igbo people…. He said he had an Igbo wife, and had an Igbo daughter, that he wanted to buy land in Igbo land for his daughter, for his wife, and he said: ‘I’m getting old, let me build in this place for my wife’. He said that his in-laws told him that they don’t sell land to outsiders.”

Dr Abati then concluded: “The same Igbos who are so industrious that they are all over and do well in other parts of Nigeria, you go as a non-Igbo man to go and buy umunna (kindred) land, you will be told that you don’t belong even as an in-law.”

Dr Abati has been in the eyes of the storm since these statements, drawing condemnations from many Igbos, especially the ‘Internet warriors’, some of who called him an Igbo hater, and not surprisingly, support from mostly his Yoruba kith and kin. I believe Dr Abati has done no wrong, and that the furore, if anything, raises some fundamental issues that need to be addressed:  One, Dr. Abati’s critics have failed to appreciate that academics and public intellectuals employ different methodologies in their research and public commentaries. Public intellectuals – people who try to shape public opinion through commentaries in the mass media–  can be broadly categorized into two, based on their methods of inquiry and intervention:  You have those I can call “polemicists”. 

These are strongly opinionated and passionate commentators, who leave their readers or listeners in no doubt where they stand in the issue they are commenting on. Whatever data they have are usually to buttress their predetermined position.  They speak or write with unmistakable passion and gusto, sometimes using strong language to buttress their points. Public intellectuals in this category include Professor Farooq Kperogi of the Tribune and The News Chronicle, Abimbola Adelakun of The Punch, Rufai Oseni of Arise TV and Professors Chidi Odinkalu and Udenta O. Udenta who are ‘itinerant’ commentators and writers. 

There are also public intellectuals I can call ‘academic analysts’. This category of public intellectuals, unlike the polemicists, try to have a level of detachment from the subject they are writing or commenting about. They often present various perspectives on an issue and allow the readers or their listeners to draw their own conclusion. The examples here include Dr Reuben Abati, and Simon Kolawole of The Cable. I also include myself in this category of writers. In my opinion, Professor Sam Amadi and Segun Adeniyi straddle or vacillate between these two broad methodologies in their commentaries.

A common criticism of the ‘academic analysts’ is that they either lack the courage to take a definite position on contentious issues (as the polemicists do), or that they hide their preferences in obfuscations, semantics and waffling. I can’t count the number of times some people have called me ‘on the other hand’ writer – meaning that I tend to concede so much to all the perspectives in a contentious issue that it becomes difficult to know where I stand on the issue. Remarkably, academics and people with academic inclinations seem very comfortable with the style of the ‘academic analyst’.

Two, following the above categorisation of public intellectuals, it becomes easier to understand why Dr Abati felt he needed to bring the T.O.S Benson story to ‘balance the narrative” in accordance with the methodology of the ‘academic analyst’. In fact, since he studied Law, I have observed that Dr Abati, who was also a university lecturer, seems to have consciously tried to infuse the legal process in his mode of commentary. I believe that is why you would often hear him preface his commentaries with remarks like: “what are the facts in the case?” (to enable him identify the contending perspective in any issue before responding to them in the manner of lawyers). He would also often conclude by saying something like:  to ‘balance it’ or ‘what is the other side of the argument’?  

I believe that another point that has influenced the methodology of the ‘academic analysts’ is the debate in the arts and humanities on whether it is possible for an analyst to be neutral in social science research or commentaries. The argument is that even an academic’s choice of topic of investigation embodies some biases. The consensus in the literature therefore is that while neutrality may be difficult to achieve in social science research or commentary, objectivity is possible even when the analyst is not neutral.

Some of the ways of ensuring objectivity include full disclosure (disclosing upfront any potential biases that may influence your conclusion) and making sure that the various perspectives on contentious issues are x-rayed individually so that the conclusions are either obvious from the analyses or the readers/listeners are allowed to make their own judgements on the issue.

This is what I believe Dr Abati has done by bringing up the T.O.S Benson matter. Could he have done it slightly differently in order not to suggest that T.O.S Benson was right, or even if he was right, that it was applicable to all Igbos? Perhaps. But it is also important to bear in mind that it was a live TV commentary and that there are “rhetorical flourishes” when one speaks live – as opposed to when one writes and has the privilege of editing one’s script before publishing.

Three, the furore over the remarks by Dr Abati raises a fundamental question of what should be a drawing line between respect for the spirit of critical inquiry which sometimes requires interrogating issues dominant in an ethnic group other than one’s own, and being an ethnic chauvinist. To love your ethnic or religious in-group, or to make critical commentaries on issues predominant in another ethnic group does not make one an ethnic bigot. The crucial line is whether such a statement deliberately tries to accentuate or weaponise the conflictual elements in inter-ethnic relations.  If I call Dr Abati an ethnic chauvinist on the basis of his T.O.S Benson story, what would I call Bayo Onanuga, Femi Fani Kayode and Reno Omokri? I think it would be wrong of any one to even remotely lump Dr Abati in the same category as these three. 

As a student of identity, I know that an identity that is perceived to be under threat or insulted is the one most vociferously defended. For this, I can understand when some members of an ethnic group take it personal any non-complimentary remark by a non-member of the ethnic group. However, I also know that every individual embodies a mosaic of identities – not just the primordial identities of ethnicity and religion. I also know that identities can be cross-cutting.

For instance, we can be members of different primordial identities but share other identities in common such as belonging to the same profession, political party or sports club. It is possible that my different perspective on the Dr Abati furore is influenced by our shared identity as public intellectuals who use similar methods in our commentaries. Remarkably, I had to quit a particular WhatsApp group not long ago when most of the members felt enraged by some comments by Professor Ahmed Bako’s Inaugural Lecture at Usman Danfodio University entitled the ‘Igbo Factor in the History of Inter-Group Relations and Commerce in Kano’.

While I could understand why some Igbos were offended by sections of the lecture if read in silos, I argued that in the context of the objectives of the research, the justifications for choosing the topic, its methodology, and demands for academic freedom, the Professor did no wrong. Here again it is possible that my shared identity with the Professor as researchers cum lecturers who value academic freedom, informed my different perspective on his lecture. 

*Jideofor Adibe is Professor of Political Science at Nasarawa State University, Keffi.