The First (Igbo) Coup d'etat in Nigeria--A. M. Mainasara's The Five Majors - Why They Struck is Mere Ethnic Propaganda by Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy

The First (Igbo) Coup d'etat in Nigeria--A. M. Mainasara's The Five Majors - Why They Struck is Mere Ethnic Propaganda

--Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy

I read Adewale Ademoyega's Why We Struck a long time before now and found it an interesting and informative account (from an insider and an active participant in the coup) of the events that necessitated the first coup d'etat which took place in Nigeria. But when I came across A. M. Mainasara's refutation; The Five Majors-Why They Struck; I found myself scuttling back to Adewale Ademoyega's Why We Struck to ascertain the validity of A. M. Mainasara's facts, or perhaps opinions.

To A. M. Mainasara, the first set of coup plotters in Nigeria had no honourable , noble, or patriotic intentions. Rather, their concern was to wrest political power from the north which they assumed had become some sort of threat to the political existence of Nigeria. Let us hear him:

Redemption of the country was not their aim. Their purpose was to prevent a section of the country, the North, from effective participation in the governance of the country. This was to be accomplished through the physical elimination of the entire political and military elite of the North, beginning with the top leadership; the Sardauna of Sokoto, Premier of the Northern Region of Nigeria, the embodiment of the soul of the North and all that it stood for. The final solution of the so called Northern menace was to be effected after the conspirators had seized control of the government of the Federation. (A. M. Mainasara 9-10)

It is highly disturbing that some educated Nigerians prefer to distort history for the sake of ethnic propaganda. It is this kind of Mainasara's form of distorted history that is responsible for giving young Nigerians wrong notions of what transpired in the country's political past. An example is contained in the letter recently addressed to the acting president of Nigeria, Professor Yemi Osinbajo by the Arewa Youths Forum which in part states that:

“Our doubts are informed by the following historical antecedents that have characterized the behavior and conduct of the Igbo in Nigeria and previous efforts at containing them.

“The Igbo of Eastern Nigeria manifested their hatred for Nigeria’s unity barely five years after we gained our independence from the British when on January 15, 1966, their army officers carried out the first-ever mutiny that marked the beginning of a series of crisis which has profoundly altered the course of Nigeria’s history.

“By that ill motivated cowardly and deliberate action, the Igbo killed many northern officers from the rank of lieutenant colonel upwards and also decapitated the Prime Minister and the political leadership of the Northern and Western regions but left the zenith of Igbo leadership at the Federal level and the Eastern region intact.

“In line with the Igbo plan, General Aguiyi-Ironsi took advantage of the vacuum and, instead of returning power to the remnants of the First Republic government, he appropriated the coup and attempted to consolidate it for his people.

“Army officers of the Northern Region were eventually compelled to execute a counter coup on July 29, 1966 following a coordinated series of brazen provocations from the Igbo who taunting northerners on northern streets by mocking the way leaders of the region were slain by the Igbo. This unfortunately resulted in mob action which resulted in the death of many Igbos.

“And when Lt. Col. Yakubu Gowon, from the North took over as Head of State following the counter coup, the Igbo through Lt. Col. Ojukwu, characteristically refused to recognize Gowon. Ojukwu declared the secession of the Igbo people from Nigeria and the formation of the republic of Biafra on May 30, 1967 resulting in a civil war that led to the tragic deaths of more than 2 million Nigerians”. (Culled from https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/06/northern-youths-write-osinbajo-beg-allow-igbo-go-biafra/)

See, young people are getting things wrong! To the northern Nigeria educated youth, the first Nigerian coup had to be about Igbo officers killing the political leaders of the North, yet it is more than that. This kind of misconception is invented because some writers; such as A. M. Mainasara; choose to underscore facts or tell half truths for their words are biased and reek of ethnic bigotry. Their facts are meant only for the dim witted and those who fail to evaluate events from various angles by getting hold of available historical documents.

A. M. Mainasara's view of history is slanted and should be regarded as nothing more than mere ethnic propaganda. He had set out to refute the claims of Adewale Ademoyega and Ben Gbuile in their written accounts (Why We Struck and The Five Majors respectively) of the first Nigerian coup d'etat and their roles as active conspirators and participants but had unknowingly  proven their facts to be  correct as a result of his slanted diction and approach to issues.

Maybe A. M. Mainasara does not know, but Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu had more of the Hausa traits in him than being an Igbo man. He was born and brought up in the North, even bore the name "Kaduna" in addition to his Igbo names, he regarded himself first as  Nigerian before identifying with any tribe, religion, or region. Here is what Adewale Ademoyega has to say about Nzeogwu in his book:

Living with Nzeogwu gave me a deep insight into his character. He was the son of a civil servant. His parents hailed from Asaba in the Mid West (now Bendel), but he was born in Kaduna, schooled there and grew up there. He spoke HAUSA very fluently and he understood and HAD MANY HAUSA TRAITS.

I knew him to be extremely straightforward, open hearted and open handed. He spoke freely, hiding nothing. He gave generously. He was a good Christian (Roman Catholic), and attended Mass regularly. Unlike most single officers, he did not go around with girl friends. This surprised me, for, although we both agreed that there was no question of getting married before the revolution, I did not subscribe to total abstinence.

Nzeogwu was a good leader of men. The same could not be said of 90% of the officers. He drew the younger officers irresistibly to himself, endeavoring always to awaken in them both political and revolutionary consciousness and above all, patriotism. He spoke amusingly and all the young officers that had passes through his hands in the NMTC cherished him and held him in high esteem. Throughout 1965 Nzeogwu spoke freely and openly to some young officers about his intention to stage a revolution which would bring Nigeria to the path of greatness. All the young officers loved the idea and came closer to him. But the same could not be said of the middle level and senior officers, that is, Majors, Colonels, Brigaders and above. [Assented words are mine] (Adewale Ademoyega 68-69)

Judging by the words of Adewale Ademoyega, it is obvious that Nzeogwu had lofty ideas and was a detribalised Nigerian, unfortunately the same could not be said of A. M. Mainasara!

Nzeogwu was respected by his colleagues in the army including junior and senior officers that even when he died fighting on the side of Biafran forces during the Civil War, he was given and honorable burial benefiting a hero by the Federal Army. Nzeogwu died, not as a Biafran but, as a Nigerian.

We kept up our correspondence until the outbreak of the war on July 6, 1967. Three weeks later, I heard it over the NBC that Nzeogwu had been killed in the Nsukka sector of the war. I was utterly chagrined. Hours later, Biafra denied the report over their own radio. Later on, the Federal side confirmed the report and claimed that he was given "a hero's burial with full military honours". Pictures of him were displayed in the papers. Gowon also paid tribute to him saying "he was a gallant soldier, with principles." Many other Nigerians paid glowing tributes to his memory and everybody believed that he died a Nigerian, though fighting on the Biafran side. Of course, the Federal authority knew that it was they who had confined him inside Biafra, totally against his will. If the Gowon Government had released the whole lot of us detained by Ironsi, surely, Nzeogwu and the remainder of us would have returned to the places of our choice in Nigeria. Not one of us would have been involved in Biafra. (Adewale Ademoyega 201)

Now, I wonder why the Nigeria government then led by northern elite and soldiers would give a heroic burial to a man who A. M. Mainasara describes as a arch rebel and assassin in his book of refutations. The idea that the coup d'etat was only targeted at Northern leaders was mere propaganda in the hands of deceitful politicians to fuel the ethnic crises for their personal aggrandizement or to get hold of power. Yes, more northerners lost their lives in that unfortunate coup than any other group of people, but I also know that the premier of the then Western Region (Chief S. L. Akintola) and Finance minister, Chief Festus Okotie-Eboh also lost their lives in that coup, yet these were not northerners.

The crop of officers in the Nigerian army of those days were brewed from the barley of patriotism, they were uncommon soldiers and their kind is no more to be found in modern Nigeria. It is unfortunate, therefore, that A. M. Mainasara is still buying into the propaganda that led to the pogrom in the North, a counter coup and finally culminated in a Civil War and it is even more worrisome that this is coming many years after the execution of the first coup, when we should have been able to asses situations with a clear mind and an analytical approach to issues.

However we choose to see it, the fact remains that the British government introduced nepotism into the newly independent Nigerian government and they favored the north over other groups. Till date, the system is still not balanced and perhaps it is why we hear of agitations here and there, the latest being the demand for the sovereign state of Biafra.

If the coup was an Igbo coup as A. M. Mainasara seem to presume, how come it was still Igbo officers who frustrated it and arrested the perpetrators? If we are to go by Major Ademoyega's account, the roles played by Lieutenant-Colonel Odimegwu Ojukwu, Alex Madiebo, and General Aguyi Ironsi were instrumental to the unsuccessful completion of the coup.

Again I ask that if Nzeogwu had wanted power for himself and wanted northerners out of the political scene totally, would he have willingly accepted to function under a government headed by Aguyi Ironsi and handed over the reins of the Government of Northern Nigeria to Lieutenant-Colonel Hassan Katsina?

At the Brigade Headquarters, a short ceremony was staged. There was a parade. Nzeogwu took the salute and formerly handed over the reins of the Government of Northern Nigeria to Lieutenant-Colonel Hassan Katsina. It was a public ceremony. The press, the radio and the television were present, together with the world press. Hassan made a brief speech in praise of Nzeogwu. He lauded the selfishness of his fight and principles.

He also promised to stand by those principles and purpose for which Nzeogwu fought. After that, he embraced Nzeogwu and both of them parted as comrades-in-arms. Nzeogwu went from there to the airport and flew to Lagos. (Adewale Ademoyega 137-8)

Is it not then an irony that Lieutenant-Colonel Hassan Katsina (a northerner) emerged one of the major beneficiary of an Igbo coup?

Lastly, even it were Igbo officers (which is not even the case here for Adewale Ademoyega for example is not even an easterner, talk more of being Igbo) who conspired to run northern elite and politicians out of government, does it justify a reprisal attack, a counter coup, and the total annihilation and persecution of the Igbos in the north? While the coup plotters might have destabilised the north, we cannot but affirm that the greater damage had later been carried out by the northern elements. Historical records are always there for proper confirmation.

To A. M. Mainasara, the Hausa-Fulani has an advanced system of government when compared with other sections of the country and this might likely explain why they found favour with the British colonial administration:

Without doubt, the people (Hausa people) benefitted from the enlightened rulership of the Fulani and the reform of the social political institutions of the land. Meanwhile, the Igbos and other peoples in the South were leading a life of ignorance, indulging in all sorts of practices such as witchcraft, juju and cannibalism while the Northern peopled style of living was comparable to other peoples who are advanced to similar level. The conditions against macabre practiced and other acceptable rites performed out of a terror of the unknown or for material gain.

These pagan practices still occur in parts of the South as the story in the Daily Times of Wednesday 17th March, 1981 on the discovery of two near fresh human skulls at Murtala International Airport testified. [bracket mine] (A. M. Mainasara 20)

Wonderful! So A. M. Mainasara is in essence saying that the colonial administration finds it inconvenient handing power over to the "pagan South" due to the preponderance of pagan practices and lack of civilized ethos cum existence! Just wonderful! Yet, we know how civilized the north is, even in this new millennia. It would be foolish to enter into an argument of civility over an issue such as this, I would rather hands off! However, I wonder why Mainasara had no foresight to see that a statement such as the one above validates the idea that the political existence of Nigeria was manipulated by the British to favor the North?

A. M. Mainasara calls the officers who constitute the inner caucus of the coup plotters "An Igbo cast indeed, except for the presence of only one Yoruba officer" (23). Yet, that singular exception makes all the difference and invalidates the idea of the coup being strictly an Igbo coup. The writer also calls Aguyi Ironsi a true Nigerian yet he does not blame the northern officers for staging a coup that had him shamefully executed and betrayed by his trusted allies, the north! Mainasara would later assert that Aguyi Ironsi was spared in the first coup simply because he belongs to the Igbo tribe! Perhaps, he did not read Adewale Ademoyega account of how Aguyi Ironsi narrowly escaped Major Ifeajuna or did he purposely hide that fact in order to peddle false opinions and ethnic propaganda?

A. M. Mainasara goes about using uncouth language on others yet claims to be a part of the civilized northern society. Such language runs through his book of refutations. For men as Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and Sir Ahmadu Bello, he has appellations as "great" and "noble" for them in his book but Nzeogwu and his co-conspirators can be no more than "assasins", "arch rebels", "murderers majors" etc. Who is Mainasara seeking to impress? After reading Mainasara book of refutations and Adewale Ademoyega's account, it becomes totally obvious that A. M. Mainasara is guilty of ethnocentrism and tribalism both in language and thoughts.

While I have much respect for Sir Ahmadu Bello, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa and other notable great men killed in the first Nigerian coup d'etat, I also have great respect for the executors of the first Nigerian coup for their intention to pull Nigeria out of tribalism and nepotism. I believe both groups had noble intentions for this great country, it was only in approach that both groups differs.

However, what has happened has happened. Should we remain stagnant licking or nursing old wounds, there might never be progress. The need to look towards a great future is pertinent and beckons on us all to show responsibility towards such a cause. This is where I still favour Adewale Ademoyega over A. M. Mainasara. Ademoyega provides blueprints in his book that can move the country forward while Mainasara went about issuing threats and identifying rebels in his. His slanted version of history should be seen as nothing more than what it is, mere ethnic propaganda.

To end this essay, I end this essay with one of John Pepper Clark's poem titled "Seasons of Omen" to show the sentiments expressed by many Nigerians immediately after the January 15, 1966 coup was executed:

Seasons of Omens

When calabashes held petrol and men

    turned fagots in the streets

Then came the five hunters

When mansions and limousines made

    bonfires in sunset cites

Then came the five hunters

When clans were discovered that were not in tue book

    and cattle counted for heads of men

Then came the five hunters

When hoodlums took possession of police barracks

    in defiance of bullets

Then came the five hunters

When ministers legislated from bed and

    made high office the prize for failure

Then came the five hunters

When wads of notes were kept in infant skulls

    with full blessing of prelates

Then came the five hunters

When women grew heavy with ballot papers

    delivering the house entire to adulterers

Then came the five hunters

When a grand vizier in season of arson turned

    upon bandits in a far off place

Then came the five hunters

When men lost their teeth before they cut them

    to eat corn

Then came the five hunters

When a cabinet grew so broad the top gave way

    and trapped everyone therein

Then came the five hunters.

Works Cited

Adegboyega, Adewale. Why We Struck. Ibadan: Evans Brothers, 1981. Print.

Clark, J. P. "Season of Omens." Full Tide. Ibadan: Mosuro, 2010. Print.

Mainasara, A. M. The Five Majors - Why They Struck. Zaria: Hudahuda, 1982. Print.

Vanguard. "Northern Youths write Osinbajo, beg him to allow Igbo go with Biafra". https://www.vanguardngr.com/2017/06/northern-youths-write-osinbajo-beg-allow-igbo-go-biafra/. Ret. Sept. 17, 2017.

© Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy 2017

Meet the Reviewer

Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy is a literary critic cum reviewer, poet, and writer. 

Enemali Took me Back to those Days!: A Review of Theophilus Enemali's Homesick in Paradise by Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy

Enemali Took me Back to those Days!: A Review of Theophilus Enemali's Homesick in Paradise

Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy

I am one those still fascinated by simple stories for young adults. Indeed, my romance with literature began with such stories. From Onuora Nzekwu and Micheal Crowder's Eze Goes to School, Christy Ade-Ajayi's Ade our Naughty Little Brother, Kola Onadipe's Sugar Girl, Eddie Iroh's Without a Silver Spoon, Chinua Achebe's Chike and the River, Olajire Olanlokun's Kunle, the Superstar, Ted Ozondu's A Chained Tomb to Cyprian Ekwensi's The Drummer Boy, I was virtually nurtured on these novellas and today, I add a new book, albeit a full length novel, to my archive on young adult literature. That new book is Theophilus Enemali's Homesick in Paradise!

Maybe I love these books because they recall certain experiences in my own life as a young boy and now that I am older, they ignite a nostalgic feeling for the past. They remind me of that time when men where boys or what school life was like for me. Those that said school life is the best could not have been lying, you know?

The novel; Homesick in Paradise; chronicles the experiences of eleven years old Enemona as a student at St. Charles Lwanga Minor Seminary. Enemona had just lost his mother to illness few months after he started school, although the family decided against divulging the tragic occurrence to Enemona till much later when he returned home from school during the holiday. He would spend most of his days at school and holidays missing his mother, writing a letter to heaven, and hoping that even in paradise, his mother would be missing her earthly family.

Albeit the novel is episodic, the various encounters and experiences related in it are fascinating and often humorous. The writer takes us to the world of school boys, show us their pranks and willy ways, and their fascination with the school catholic environment, very much different from the world outside it. In the story, you will meet the roguish Clinton who you cannot help loving or feeling pity for when he was expelled from the school, or Odoma, the bed wetting tyrant, you will also meet the uncouth Johnny alias Symbiotism and ask him what symbiotism means and he would proudly tell you that it means "symbol of greatness" hahaha! The point is that when you read this story, you will always find that one character that either reminds you of yourself as a young student or some other roguish or funny student you knew or know in your class.

And there are moral lessons to be learnt too. Clinton ended up badly, Enemona studied hard and became one of the best behaved students who passed out with flying colors hence there is an emphasis on good conduct and children doing the right things.

Perhaps, an aspect of the story which I find uncomfortable are those instances of students being punished for speaking their mother tongue or being advised to disengage themselves from the cultural existence of their people. It is one of the worst colonial legacy targeted at fossilizing the African culture and language and I despise it. Also, I think the writer needs to master the act of translating from the local language to English without making it seem obvious or provide a glossary for the non-English words used.

In as much as the story looks good as it is, I think little illustrations and the idea of providing for each chapter a title or subheading might work well for the novel, considering its episodic nature. I believe this will help younger readers locate particular aspects of the novel they find intriguing.

The novel has minimal grammatical inconsistencies compared to many others that I have read and for a debut novel, it is not just a commendable effort, but an impressive one. We hope to find greater works linked to the writer the next time we visit the book store. This is one novel every young literature student should read.

© Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy 2017

Meet the Reviewer

Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy is a literary critic, poet, short story writer, copy editor and literary reviewer.

When I am gone by - Agunechemba

oddzaegis.blogspot.com

Let us Talk Classicism Again: a Critical Review of Abdul O. Umar's The Surrogate

Let us Talk Classicism Again: a Critical Review of Abdul O. Umar's The Surrogate

Reviewer: Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy

... I punish children for their parents' sins to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me. (Exodus 20:5--God's Word® Translation)

Oh no, I do not agree with the above quote, let he who has sinned fall short of the glory of the Lord, not an innocent generation. For how long shall the children keep paying for their father's sin? Yet, this is the thrust of Abdul O. Umar's The Surrogate.

Perhaps, this is the most exciting drama piece I am fortunate to have come in contact with in a long while.

The play focuses on man's struggle with the supernatural. It is a quest for truth, but a truth which points towards the path of disaster!

So what is the story?

Well, it is time to cleanse the land again and the surrogate is being prepared to carry out this function as it is the custom of the land from time immemorial.

The princes and princess return home tired and weary from their sojourn in the outside world. They are not happy. They have not made much progress in the outside world and have returned home to pour out their disappointment to their father, the king. They return home carrying heavy loads which the palace servants assists them in carrying inside but that which is heavier than the heavy load they came with is the burden in their heart, which they intend to pour out to their father.

As soon as their parents return to the palace after performing some necessary traditional rites before the final ritual of the cleansing should take place, the children meet with their father to pour out the content of their heart.

The father hears them and calls on the divination priest to come assist in providing panacea to the issues disturbing his children. The Ifa priest divines but chooses not to divulge the truth.

Ayegba, a younger prince who fortunately has learnt the art of divination in his sojourn, confronts the priest and challenges him to spell out the truth as it is.

It turns out that the king had forcefully taken the throne. Although, the throne was his right as the first son of the late king but he had committed an abominable act which should have deprived him of the throne. He had impregnated his lover and when he got to hear of the pregnancy and knew that it was an abomination for the crown prince to take over the throne if he had ever had canal knowledge of a woman and even put her in the family way, he hides his iniquity by secretly having her murdered in a bush.

Little did he know that the young lady he had put in the family way had place a curse on him, a curse which would be his doom and that of his children.

Now, the gods and ancestors want him to make repatriation by making his sin public and seeking forgiveness at the spot where he sacrificed the lady for his ambition.

Would King Acheneje agree to liberate himself and his children from the curse of the lady and the annoyance of the unborn foetus in her womb?

Why don't you read the story to find out?

Now, let us access the strength and weakness of the drama piece.

The drama is structured on the tenets of Classicism as defined by Aristotle. It observes the unity of time, place and action (although this was heavily violated by the epilogue). If we expunge the epilogue--which I think to be a terrible anticlimax and should be expunged--the play has its setting in the palace court all through (unity of place), it does not exceed one revolution of the earth (unity of time), and its major actions surrounds Acheneje (action). All these would have been tidy enough without the epilogue coming in to break them up.

Fatalism is a prominent feature of Classicism and we find this in the play for everything, as we shall later find out, revolves around a curse. Acheneje's offspring (as the case of Oedipus) were doomed to failure because a curse had been placed on them due to the iniquity of their father.

The play is also replete with anagnorisis and peripetia, both important ingredients in the soup of classical comedy. What we could perhaps say is missing is hubris, which we cannot pinpoint in the tragic character.

However, the tragic character (King Acheneje) is of noble blood and household, and he, as many other tragic characters in classical drama, fall from grace to grass. The playwright however failed to exploit the use of pity and finally the purgation of emotion was mismanaged. Acheneje's tragic flaw would be inordinate ambition as that of Shakespeare's eponymous character Macbeth.

In the aspect of language, I must really commend the playwright for giving his best. There were minimal grammatical inconsistencies. The language of the characters of noble standing as that of Acheneje and Ayegba are laced in beautiful poetic rhythm with them all speaking in verse while that of characters of lower standing is proselytized. The playwright also peppers the character words with good African proverbs which I find quite engaging and scintillating.

The management of suspense leading up to the denouement is superb! Reminds me of Oedipus Rex. The information comes in tits bits and leaves the audience hungry for more.

Being a classical drama, the playwright went for a straight story rather than a distorted one which would have implied the fixation of modern techniques in a drama piece.

Now, let us examine the characterization. All characters played vital roles. Although my feminist friends might complain of the portrayal or weakness of the female characters in the play but I do not have a problem with that since the playwright was only trying to be realistic and be in keeping with the Igala culture and traditions. However, the stage directions is poor as it fails to give proper descriptions of characters and their accoutrements.

However, the character of Ayegba is not true to the legendary figure whose name he inherits and he is not consistent. He seeks for the truth, would do anything to unravel the mystery behind his failures, forces his father to confession, urges his brother to make the ultimate sacrifice and relinquish his claim to the throne yet, when the onus falls on him to redeem and liberate his lineage, he absconds and chooses life over death. The legendary Ayegba would have done otherwise.

Maybe I am not comfortable with Princess Ajanigo making proverbs in front of her father and elders although it mars nothing still, just a cultural issue. All characters speech mannerism match their personalities and that too is a good thing.

I find it quite funny that King Acheneje rules over a kingdom whose name is unknown to the audience, perhaps the playwright forgot to add that.

There was no use of local colour, except perhaps the names of characters, yet there is no doubt as to the fact that the play is set in Igala land at a far back time, probably precolonial or early colonial days.

I must however ask where the cast of elders are in the play, they seem to be no elder except the old man and other representatives of the nine clans.

You might ask what my opinion is of the content.

Well, maybe I do not like the idea of having one suffer for the sins of another. The fact that they come from the same stalk not withstanding. The play leaves us to the controversial question posed by Odewale in Ola Rotimi's The God's are not to Blame, if the gods are not to be blamed, then who is to blame?

The gods knew Acheneje was unfit to be king yet they let him burn the flame of his ambition by occupying a throne he should not have occupied for more than thirty years. Granted that the gods have no say in who becomes king since it is usually passed down from king to the first son. But, why did the gods not expose him when he requested a wife, yet they choose for him a woman to marry so that his doom would be perfected in three decades time. What a long period to wait for vengeance! Were the gods and ancestors deliberately toying with human lives as they did with Oedipus? Are they just being malignant? What is the sense of justice in punishing the offspring for the sins of the father?

Even when Acheneje takes his own life, the priest who is the mouth piece of the gods and ancestors issues out an order for Amana to go perform the harakiri in his father's stead, albeit the priest makes this pronouncement without seeking a second opinion from the gods. Maybe if the gods had been consulted for a second time, the curse might have been lifted with the death of king Acheneje.

Why does this same priest say again who the next king should be without consulting the gods before the choice is made?

The idea of banishment and vagrancy of late king Acheneje's family is not in keeping with the Igala culture. I think, the playwright here chooses the Oedipus approach where the blind Oedipus leads his children out of Thebes to become a destitute. The Igala society would maintain the former queen and her offsprings in their community nonetheless.

It is perhaps ridiculous that Ayegba who is so interested in hearing his father's confession because he assumes it is related to his failure in life would later turn back to say that destiny is driven by human will and capacity. Here he shows he is a true son of his father for like his father, destiny clearly did not mark him out to become king but he forced his will on destiny. That epilogue makes a mockery of the fatalism in the play.

For me, the play ended with the death of Acheneje, the epilogue as said before is quite unnecessary.

All in all, Abdul O. Umar's The Surrogate has a lot to teach society. We must not let ambition push us towards a wrong path and know that even if a lie survives for a thousand years, it withers the vary day it is confronted with the truth. Lastly, we all must know and accept that the choices we make today might end up affecting others tomorrow.

I rate the drama piece 3.5 stars. Abdul Umar did a great job, I look forward to reading more of his works.

Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy 2017

Meet the Reviewer

Ubaji Isiaka Abubakar Eazy is a short story writer, poet, literary critic and reviewer.