LIFE AND STRUGGLES OF

COMRADE OLA ONI

Biodun Olamosu and Ranti Olumoroti
2013

Page

Preface and Acknowledgements

This biographical book titled: The Life and the Struggles of Comrade Ola Oni is of immense
importance in discussing the popular struggles of the Nigerian working class and the studentyouths through the prism of Comrade Ola Oni who played a pivotal role in this sphere since the
early 1960s until his demise in 1999. Much has been written and known about the political
history with an emphasis on the elite, while the role of the labour movement and class fighters
like Comrade Ola Oni and others have been marginalized.
A story of a leading comrade like Ola Oni, that even by the ruling class could not contest that he
was a true fighter for the cause of the working class, should go a long way to promote an
understanding of the valuable history of the class as a whole.
Since Comrade Ola Oni gave a nod for the writing and publishing of this book before his death
many people have played an invaluable role in the course making this a reality. Most important
is Kehinde Ola Oni, Comrade Ola Onis wife, who cooperated in no small measure in making
available materials at her disposal for us to carry on the work. This has served a useful purpose
and has been very helpful. Ola Onis children Wale and Dapo Ola Oni have also been helpful,
especially in sorting out materials and cooperating in other ways.
After the first draft, some friends, political associates and students of Ola Oni, despite their tight
schedule, still found time to review this work. We are very grateful to Comrade Femi Aborisade
in going through some chapters of the work and his words of encouragement. We appreciate
the encouragement from Comrades Laoye Sanda, Awosode, Toba Olorunfemi, Kemi Afolayan
and Professor Akin Ojo. We will also like to express our profound appreciation to the following
friends - Bayo Owolabi, Niyi Fasanmi, and Drew Povey for their invaluable advise, correction
and criticism of some parts of the work which has had a serious impact . But for them it is
doubtful that this work would have been so well scrutinized. Nevertheless, we accept all
responsibilities for any shortcomings and errors that may still remain in this work.
Also important was the case of Professor Omafume Onoge who from the beginning of the
project volunteered to help in its editorial work but did not live to witness the completion of the
first draft in 2009. So we are very much grateful for his words of encouragement and support.
We also learnt of the interest of Chief Gani Fawehinmi in this work before his death and in
appreciating the wonderful role Ola Oni played in the world of class struggle in our climes, may
his soul rest in peace. We cannot but mention Mrs Yetunde Olamosu, Mrs Olumoroti, Pastor
Joshua Olamosu (late) for their invaluable role in making this a success. Taofeek Bamidele
Onolapo and Olumide are very much appreciated for their roles. At different times the work
was typed by competent secretaries such as Dolfin Olofin, Sade and Ade; kindly accept our
appreciation. The writers have also learnt a lot from the writings of Professor G.G. Darah and
Ebezer Babatope on this subject matter.

Page

Introduction
In the course of writing this biography, the authors had discussions with a leading comrade who
expressed his disappointment for not having a reference book that one could rely on to guide
activists in the course of practical class struggle. He lamented that all you get to read are books
on such areas as political economy, politics, history, economic history, philosophy, sociology etc
that are more theoretical than espousing practical issues on existing struggles. Immediately he
said this, it struck me that such a gap could only be filled by biographical books. It is in a
biography of a revolutionary like Ola Oni that one can be able to read about the challenges that
confronted the subject matter and how he was able to face such challenges.
This work on Comrade Ola Oni is just a humble contribution of the authors as this could not
capture the whole essence of the man as there is a lot more to be known on the man. More
would have been known on the man if he lived longer and been able to write his memoirs as he
had intended to do.
Biography belongs to a generic of general studies that do not stand on their own, but are much
related to other subjects such as history, art, literature, sociology, philosophy, pedagogy and
other areas of knowledge like politics, economics, science, depending on the background of the
man or woman being considered. Though, biographies are often associated with the west they
are now also becoming embraced in our own climes.
We need to emphasize here that unlike other biographies in the market place that are meant to
glorify their subjects without questioning, here we out to provide and discuss the facts as much
as possible. So it is not for the purpose of eulogizing Ola Oni who indisputably had made
enviable contributions to knowledge and popular struggles in the country; but to empower future
generations with knowledge to enable them to better face future challenges. As many accounts
have been given in tribute to Ola Oni as a man of courage, this book also seeks to look at this
aspect of his life as a man coming from a background of a rich family that decided to surrender
his life totally to struggle and share all that he had with the poor.
Not a few people have been critical of his role in the self-determination rights group that was
perceived as antithetical to his earlier pioneering role in Marxist scholarship and the socialist
cause that spanned over four decades. This book makes known that he never abandoned his
socialist callings despite promoting self-determination politics; but how these seemingly
contradictory tendencies could be blended is yet to be confirmed in reality. The issue therefore
is that if it will require revolution or war to be able to achieve the tall ambition of the selfdetermination rights movement, why is this energy not channelled towards pursuing the socialist
revolution that could cover the entire country, and the wider region and continent, in order to
terminate poverty and its root cause. Ola Oni was morally positioned to lead such cause as he
commands the respects of the poor across the country.
The book is divided into fourteen chapters:
Chapter One In the Beginning:
This covers his family background, education at the primary and post primary stages in
Oshogbo and Lagos respectively. The story of Ekiti where he hailed from and the political
situation in his days in Lagos as a student of Kings College are also discussed.
Chapter Two Life in London:

Page

This covers his life at both Exeter University and London School of Economics where he studied
in the 1950s before he came back to the country in 1963. His political activities in Britain, the
centre of the anti-colonial struggle outside the continent of Africa are also discussed.
Chapter Three - Ibadan:
As Ola Oni settled at Ibadan for the rest of his life as a lecturer in the University of Ibadan, the
chapter covers the political situation of Ibadan that was the capital of the Western Region in the
1960s and the role of Ola Oni in the peasant revolt of the late 1960s by the Agbekoya farmers.
Chapter Four Lecturer as an Activist:
This gives an account of his pioneering role as a Marxist lecturer and a reliable political activist
in Ibadan.
Chapter Five Work among Students:
This is on his relationship with the students movement both at Ibadan and across the country.
Chapter Six Democratic Platforms:
This covers the various organizations established and initiated by Ola Onis group to espouse
the political and economic space for the poor.
Chapter Seven Oni as Trade Unionist:
This is about his work among workers: the union he belonged to where he occupied a leading
position and other unions where he worked on a part time basis and others he related with for
advancing the wider struggles.
Chapter Eight Philosopher and Revolutionary:
In this chapter the role of Ola Oni as a philosopher in politics is compared with that of the
hitherto philosophers and revolutionaries in partisan politics.
Chapter Nine Onis involvement in partisan Politics:
This is about his involvement in partisan politics during the first, second, third and fourth
republics.
Chapter Ten Ola Oni as family Man:
This chapter discusses the man Ola Oni, the humanist in both his public and private life.
Chapter Eleven Revolutionary Press:
As press was very vital to his revolutionary work, this covers how he made use of the press in
different forms to propagate the idea of socialism and canvass democratic demands.
Chapter Twelve His Socialist Vision:
This chapter covers the economic programme of his socialist vision.
Chapter Thirteen The National Question:

Page

This is on the perspective of Ola Oni on the national question, but the chapter also looks at how
in practice he complied or deviated from this.
Chapter Fourteen Epilogue
This chapter compiles tributes by political activists, the press, associates, former
students, government officials, opinion leaders, student leaders, trade unionists, community
leaders and university dons across the country.
The co-authors of this book, Biodun Olamosu and Ranti Olumoroti, students and political
associates of Comrade Ola Oni, were at Rantis office at Abadina Library University of Ibadan
one day and while discussing the situation of the country in general, they fortuitously came to
the idea of how Comrade Ola Oni had provided more help to face the challenges of the crisis
than anybody else of his time. This was how they reached the decision to document his
experience in political social engineering in recent history.
Immediately a consensus was reached on this idea, Ranti suggested that we should go
to Comrade Ola Oni and immediately inform him of this position and that work should
commence on this straight away. This was how the preliminary work started in 1998 even
though there were delays because of our personal routine work.
When Comrade Ola Oni was informed of this plan, he had nothing against it as he gave
it his nod, but he wanted it to wait a bit till the current struggle for self-determination of ethnic
nationalities could have been finally resolved. This position of asking us to put on hold the
writing of the book was because he did not want to be distracted from his focus on the struggle
at hand. At the time, unlike other participants in the struggle, he did not believe the struggle had
been concluded despite the politicking that was going on in preparation for partisan politics.
Before this duo (Biodun and Ranti) intimated Comrade Ola Oni about this project,
another associate of his, Rauf Aregbesele, a commissioner of works in the Lagos State
government, approached him with the intension of sponsoring a birthday programme for him.
This was to be in recognition of his unique contributions. This he turned down on the basis that
he did not believe in such things as birthdays, but ultimately he agreed to put down in writing his
reminiscences which the comrade planned to finance. He accepted this task on one condition,
that he would not start the work until the struggle for self-determination of nationalities was
concluded.

Page

CHAPTER ONE: IN THE BEGINNING:

Family Background
Ola Oni was born on June 6 1933 in Otun-Ekiti in the South West, Nigeria. Oni. Ola Onis father
Owolabi Oni was a polygamist, with seven wives and many children. Owolabi Oni, popularly
referred to as Oniororo which literally translated to mean that today is not tasteless; that is, the
situation today is not bad. One of his children, Niyi adopted this appellation and was called Niyi
Oniororo for the rest of his life. Comrade Ola Oni on his own part was originally named
Oladipupo by his father. This literally means that my riches have multiplied. This later in life was
shortened and simplified to Ola Oni for ease of pronunciation and political exigencies.
Ola Onis mother Mrs Ajibola Oni, was very supportive of his husband as the first wife of the
family. Chief Owolabi Oni was the head of the family and a prosperous man in the town. His
success cannot be dissociated from the cooperation and the support he received from his
wives. Ola Onis mother, Ajibola Oni had four children including Ariwola, Tunde and Atanda.
They were to become a petty trader, journalist and an army officer respectively. Ola Oni was the
first born of the entire family. Ola Onis half brothers and sisters include Akin, Oladokun (a
custodian of their fathers chieftaincy title), Tunde and Niyi (journalist, author and publisher). Ola
Oni was very cordial with the rest of his siblings. He often did everything within his power to help
them whenever they were in need.
Owolabi Oni was a strong man in his family. He believed in discipline and would not tolerate any
nonsense either from his children or wives. Their own polygamous family, of course, was a
world of difference. Everyone was brought up to relate, collaborate and work together as true
siblings brothers and sisters. The cordial relationship that existed among them continued even
after their father was committed to earth in 1963
The chieftaincy title conferred on Chief Owolabi was known as Obashikin of Otun. As Obashikin
of the town, he was involved along with the other traditional high chiefs in the daily
administration of the town. Specifically he was expected to perform certain traditional rites in the
course of the coronation of any newly installed Oba (king) of the town. Owolabi Oni, the
Obashikin of Otun-Ekiti was a famous first class Chief and a well respected leader among other
Chiefs and people of the town. He bequeathed a large expansive family house to his children,
wives and extended family. Chief Owolabi Oniororo, as he was popularly called in his days was
also a successful businessman and accomplished farmer. As a trader, he sold hoes, cutlasses
and building materials. He also sold cows, not only in Otun but also to people from neighbouring
towns. He had personal houses in Akure, Ilesha and Oshogbo which were products of his hard
labour.
Owolabi Oni was a very close friend of one Fagboyesa, a native of Ile-Ife who settled in
Oshogbo for the rest of his life. They started their friendship very early in life. Fagboyesa who
was also conferred with a chieftaincy title like his friend was a well established trader in the
central district of Oshogbo where he sold building materials, cement and nails. The two friends
both had their houses at Station road in Oshogbo. Fagboyesa was the one in charge of the
management of his friends house in Oshogbo when his friend left the town to his home town.
Their friendship was so cordial to the extent that Ola Oni lived with Fagboyesas family from a
very tender age during which time he attended Quranic and primary schools at All Saint primary
School in 1939; until he proceeded to Lagos for his secondary education in 1947. Fagboyesa
died in the 1980s. He was survived by his only wife and children including Aremu Fagboyesa
who was very close to the Ola Onis family at Ibadan.
Page

Niyi Oniororo adopted his elder brothers radical politics and philosophical world outlook.
Comrade Oni encouraged him and later helped him to obtain a scholarship to study journalism
in North Korea. Niyi Oniororo pursued his career in journalism and gained the limelight in this
field internationally. He was specifically known for his radical disposition as one of the people
that fought against military and civilian dictatorships in the 1970s.

Background of Ekiti
The Ekiti Progressive Union (EPU) was formed in 1933, the same year that Oladipo Oni was
born. The organisation was at the initiative of the Reveren J. Ade Ajayi, an educationist and a
native of Ado-Ekiti. The mission of the organisation was to boost post-primary education and put
pressure on the government and mission authorities to achieve the goal and other
improvements for the area. The pioneers of this organisation included S. K Familoni, Fakiye
(Ifaki), J. B. Daramola (Aiyede), E. A. Babalola (Oye), R. O. Adedayo (Usi), E. O. Adebayo (Usi),
Omotade (Ijero), D. Olagbaye (Igbara-Oke), Okeya (Emure), Adesina (Efon), Durotoye and J. A.
Aiyegbusi.
As this social organisation emerged and developed, other, more political organisation sprang up
to take advantage of the new constitutional development. Such organisations include the Lagos
Youth Movement, later renamed the Nigerian Youth Movement (NYM) in 1934. Divisions within
the NYM caused the formation of a new party the National Council of Nigeria and Cameroon
(NCNC) in 1944 led by Herbert Macaulay and later Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe. The remnants of the
NYM were reorganised to form the Action Group in 1951; a political arm of the cultural
organisation of the descendants of Oduduwa called Egbe Omo Oduduwa with the purpose of
gaining political power.
The people of Ekiti were committed to Action Group. If there was one place in the West of
Nigeria where the party became stronger despite the political crisis that erupted within it, it was
in Ekiti. This commitment can be traced to the political programme of the party, especially free
and compulsory education at primary school level, adult education for people above school age
and scholarships for students at post-primary and tertiary levels. Ekiti people believed that such
a laudable programme of Action Group was unique among other political parties of the time.
Though, the NCNC was a conglomeration of activists, labour and progressive Nigerians with
beautiful ideas, the Action Group was seen as a more pragmatic party better capable of
achieving developmental goals than the NCNC and others. E. A Babalola who was very active in
the Ekiti Progressive Union was also a pioneer member of the Action Group. He used his
position as a member of two important committees of the party charged with the responsibilities
to formulate party policies on education, health and welfare to reflect the developmental
programme of the Ekiti Progressive Union.
Earlier on, the people of Ekiti came to the realisation that the development of the area lagged
behind that of other parts of Yoruba-land and that such development could best be achieved
through aggressive education of their youths. The first primary school was built by the people
themselves and was established in 1901 at Ado-Ekiti, but educational rebirth and boom started
in earnest the following year. The people were implored to work hard and to train their children
for the betterment of the communities. The EPU itself later started putting this idea into practice
by awarding scholarships to students of Ekiti origin.
Ekiti people were noted for a long period of time as farmers, craftsmen, traders, weavers and
Page

driers; and later as artisans. The pace of these occupations later changed in form and
character. For instance, while from the beginning, Ekiti farmers engaged in food crops farming,
things changed with the advent of imperialist penetration of what today is known as Nigeria. The
foreign adventurers adopted techniques to gain access to natural and human resources of the
colonised countries. While their mode of exploitation might have been drastically different from
what it was during the slave era, they have learnt in the course of time to adopt a more
diplomatic and softer approach. In Ekiti, in particular, the churches were the first set of
organisations to introduce taxes for the indigenous people of Ekiti, under the guise of
contributions to the church for the education of their children.
The fact is: there was a need to be incorporated into the economic web of the capitalist
imperialist system. Money was introduced (in its present form) as a means of exchanging
values. The colonialists introduced cash crops like cocoa, rubber, cotton etc. to farmers. Ekitis
farmers were given cocoa seed in the early 20th century. This resulted in significant commitment
to cocoa farming because it enabled the farmers to earn money when they sold their produce.
The farmers were happy to earn money that would let them afford imported goods .e.g. roofing
sheet and other building materials for shelter purposes, bicycle (which were the highest form of
transportation at the time) and imported clothes. .
The market prices of cocoa was far below its real value as the monopoly buyers fixed price and
were, at the same time, able to fix the price of the imported manufactured goods. As a result,
the prices of imported goods were astronomically high while the prices of cocoa and other raw
materials were criminally below world market prices.
This exploitation was formalised by the government through the Nigerian Cocoa Marketing
Board. This continued until recently as the marketing board was only disbanded in the late
1980s. The farmers are short changed by being displaced from the production of food crops in
an attempt to acquire money to finance their personal needs which the socio-economic system
has made available. As a result, food crops were neglected. This phenomenon explains why the
African continent now depends largely on foreigners to meet mush of its food requirements
despite the fact that most Nigerians are still being engaged in farming.
Furthermore, report has it that foreign merchants that came to Ekiti met on the ground clothe
weaving industry, producing thick clothes capable of protecting the people from very harsh
climatic condition. But they went back to their country to develop on this. All the people involved
in the productive activities of locally weaved clothes including traders were eventually disposed
and thrown out of business.
Years before the colonialists came into the scene, Ekiti was entangled in wars of independence
with their neighbours (in the west, north and the east) such as Ibadan, Oyo, Ilorin and Benin.
Those neighbours were involved in raiding Ekiti lands for slavery. The war with Ibadan in
particular was as severe as the aftermath of the backlash against the Ibadan war lords. The war
was in retaliation to the way the people of Ekiti were maltreated by the Generalissimo of Alafin
of Oyo, his commanders and lieutenants that raided Ekiti and maltreated them with disdain. The
Ekiti youths rose up to the challenge. They began to mobilise themselves to resist the
overwhelming assault on the integrity of Ekiti people including that of their leadership that were
being maltreated with ignominy. The military mobilisation necessitated consultation with
important war lords like Ogedengbe of Ijesha-land and Fabunmi of Imesi-Ekiti and others. It was
with their supports that the war began. The war lasted for about sixteen years without a winner
until the colonialists intervened to stop and made peace with the warring parties and thus put an
end to the war. This was the environment Ola Oni came from, a background of commitment to

Page

struggle.

Lagos Days
Ola Oni left Oshogbo and proceeded to Lagos in 1947 for his secondary school education at the
prestigious Kings College, Lagos. Admission to this school then was like initiation to the elitist
club. It is rare to get such admission without the required elitist family background. Ola Oni was
lucky to have secured scholarship that covered his entire finances throughout his stay at the
college. So, he was never financially bothered throughout his student days.
Ola Oni finished his studies at the school in 1951. The school was always a reference point to
Ola Oni as his political life started from there. It was the first government established secondary
school in Nigeria. Kings College was established in 1909, over a century ago. The main
objective of the founder of this institution at inception was to provide for the youths a higher
general education than that supplied by the existing schools by missionaries, to prepare
students for matriculation examination of the University of London and to give a useful course of
study to those who were interested to qualify for professional life or to enter government or
mercantile service. It is gratifying to note that the institution has been able to match up to its
biding. The exemplary success of students in their final examination distinguished them from
other schools.
Beyond the educational programme, the school was also well noted as a place to breed
character and instil discipline among students. In achieving this, the school authorities made
citizenship and civic studies compulsory for all students. This aim was to inculcate moral values
such as honesty and selfless services among the students. Politics was also encouraged in the
school not only in theory but also in practice. Students had their own political structures and
leaders were elected into what was known as Students Council by the students themselves.
Extra-curriculum activities such as sports (football, athletics, cricket, hockey, tennis etc.) press
and other voluntary organisations were available in Kings College.
He was among the expelled students of the 1948 strike led by Gogo Chu Nzeribe. Ola Onis
involvement in this strike was for obeying the march-out order of Nzeribe who wanted total
compliance with his directive (as against the case with the junior students including Oni who
were receiving tutorials while other classes in the school were already obeying the students
union strike directive). Ola Onis punishment was later commuted to suspension on reviewing
his case by the school authorities. But Gogo Chu Nzeribe, who was at the head of the strike
eventually left the school without completing his secondary school education at Kings College.
However, he made a remarkable success in his chosen career of trade unionism and
revolutionary politics where he became a leading figure later in life. Ola Oni recalled this
historical event with nostalgia when he stated: Gogo Chu Nzeribe was a leading member of the
Student Council at Kings College. He (Nzeribe) was in his final year in 1948 when the students
embarked on the strike. As a militant student activist, Nzeribe had earlier passed words a day
before that there would be no class the following day in the school until the school authorities
met their grievances. This includes the amelioration of the deplorable state of social amenities
and poor feeding among others. As Nzeribe was walking round the school compound on that
fateful day to assess how effective the boycott of classes was. He was surprised to meet
students in Ola Onis class receiving tutorial from a non-cooperative teacher. Nzeribe got
provoked by this action as he saw it as an attempt to frustrate the strike. He had expected the
students to have disobeyed the anti-student teacher by walking out on him. On the other hand,
Page

he observed also that the teachers action was deliberate and that he was just taking chance
over the less informed gullible new students. Gogo Nzeribe decided to enter the class, gave the
teacher a slap and commanded the students to move out immediately.
The action was a catalyst to the series of problems that later followed. The principal of the
school who was known to be a strong disciplinarian could not tolerate that kind of nonsense
from any teacher, talk less of a student. He vowed to fight back against the students leadership
and he made good his threat by making sure the Gogo Nzeribe and other student-leaders never
came back to the school to compete their studies. Not only this, in the later years when Nzeribe
won election on the platform of NCNC to Lagos City Council along with other four labour
nationalists in 1950, the principal of the school re-surfaced again to play the spoilers role. For
on hearing of Nzeribes success in the election, he (J. R. Bunting) collaborated with the colonial
government of the day through a well worded petition he directed to the governor to nullify
Nzeribes electoral victory on the pretext that he had not reached the expected maturity age to
contest election at the time. This was how Nzeribe was robbed of his first electoral victory that
he won for labour in the turbulent political landscape of Lagos.
Ola Oni, later in the school, followed the footstep of Gogo Chu Nzeribe and became a
recognised student leader before he left the school. He along with others initiated a very
popular student magazine known as Kings College Exponent which served as the voice of
student grievances. He was also a sportsman who devoted good time for playing football and
tennis ball.
The legacy of Kings College in Nigerian politics is legendary. Many of the nationalists that fought
the struggle against colonialist were products of Kings College. Among them were Ernest Ikoli,
J. C. Vanguah and Samuel Akinsanya, who were the foundation members of Nigeria Youth
Movement in 1934. Many of those that can best be described as the shakers of Nigerian history
in many divergent human endeavours came from the school. Furthermore, there is no way the
history of the country can be discussed without recourse to the contribution of the school. A
good instance in this case was the issue of emergence of National Council of Nigeria and
Cameroon (NCNC) which was the first truly national electoral political party that covered the
entire country. The party was formed at the instance of Kings College students as an aftermath
of Kings College strike of 1944.
The students strike of 1944 erupted as a result of the grievances of the students who were
agitating against poor food and unhealthy accommodation caused by mismanagement and war
conditions (World War II). When it appeared to the students that their complaints were falling on
deaf ears, they decided to embark on hunger strike and boycott of classes. Instead of the school
authorities making peace to resolve the conflict amicably, it resorted to dictatorial posturing. The
government decided to order the ring leaders of the strike to be conscripted into the army and
others to be prosecuted for conducts that were likely to cause breach of the peace. This
situation exacerbated and compounded the crisis. For the first time in contemporary events
recorded Wogu Ananaba, leaders of the various political parties forget their differences and
found a common ground for the united action. The Nigerian Bar (lawyers) came all out in
defence of the boys by sending its leading members to defend those standing trial. The results
of the Kings College strike made a group of former students to organise a conference of all
organisations, to found a body which would unite the people and give leadership to the country.
The conference was held at the Glover memorial hall on August 26, 1944, and resolved to form
the National Council of Nigeria and Cameroon (NCNC).
Ola Oni concluded his education at the Kings College in 1951 and passed the University of

Page 10

London Matriculation Examination in the following subjects: Mathematics, Latin, English,

European History and Geography and British Constitution. Ola Oni proceeded to Eko Boys High
School where he worked as a school teacher from 1953 till 1955 before he left for Britain for
further studies. Ola Oni taught Latin throughout his stay at Eko Boys High School. He was well
known to be a serious teacher who believed so much in discipline. This earned him respect
among students and his colleagues at the school.

Page 11

CHAPTER TWO: LIFE IN LONDON

Ola Oni attended University of Exeter at the centre of London in 1955 1957 where he sat for
examinations that earned him part I BA Social Economic Studies and part I BSc Economics. For
this qualification, he was examined in courses such as Economics, Applied Economics,
Sociology, Economics Geography, Political History, Government, History of Political Ideas, Logic
and Scientific Methods.
After this qualification at the University of Exeter, he proceeded to London School of Economics
(LSE) to complete his BSc degree programme in Economics. He completed his studies there in
1959 when he obtained a BSc Economics with Second Class Honours. His area of studies
(courses) at LSE included: Monetary Theory, international Economics, Comparative Banking
Institutions, Monetary and Banking History, Business Finance.
He later specialised in Banking and Finance in his post-graduate programme in MSc Economics
at the same University, LSE in 1962. This area of studies covered courses such as: International
Monetary History in the 20th Century, Central Banking Theory, Banking Theory, Banking in
Advanced Economics of UK, US, France, USSR; Central Banking in Developing Countries. His
final special paper (thesis) that qualified him for the MSc degree in Economics of London School
of Economics was titled: History and Problems of Money and Banking in Nigeria, Ghana,
Rhodesia, South Africa and other African countries under the supervision of Professor ...
London School of Economics and Political Science where Ola Oni studied had a history of
radicalism and this must have impacted the culture of radicalism on students that passed
through the school. All known students of African descent that passed through this school were
political, ideological and were often in the fore front of African nationalism. They included people
like: Sam Ikoku, H. O. Davies, Alao Aka Bashorun, Jomo Kenyatta (Kenya) etc.
Sidney Webb who initiated the idea of founding the school wanted an academic establishment
that will concentrate efforts on research, on economics and political matters. Webb at the time
of conceptualising this historical idea was the Chairman of the five-man trustees instituted to
manage the funds provided in the will of Henry Hunt Hutchinson, a provincial member of the
Fabian Society (socialist) who left a significant sum of money in trust for propaganda and other
purposes for the said Fabian Society towards advancing its objectives in any way they (the
trustees) deem advisable. Sidney Webbs influence on the direction and what type of school
they intended to build was largely determined by his political orientation.
He worked assiduously for the success of the school (project) after his proposal to establish it
was accepted by other trustees in 1895. He was the driving force in the establishment and
running of the school at inception. He worked at different levels of the school project. This
includes such areas as providing funding through his connection with the London Country
Council (LCC); Chairman of the school trustees and Governors of the Administrative Committee
and the Library Committee. He was also the Treasurer and the Acting Librarian. He was to
decide who was to be Director of the school. He participated as lecturer and later as professor
of public administration in the school. Webbs political orientation largely influenced the policy
direction and essence of the institution. Hardly can we see any student of the school that is not
political. The dominating political idea of the time was Fabianism. Later, however, Marxism
became more embraced as a theory of changing the society.
Fabianism which was with time seen more as an offshoot of utopian socialists yielded ground to
a more advanced theory scientific socialism. Marxists later dominated the entire faculties and
Page 12

departments of the university. Socialist tendency was exemplified by Harold Laski, a famous
Member of the Parliament on the platform of Labour Party and professor of Political Science at
London School of Economics.
Ola Oni, compared to his contemporaries, was lucky enough to get a stable typist work at British
Ministry of Commerce, London. This work can best be described as a luxury when compared to
the situation with other Black Students who were engaged in menial and dirty jobs. He started
the work in 1960 which served as the major source of financing his post-graduate - MSc
programme at LSE. The typist work paid off for him later in life. Ola Onis closeness to British
officials at the time afforded him the opportunity to relate with many British bureaucrats. His
work as a typist goes beyond typing of documents. It involves exposure to bureaucratic practice
and totality of every official tradition that inculcate culture of protocol and procedures. It was a
sort of training which he could never have experienced in class room; an experience that he
found useful and indispensable for his organisational and revolutionary works later in life.
Ola Oni was a good sportsman during his youthful days in London. He was actively involved in
long tennis and football. He started this practice early in life as a student of Kings College,
Lagos; the school was known for encouraging sport activities among its students. Ola Oni was
not just a football player; he was the captain of University of Exeter team. His sport career was
displaced only by his commitment to political activities which dominated the latter part of his life.
Ola Oni was an active member of Afro-Asia (anti-colonial) group and Nigerian Socialist
Movement during his student days in London. Baba Omojola, his close political ally in the
struggle for decades attested to this. Most of his spare times were devoted to attending
meetings of those organisations. This is not strange. Britain has a long history and tradition of
accommodating immigrants who had different shade of political beliefs. It could be recalled that
Karl Marx who was seen by the government of his home country Germany, as politically
dangerous because of his revolutionary ideas and activism, spent the rest of his exile years in
Britain, where he later died in 1883. Between 1955 and 63 when Ola Oni was in London, about
17,000 other Africans were there as students. 10 per cent of them were Nigerians. It was a
period the anti-colonial nationalist struggle was at its peak in various African countries. It is
worthy of note that not a few of the anti-colonial struggle took place in outside Africa. For
instance, various organisations were operating in London, the headquarters of the colonialist
policy makers.
Ola Oni was not new to the idea of socialism on coming to London. Before this time, he was
already involved in the activities of the socialist and labour movement while being a student of a
politically inclined high school, Kings College, Lagos. So, on getting to London, he found the
place more conducive for political activities and he saw this as the continuation of his earlier
political and revolutionary pursuit at home in Nigeria. He readily joined two socialist inclined
organisations Afro-Asia and Nigeria Socialist Movement. One was a front organisation while
the other one was an organisation of core revolutionaries. Let us refresh our memories about
these organisations; otherwise we cannot appreciate the complexities of events and movements
that produced Ola Oni.
There were different progressive and nationalist organisations available in Britain for budding
youths to join. These include: the Communist Party of Great Britain, the Pan-African Movement,
and Afro-Asia Movement; many that joined such organisations did so for reasons other than
genuine and selfless ideological motive. Above all, many of these students saw their
membership of such groups as an opportunity to protect their individual rights especially in an
environment where racial discrimination was rampant. A famous Jamaican African nationalist

Page 13

and socialist internationalist George Padmore once commented on why the Soviet Union effort
to indoctrinate African students that joined Communist Party had not been entirely successful.
He said that the West African Students shed their Marxist garments on returning home and
revert to what they have always been at heart bourgeois nationalist and the British Communist
party will be sadly disappointed if it was relying upon those opportunistic intellectuals to lead the
proletarian revolution in Africa.
A good example of this category of students that Padmore was referring to was Adisa Akinloye
who was a student member of Communist Party of Great Britain while in Britain but did
eventually became the leader of the most conservative party in Nigeria, National Party of
Nigeria (NPN). This was not the case with Ola Oni, he belongs to the class of foreign students
that retained their socialist conviction but of course, the colonial administrations made things
very difficult for the breeding of communists in most of the colonial African countries. Communist
materials were banned and adherents of such ideas were legally restricted from meeting.
Any one that flouts these laws was to be sanctioned by being sent to gaol without option of fine.
The situation at the time was very hostile. There was an estimate of about 500 communists
(none affiliated to USSR) in Nigeria as at 1961. Due to this stringent condition that Nigeria
socialists were being subjected to, the communist countries of the world, especially USSR and
China, introduced a new tactics of influencing mass movement outside core socialist
revolutionary organisations. The Afro-Asian movement in Britain was one of them.
The tactical approach of the communist world in this regard was to influence student movement
in Britain through Afro-Asian Movement and to penetrate the working class in Nigeria through
their trade unions. Some of the unions that were led by Michael Imoudu, Nduka Eze, Wahab
Goodluck, Bassey, Gogo Chu Nzeribe, Abiodun Coker at different times affiliated to socialist
influenced World Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU). This international workers organisation
did fund the unions that affiliated to it for the purpose of intervening in the nationalist struggle of
their various countries.
The Afro-Asia Movement was highly very effective as a springboard for recruiting political
activists for socialist and nationalist causes among students that will be going back to their
various countries in Africa after the end of their studies in Britain. It must be remembered that
Afro-Asian movement was not limited to students and youths only. As a matter of fact, it
emanated as an organisation of the new emerging independent African countries and that of the
Asian countries at the United Nation Organisation for the purpose of supporting themselves on
vital issues of mutual political interests. This effort was found very effective with the support of
the socialist countries as well.
There was also Non-Aligned movement of African descent called Pan-African Movement. This
movement was very popular among the student-youths as well as among the nationalists in
many African countries. The history of this organisation can be traced to W. E. B Dubois and
Marcus Garvey in West Indies and USA respectively. Thereafter the centre stage of the
organisation shifted to Britain where Dubois, George Padmore, C. L. R. James and many other
proponents of this idea resided. These crops of West Indies and other Pan-Africanist (now
known as African-American) activists met in Britain. Their student group West African Student
Union (WASU) led by Ladipo Solanke that was inaugurated as far back as 1920 for the purpose
of defending members right and fostering the spirit of national consciousness and racial pride
among its members. Pan-African Movement contributed a great deal to the de-colonisation
process in Africa. The organisation formed a strong campaign institution against colonial policies
and questioned the legitimacy of colonial rule in Africa. The organisation also served as a

Page 14

training ground for most of the nationalists that later became the political leaders of many of the
African countries. Kwame Nkrumah was one of the products of this organisation. Nkrumah, who
studied in USA, was actively involved in Black Nationalist consciousness before he later shifted
his base to Britain where the headquarters of Pan-Africanism had shifted to. Nkrumah stayed in
Britain for a short period of time before returning back to Ghana where he did put into practice
the idea of Pan-Africanism. Nkrumah did more than anybody else before him and after him to
raise Pan-Africanism to practical reality as an internationalist ideology that its time had come.
The climax of the practical demonstration of the idea was the formal and informal congresses of
the organisation held in Ghana in 1958.
The independence of Ghana in 1957 under the leadership of Kwame Nkrumah was responsible
for the achievement of Pan-Africanism at the period. The essential element of the movement
can be summarised as enshrined in the resolution of the 1958 Congress. The resolution stated
that The ultimate goal of Pan-Africanism is the establishment of what is variously termed a
Pan-African Commonwealth or a United States of Africa. As interim targets, the December 1958
Conference called for the amalgamation of independence to African states into regional
federation of grouping on the basis of geographical contiguity, economic interdependence,
linguistic and cultural affinity, with the caveat however that the establishment of such regional
federation should not be prejudicial to the ultimate objective of a Pan-African Commonwealth.
The basis for the orientation of an organisation was laid by Nkrumah in his address at the
meeting when he stated: We are not racialist or chauvinists. We welcome into our midst
peoples of all races, other nations, other communities, who desire to live among us in peace
and equality. But they must respect us and our rights, our rights as the majority to rule. That as
our Western friends have taught us to understand it is the essence of democracy. An American
observer at the conference elaborated on this when he stated: it gave birth to a new concept of
residential Pan-Africanism that is to say, contrary to racialism, the idea was that all persons
born or coloured are Africans provided they believe in absolute economic and social equality
and the principle of one-man-one-vote. The Congress rejected violence as a systematic and
deliberate revolutionary weapon but rather favour non-violent positive action strikes, boycotts,
and civil disobedience. This particular resolution of non-violence was subjected to thorough
debate and questioned especially by delegates from Egypt and Algeria. The outcome of this
debate formed the resolution on imperialism and colonialism which stated: that the organisation
promised full support to all fighters for freedom in Africa, to all those who are compelled to
retaliate against violence Subsequent Congress did not talk of non-violence again.
The Congress also condemned the aspect of traditionalist outlook that meant to draw African
backward; while the resolution stressed the values of their traditional culture and glorify the
golden ages of the past; it condemned the aspect that favoured tribalism and chieftaincy. The
movement was nevertheless capitalist in its economic programme. The programme focuses on
assistance of private enterprise and capital but believes that a high degree of government
enterprise and ownership is essential to regenerate African society.
The neutralist posturing of the movement that made it to refrain from taking sides in the cold war
was responsible for its policy of seeking a kind of Monroe doctrine for Africa to enable Africans
to settle the problems of their own continent, a reaction that was intensified by foreign
intervention in Congo crisis. Despite this assurance of neutrality, USA did not trust Nkrumah
and his other leading Comrades of Pan-Africanism. This is characteristic of America policy. You
are either regarded as an ally or enemy. As at 1960, when Nigeria attained her independence,
out of 26 of such independent African states that were accorded independence, only few of
them shared the idea of Pan-Africanism. These include Egypt, Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Morocco,
and the Algerian provisional government. This was the reason why the goal of Pan-Africanism

Page 15

became difficult to be achieved at the level of state - government institution. The group that
supported Pan-Africanism were known as Casablanca group and the other African states
majority that included mostly French colonised countries were referred to as Brazzaville group.
Both groups later formed a loose united African organisation known as Organisation of African
Unity (OAU) and recently named African Union (AU). The rivalry between the two groups did not
subside despite this coming together.
Pan-Africanism found its ground more in the non-governmental organisations such as: trade
unions, student movement, women organisations and political associations that were under the
influence of Nkrumah led Pan-African Movement. At the international level like UN, PanAfricanist advocates readily advance their ideas and position to member delegates. They also
formed alliance with other progressive members within Afro-Asia movement, and Afro-Asia
movement was the norm in the 50s and 60s at all level of the organisation.
The Afro-Asia movement served as a strategic alliance for the Pan-Africanist advocates
achieving their objective at the inter-governmental level. Ola Oni as a member of this movement
was conversant with political situation at home which also led to follow-up or back-up activities
in Britain. Balarabe Musa testified to the activities of Ola Oni as far back as 1958 when the
struggle for Nigerian independence was still on and as a teacher in Postisque he and some of
his other colleagues received a message from Ola Oni inviting them to come to a meeting in
neighbouring Cameroun. Balarabe said he was surprised to meet a young man like Ola Oni who
was studying in the UK, but also involved in such underground activities and challenging
political roles. The Afro-Asia members also enjoyed the opportunity of being sponsored by Asian
communist countries like China, North Korea, and Mongolia. The relationship that Ola Oni
courted with China and North Korea started at this time. When Ola Oni visited China in 1964, he
was received and given the red-carpet treatment by the Chinese head of state, Chairman Mao.

Page 16

CHAPTER THREE: IBADAN

Oni was an internationalist but made Ibadan, the first republic capital of Western Region his
base and the epicentre of his political activities from the time he returned from London. His
influence as a Marxist and revolutionary cut across the length and breadth of Nigeria.
Ola Oni started his career in Ibadan as a lecturer at the University of Ibadan in September, 1963
on returning from London after his university education. Ever since then, there was never a dull
moment in his political life. As a matter of fact, the history of Nigerian left politics would not be
complete without Oni. He contributed immensely to the development of the socialist struggle in
Nigeria. As a committed Marxist, he did not join any of the existing popular bourgeois parties
when he returned from Britain. He preferred to work instead within the United Working Peoples
Party Socialist Party of Workers and Farmers. He joined Omotosho, a legal practitioner and
other labour leaders in Ibadan to lead the party in Western zone.

The National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons had lost its ideological bearing as
most of its radical and socialist inclined youth had been frustrated and left the party. At
that time the ideological struggle raging in the Action Group had degenerated to a major
political crisis in early 1960s when S. L. Akintola and Ayo Rosiji, the Premier of Western
Region and the partys Federal Secretary respectively were expelled from the party.
The opportunism and ideological weakness of the two leading parties became ever more
manifest, immediately after independence in 1960. However, majority of the nationalist
youth who were socialists, especially in the West pitched their tent with the Action Group
which had a more attractive state led development, welfarist programme and a solid record
of achievement. Oni, despite this, aligned himself with the independent leftist organisation.
All his intellectual and political work revolved around the liberation of the poor masses.

The Agbekoya Days

In 1968 the peasant farmers of Ibadan and its environs (Oyo, Osun, Egba, Ijebu) revolted
against the military government of Brigadier Adeyinka Adebayo, the military governor of Western
State. Adebayo was the second military governor of the state after Lieutenant Colonel Adekunle
Fajuyi who was killed, in the company of the erstwhile head of state, Lt General Aguiyi Ironsi in
Government House at Agodi, Ibadan, while on a state visit to the Western State of Nigeria. The
Agbekoya days provided the first major events for Ola Oni to display his revolutionary potential.
The political turmoil in the state was personified by Obafemi Awolowo, former Premier and
Action Group leader and Ladoke Akintola, who was the substantive Premier of the region. This
ultimately led to street fights and a serious political insurrection against the government of
Akintola and his supporters. It was also largely one of the remote causes of the 1966 military
coup, led by Major Kaduna Nzeogu. The coup failed to capture state power even after killing so
many top Nigerian political leaders, including Akintola, Ahmadu Bello, Tafawa Balewa, OkotieEboh. It led to the take-over of power by Aguiyi Ironsi, a General in the army, who was probably
the most senior Nigerian military officer at the time and who was responsible for over-turning the
coup attempt by Nzeogu.
The northern military officers interpreted this coup differently . They saw it as an ethnic agenda
staged by Ibo military officers in the selfish interests of their people. The counter coup of July,
1966 led to the death of Ironsi and was followed by a pogrom of people of Ibo descent living in

Page 17

northern Nigeria. This was responsible for the start of the Biafran civil war (1967 70), led by
Colonel Odumegwu Ojukwu in an attempt to gain independence for the Eastern Region.
Ola Oni explained that the farmers, known as Agbekoya, were complaining that the military
government of Adeyinka Adebayo in the West was shifting the burden of the civil war on to the
poor Nigerians, especially the workers and peasant farmers. The government, according to Ola
Oni, imposed multiple financial burdens on the poor people of the state. This included different
forms of tax and dues such as income tax, local rates, development tax, market dues, motor
park charges, water rates, high transport costs, rises in school fees for their children etc. In
addition, the cocoa price was fixed far below the level in other cocoa producing countries like
Ghana. Although the excuse given by the government for the low price was that the marketing
board would manage any surplus from the sale of such cocoa produce on the world market, in
the best interests of the farmers and use it for developmental purposes, including infrastructural
investment, public utilities and amenities (such as roads, education, health services, water and
electricity schemes) and for direct contributions to industrial investment. Garvin Williams
remarked that this had amounted to a massive and disproportionate fiscal contribution by the
farmers who were never compensated by cocoa price above the world price. None of the
governments promises came to fruition; they were mere deception of gullible farmers.
Ola Oni argued that: the poor people of the Ibadan area, mostly peasant farmers, have no
source of reasonable income; they relied on sales of food products with an average income of
less than 20 per annum. Whereas at the time of the strike in 1968 69, Williams put the
minimum tax liability for farmers at 5.10s per annum. In the preceding years the average tax
had been 7s per capital per annum. In addition to the tax increases, the immediate cause of the
farmers revolt was the various acts of violence from the government tax collectors and the
variety of petty council officials, such as town planners, clerks and sanitary inspectors who
embezzled money, took bribes from the farmers for the non-implementation of incomprehensible
regulations, or just demanded money. Accounts of the oppression of politicians and officials in
the rural areas (at the time leading to the revolt) sound more like the activities of an army of
occupation than an indigenous administration.
Ola Oni had contacts and a working relationship with leaders of the Agbekoya Society. He
confessed that it was at this time that he first learnt of the various farms and villages around Oyo
and Ibadan. Reports also reached Ola Oni that Awolowo had visited the leader of the
organisation, Tafa Adeoye at his farm in Akanran, which was the headquarters of the revolt.
While he was pleading with the farmers Awolowo also advised them to shun Ola Oni and others
like him, who he described as professional trouble makers. Awolowo also assured the farmers
that he would intervene in the matter by personally taking up their case with the military
governor of the Western State, Brigadier Adeyinka Adebayo. Later, the one-person judicial
commission of enquiry of Justice Ayoola (who later became the Chief Judge of Western State)
was constituted by the government. But the commission did not recommend a reduction in the
taxes charged on the poor farmers despite the acceptance of the grievances of the Agbekoya
Society.
A graphic description of the revolt was given by Justin Labinjoh, a sociologist who explained the
sequence of events as follows:
the agitation began first in Oyo against the misuse of education rates. It quickly spread
to Ibadan and Orogun and also to Ishara in Ijebu-Remo division where the palace and
the properties of the Odemo of Ishara, Oba Samuel Akinsanya, were burnt by an angry
mob. On 11th November, a mob of about 3,000 farmers singing war songs and carrying

Page 18

charms and weapons marched to the Olubadans palace. A week later, council offices
were attacked and properties there were damaged. On 25th November, farmers attacked
the council offices at Iyana Offa in Ibadan East. The next day armed farmers converged
at Ibadan from the South and South-West and attacked council workers in Mapo Hall.
When the combined army and police units opened fire on them they fled, leaving ten
dead and eleven wounded. Idi Ayunre in Ibadan South, one official was reported killed.
Another account in Williams book State and Society, pointed out:
On 25 June 1969, Folarin Idowu (Deputy Leader of Agbekoya Society), a farmers
leader, declared at a public meeting of Akanran that the farmers would pay only 0.30s
tax. When the government finally began its long delayed tax raids on 1st July, then police
were ambushed at Olorunda corner, near Akanran; agitation spread throughout Ibadan
division and to Ogbomoso, where the Soun (the Oba of Ogbomoso) was mercilessly
hacked to pieces. In the villages the heads bore much of the brunt of the farmers anger
and in Ibadan division, the Bale of virtually every town and village fled hurriedly to
Ibadan.
Furthermore, the Headlines Newspaper (historical magazine format) revealed as much:
The modus operandi of the Agbekoya men looked too sophisticated for mere illiterate
farmers. They laid ambush for police patrol men at strategic positions and mounted road
blocks at random. In places like Ile-Iddo, Idi-Amu, Ita Bashorun and Idi-Ayunre warriors
mounted road blocks and engaged in cross-fire with the police and soldiers sent around
to quell the riots.
The riots spread into days and into weeks and into months. The Agbekoya men
organised themselves into operational groups to keep the security forces at bay.
Meanwhile, deaths had been recorded on both sides. In a clash between the rioters and
the police and soldiers at Egba Obafemi near Abeokuta, 10 civilians and a soldier were
reported to have lost their lives. However, the rioting farmers appeared to have held the
fort for so long because they struck in different areas of the state at the same time, or in
every quick succession, thus making it difficult for security agencies to concentrate
action...
Perhaps, the most striking action of the rioters was the siege on the Agodi Prison in
Ibadan on September 16, 1969. Before then, the rioting farmers had organised
themselves into groups across the state Having perfected their plans, the Agbekoya
fighters from Akanran moved from the village to Agodi Prison in Ibadan. They caught the
prison authorities as well as the police unawares. The farmers pounced on the prison
gates, flung it open and set all the prisoners free. Before the prison workers knew what
was happening, the farmers had descended on the prison properties, destroying
everything on sight; without leaving anything left. In the ensued milieu, prison warders
and other prison officials had no option but to run for their lives.
After the siege, a corpse was lying outside the prison gate. Some meters away, at the
Ita-Bashorun, another corpse was found. The report of the outbreak of lawlessness
stunned the police. The Agodi police station, which was almost opposite the prison yard,
was vandalised by the rioters, and policemen on duty had to take to their heels.
However, the following day, the police swung into action, apparently irked by the
plundering of the Agodi prison and the killing of a police superintendent in charge of the

Page 19

prison, and the ravaging of the Agodi Police Station

In the raid carried out by a combined team of policemen and soldiers, 47 persons
believed to be connected with the riot were arrested. However, on Thursday, September
18, 1969, four policemen on a police patrol team were reportedly attacked by rioters.
Another group of rioters broke loose, setting ablaze the police station and an army
barrack in Oba near Abeokuta. Similarly, a number of policemen were also said to have
died at the Adeoyo Hospital, Ibadan, following gunshot wounds they sustained during a
clash with the farmers at Akufo village near Ibadan.
Ola Oni, in discussing the events, takes exception to referring the incident as a riot. He insisted
that what actually happened was a revolt because it was not a spontaneous action, as some
people will want to make us believe. Rather, according to him, the actions were consciously
planned by the poor farmers targeted against the rich and the elite class in society. The issue
that many researchers and scholars interested in this area of study are trying to unravel are the
question of leadership behind the revolt and the cause (remote and immediate) responsible for
the action. On that, Ola Oni averred that many interpretations had been offered as being the
reason for it. This includes the ongoing issue of local feudal politics about election of chiefs in
which state administration was held responsible, and the issue of state creation. But Tafa
Adeoye, the leader of the group is on record to have denounced this explanation. The way the
revolt was conducted confirmed Tafas positio their actions were not only directed against the
government but to all categories of elites in the society, including the old politicians of both
factions and chieftaincy title holders that the farmers perceived as responsible for their
problems.
In analysing the revolt in perspective, Ola Oni recognised the position of the elite of Ibadan and
Oyo who believed that the solution to their problems was to create a state that would be led by
them. This position was vindicated by the fact that they had always been in opposition to
previous governments. On the other hand, Ola Oni also shared Tafas position that that
Agbekoya was not being used but that they were able to hold their ground and remain focused
because of the farmers high sense of political consciousness and their sensitivity to injustice,
however minor. In his words he traced this consciousness to the role of the activists in the past:
the past political activists have built in the people a level of political consciousness
which makes them regard the state machinery as an instrument for drawing resources to
benefit the ruling class (people in power, bureaucracy, politician, military officers and
businessmen). Report has it that the Agbekoyas revolt was not the first kind of
exhortations that generated political dissension and controversy in the state. In the
1950s (1952, precisely) the Ibadan Tax Payers Association was organised by Adeoye
Adelabu to fight against excessive taxation of the people of Ibadan. This organisation
later transformed to the Maiyegun League to fight for the cocoa farmers. This, thereafter,
became a political force that Adelabu reinforced for his political mission.
Around the same issue was the crisis that erupted between the two leaders of the Action Group,
Awolowo and Akintola, which started from a fiscal policy disagreement over how to apportion tax
on the people of Western Nigeria. A political record of the crisis according to Femi Ahmed
stated:
some of the issues were that Akintolas government reduced tax to 1:17s. 6p leading to
the loss of 5million pounds in the regions revenues, reduction in the price of cocoa and
increase in school fees.

Page 20

In an attempt to clear himself of the allegation, Akintola insisted that it was a party decision to
introduce a reduction in taxation and that the reduction in cocoa price to 100 was a result of the
depression in the international market for cocoa; citing comparative prices from Ghana (95),
Eastern Nigeria (96) and Cameroon (100) to substantiate his claim. On school fees he
insisted that it was also a collective party decision. This defense did not persuade Awos camp.
The difference became wider with each passing day. The convention of the party in Jos
succeeded only in heightening the crisis. Ayo Rosiji, who belonged to Akintolas camp, was
suspended as the General Secretary of the party and replaced by S. G. Ikoku, who had earlier
been the leader of opposition in the Eastern House of Assembly.
Ladoke Akintola was later dismissed from office as the Premier of Western Region and expelled
from the Action Group, for not consulting with the party machinery before carrying out his policy
and for the steps he had earlier taken in revoking the appointments of J. A. Odeku, Alfred
Rewane, J, Odunjo and others who belonged to Awolowos camp from their various positions in
government. This was how the differences reached a full blown crisis, a position of no return.
This crisis in the West, apart from the effect it had on the national politics of the military taking
over power and the subsequent civil war, were the product of the militarys inability to contain in
a civil manner the bottled up conflicts in the land. The main stream political trend in the West
has never been the same since this crisis.
Ola Oni lambasted the successive military governments in Western Nigeria after the military
intervention for their negligence and failure to adopt a pro-poor approach to resolving the crisis
in such a way that benefited the people. The basis of Onis critism of these military officers was
their tendency to follow the same pattern in trying to solving the crisis, for example, Lt Col
Adekunle Fajuyi attempted to solve the problem by following Aguiyi Ironsis line of a unitary
system compared to federalism which was seen by many as the best. At the same time he paid
less attention to the domestic problems of the entire state remaining from the previous
administration.
Oni believed that Brigadier Adeyinka Adebayo was able to understand the problem before him,
better than his predecessor. But Ola Oni did not agree with Adabayos solution; disunity was not
the major problem of the region. Adebayos panacea for disunity was to pacify the two factions
of old politicians. One of the things he did was to share the appointment of commissioners and
other political offices between these two political factions. The reality, according to Ola Oni, was
that despite these palliative measures to assuage both camps, they failed woefully to address
the backsliding that persisted among the warring factions.
In Ola Onis opinion, the mistake of successive military regimes was to rely on the very same
politicians that were responsible for the problems that led to the military to take power in the first
place. He found this approach distasteful, politically nave and morally unjustified. He believed
that if the military actually meant well for the people, they should have targeted the mass of poor
people with their economic and political policies. For example, they still imposed more taxes on
the poor farmers, instead of taxing the upper strata of society the business contractors, state
bureaucracy, the old politicians etc. As a result, the military government failed like their civilian
counterparts before them.
The revolt of Agbekoya confirmed that mass resolute struggle pays dividends. Even though not
all their demands were met, some significant concessions were won.
Tax was reduced to 2 per person per annum, there was an amnesty for all farmers

Page 21

arrested except for those charged with murder, all local government staff were
supervised from Ibadan; motor park and market fees would be abolished and could only
be introduced in future if councils showed evidence of capital expenditure in this area, no
special rates would be levied without the express permission of the people concerned,
the jurisdiction of the town authorities would be restricted to areas with a modern lay-out,
non-farmers would be excluded from the farmers union, the government would appoint
representative advisory committees, the assets of the local government staff would be
investigated and there would be an end to tax raids and an end to army and police
patrols (Daily Times, 15th October, 1969).
Ola Oni himself was one of the victims of the revolt. Even when the state could not directly link
him to the revolt, they speculated that he had a hand in it. For this reason, he was arrested and
detained. His household was subjected to harassment. His house and office was searched by
the security forces. Some of his documents and files were carted away and were then lost by
the police. The idea that he was active in this revolt and other open protests explained the
states hostile policy towards him. Since the the Agbekoya uprising Oni was on the state
security agents list of security risks. This nonetheless did not diminish his revolutionary zeal and
his commitment to the cause of the common people.

Page 22

CHAPTER FOUR: LECTURER AS ACTIVIST

Comrade Ola Oni worked harmoniously with his colleagues at the University of Ibadan.
Throughout his academic career as a brilliant scholar he brought ingenuity to academics. He
was one of the pioneer lecturers in the Department of Economics at the time when the
University had been fully indigenised and its status was changing from its former a College of
the University of London to a full fledged independent university. Although he got appointment
letters to three universities - University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolwo University), University of
Lagos and University of Ibadan. He preferred the University of Ibadan, where he was to work
until he retired.
Before he decided which appointment offer to accept, Ola Oni considered which university, at
the time, would enable him to have the greatest impact on society. For him, teaching was not
just a career to make a living, but an opportunity to achieve a mission, the emancipation of the
downtrodden. This is the reason that before returning to Nigeria for this appointment, he knew
that his academic career would not be dedicated to preserving the old order, but geared towards
social commitment and impacting on the lives of ordinary Nigerian people.
In correspondence, for instance with Sam Aluko over the offer of his appointment at the
University of Ife, where Aluko was the Acting Head of Department of Economics, Ola Oni
pointed out how he shared Alukos concern over the urgent need to have local textbook of their
own which used local experiences to illustrate their academic discipline. In his words, Ola Oni
urged that, our department can surely avoid slavish imitation which has been known to
characterise many of the educational institutions emerging in the new countries. He went on
further:
there is an important matter which I have wanted to ask you. This concerns the attitude
of the members of the authorities of the university to the political activities of members of
the academic staff. I regard it absolutely essential that in our profession we must
possess that necessary intellectual freedom of speech and writing. Without this freedom,
we shall be handicapped in putting our knowledge to the advantage of the mass of the
people. During this era of economic and social changes, we surely cannot remain a
passive agent within our milieu. Kindly let me know frankly in your next letter the views of
the authorities of the University of Ife on this matter.
The University of Ibadan might have been considered by him not because it was paying a
higher salary than Ife or Lagos, neither was it for its social infrastructures and reputation nor for
being the first university in the country with a link to University of London, but because there
appeared to be relative lack of academic autonomy at the University of Ife; where lecturers and
staff in general were polarised along party lines Action group and Nigeria National Democratic
Party. These two parties were at the centre of the crisis that engulfed the first republic. Military
governments that came through the coup of January 15, 1966 and thereafter could not resolved
this polarisation. That was perhaps the reason the government of Muritala Mohammed and
Olusegun Obasanjo (which prided itself as a reformer) took over all the universities owned by
the regions including University of Ife, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Zaria and University of
Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN).
Ola Oni commenced his academic career at the Department of Economics, University of Ibadan
on October 1, 1963 as an Assistance Lecturer. He was promoted to Lecturer II in October 1,
1964. In 1967, his appointment was confirmed and he was promoted to Lecturer Grade Level I.
His promotion was delayed thereafter until 1976 when he was promoted to the position of Senior
Page 23

Lecturer, the position he held until his retirement from the University in 1988. The Department of
Economics had became a full-fledged Department able to prepare students for Degree in BSc
Economics in 1962. Since 1960 it had known as the Department of Economics and Social
Studies preparing student for degree of BA Economics and other Social Science subjects like
Political Science and Anthropology. The pioneer Head of Department of Economics was
Barback, an Australian trained scholar and professor; who then became the Director of West
Africa Institute of Social and Economic Research (WAISER). Tunji Aboyade took over the Head
of Department position in 1966. The department grew stronger, more vibrant and eventually had
the enviable position of being indisputably the best economics department in Africa.
Comrade Ola Onis position in the department was described by the renowned poet, Professor
Niyi Osundare (at his inaugural lecture at the University of Ibadan in 2005) saying:
Ola Oni was a lone Marxist intellectual among the mackerel of Adam Smith economists
at the University of Ibadan.
This graphic literary expression of the ideological relationship that existed between Ola Oni and
his colleagues at the Department was also testified to by a participant, Professor Emma
Edozien, who in relating the comradeship that existed among colleagues at the Department
stated: staff meetings in the department were always lively. Comrade Ola Oni would come with
his Marxist bent and Aboyade would look at me and say, Emma, answer him. Despite
Edoziens claim that all the colleagues in the Department were friends and a happy family, the
Marxist outlook of Ola Oni was responsible for the prolonged delay in his promotion and the
retardation of his academic career. Tunji Aboyade who was seen as being at the centre of this
victimisation could not hide his ideological hatred for Marxism. In expressing this, Aboyade
stated:
concepts like dependency or the socialist or Marxist path to development which
appealed to left economists in the interpretation of third world underdevelopment were
nearer populism than scholarship. They allowed scholars to make all kinds of statements
which (to him) are not disciplined statement, a product of non-discipline minds and of
intellectual laziness.
Despite this despicable comment, Aboyade admitted that the socialists were very popular with
the public, but he showed his bias when he traced such popularity to low level of economic
education in society. He believed that many people could not draw the line between patriotic
productive discipline and the populism which allowed them to shift the burden of development to
the machinations of outsiders meaning imperialism.
This is characteristic of the ideological background of people like Aboyade and amounts to
assuming that the poor, oppressed, exploited working people who are at the receiving end of
injustice in society can never think for themselves. Whereas it is a common dictum in social
science that the best way to test any theory is in the palace of practice or otherwise it remains
nothing but abstract theory. As Edozien once commented, Ola Oni believed very strongly in
theory. It will generally be correct to say that Marxism has no equal in the theoretical realm, but
the fact remains that if Ola Oni was to stop his intellectual work in the realm of theory, he would
not have had any problem with Aboyade and his other contemporaries. The problem was the
commitment and direct political involvement of Ola Oni in the class struggle, that is, his ability to
demonstrate his Marxist theories in the day-to-day life of the people. Things however changed
later in the Department with the persistent struggles and sacrifices of people like Ola Oni. He did
not share the idea of adapting to the existing system, but believed in fighting it even when it was

Page 24

not convenient for him.

Comrade Ola Oni introduced Marxist Political Economy in to the syllabus of the Department of
Economics at the University. This was later accepted at various departments of economics in
other universities. In the 1970s there was no self-respecting university in the modern world, be it
Harvard, the Sorbonne, the London School of Economics or Cambridge that could afford to
ignore the tradition of Marxist scholarship. Ola Oni, unlike many of his colleagues, would never
lobby for promotion. In his opinion, such practices is antithetical to academic tradition and
serious scholarship. He said:
If we want our university to make any worthwhile contribution to the intellectual
development of our nation, a lecturer should have the freedom to plan his academic
career in the best way he thinks he can achieve the best result.
Ola Oni distinguished himself as a reputable economist of note who had the philosophical
outlook of combining theory with practice. Various mass organisations including students
unions, teachers, journalists, youth organisations, trade unions, working class groups, market
women, popular democratic organisations, professional groups (Nigeria Bar Association,
Bankers Association), government institutions and agencies, state governments (e.g.
Presidency) invited Ola Oni to symposia or lectures. Ola Oni never disappointed them. He had
tried to simplify intricate economic issues and technical terms for ease of understanding. None
of his colleagues who alleged that his contribution and academic work was not productive could
match him when it came to explaining theoretical ideas in a way that the common people could
understand. For this, a lot of Nigerians held Comrade Ola Oni in high esteem. What is more, for
any theory to be relevant it must be tested in practice or else it becomes abstract, pedantic and
an obscure compilation of papers for self-aggrandisement. This is no less true for Marxism than
for any other branch of knowledge that hopes to have a positive impact on the lives of the
people.
Such a practical approach to explaining theories can be found in many of his writings in
academic journals Development and Features of the Nigerian Financial System - a Marxist
Approach (1966), Whose Republic (1969), The Crisis of Development and the Way Ahead for
Nigeria (1974), Inflation in Nigeria: The Problem of Theoretical Perspective (1974), Wages and
Salaries Review: Tight Rope of Bourgeois Reformism (1974), Nigeria Working Peoples
Manifesto (1974), A Critique of Development Planning in Nigeria (1975), The struggle for
Economic Independence in Nigeria (1975), The CDC Draft Constitution and the Common
People; Proletarian Struggles in Nigeria: Historical Highlights (1983), Reformist Political
Movements in Contemporary Nigeria, in Politics of Nigeria Towards Progressive Nigeria (edited
by A. Ibok) (1984).
Conferences attended with papers presented included, World University Service ~Workshop
held at University of Ibadan: Crisis of Development (1972), Nigeria Trade Union Federation
(NTUF) held in Lagos: The Implication of Decree 31 on the Development of Trade Unionism in
Nigeria (1973), 41st Annual Conference of the Nigerian Union of Teachers held at the University
of Nigeria Enugu Campus: Political objectives for Nigeria Development (1974), National
Workshop of the Patriotic Youth Movement at the University of Ibadan campus: The struggle for
Economic Independence in Nigeria (1975),
Above all, Comrade Ola Oni played a central role in establishing the Academy of Arts, Science
and Technology. He was the founding President of the Academy for ten years and he remained
one of the major forces of the organisation. The organisation comprised of progressive

Page 25

intellectuals from across the whole country especially from the 1970s. The theoretical journal
published by the Academy enjoyed wider acceptance compared to similar journals
internationally. The journal was known as Theory and Practice and was edited by the
accomplished scholar Dr. Omafume Onoge. The Academy was open about its progressive and
radical ideological orientation against the neo-colonial exploitative system.
The pioneering official of the organ, Theory and Practice include the following Editorial Advisers:
A.A. Akiwowo (NISER UI), Eme Awa (UNN) and E.U. Essien-Udom (UI); Omafume Onoge Coordinating Editor (UI); Contributing Editors Chinua Achebe (UNN), Busari Adebisi (UI), Tayo
Akpata (UI), Henry Bozimo (ABU), P.O.Dada (UI), Oke Emordi (UNN), Chimere Ikoku (UNN),
S.G.Ikoku (Eastern Nigeria), M.E.Kolagbodi (NAASO), Yemi Mosadomi, Ikenna Nzimiro, Merg
Obasi, Emmanuel Obiechina, S.A.Odunuga Chijoke Ogwurike (UNN), Akin Ojo (UI), O.O.
Okediji (UI), Femi Okunrounmi (Unilag), G.O. Olusanya (Lagos), D.T. Okpako (UI), Ola Oni (UI),
F.O. Osiyemi (UI), Felix Oragwu (Science &Technology), Yusuf Bala Usman (ABU) and Obi Wali
(Rivers State Government).
The reputation of the organisation and its journal (Theory and Practice) spread far and near to
every corner of the world especially for its pioneering role in the advancement of academics in
developing countries like Nigeria and Africa in general. A word of congratulation once came from
Sweden from a Nigerian, Charles Akinde, who expressed his appreciation for the bold steps
taken by the Journal. He stated that, you have created an insurmountable joy in me (over this
good work by progressive academicians in the country).
The establishment of the Academy of Arts, Science and Technology was not the first such effort
on the part of Ola Oni in organising academic bodies. As far back as 1966, Ola Oni was involved
in the Sankore Society that published a quarterly Journal of Sankore Studies on Developing
Nations and a monthly review named: The Advocate. Scholars involved in this organisation
included, Dr. Opeyemi Ola, Udekwu Obasi, Okonjo, Akpata and Chimere Ikoku of University of
Nigeria. While Opeyemi Ola was the first secretary of the organisation, Ola Oni, Akpata and
Chimere Ikoku constituted the editorial board of the journals. The organisation was also open
about its politics. In fact, in its mission statement, the Sankore Society described itself as a
socialist academy of research, science and art. Ola Oni was the driving forces of the
organisation. Despite all these academic pursuits, Ola Oni was still accused of teaching ideology
rather than just being an academic.
Ola Oni himself expressed his disappointment over the conclusion of a Special Committee of the
Council of the University of Ibadan that questioned the value and significance of his contribution
to academic work. Ola Oni said: on the question of my productivity, please permit me to differ
with the view and conclusion of the Special Committee of Council. I am fully convinced that this
Special Committee has not been properly and objectively informed concerning the value and
significance of my academic contributions to the development of social sciences in the country.
If our criterion is the quality and progressive advancement of social sciences in this country, it
will be found that my research book: Economic Development of Nigeria: A Socialist Alternative
is a major contribution. He suggested that the view of Marxist scholars should be sought to
provide an assessment of the quality of his academic works. Ola Oni did not limit himself to
criticising dependence of African scholars on foreign journals, he worked hard, to create
alternative scholarly and academic organisations and journals where scholars and other
intellectuals within the country could debate academic issues.
The opposition to the Marxist scholarship which Ola Oni represented reached a climax when his
name was included in the list of university lecturers and other workers that had been

Page 26

recommended to the new military government of Muritala Muhammed for retirement on the
ground of inefficiency or having been found wanting in their utility or proficiency.
The new regime appeared shocked on finding the name of Comrade Ola Oni on the list. The
regime demanded an explanation. When no genuine explanation was forthcoming, the
recommendation was rejected on the grounds that he did not fall within the category of the
people the exercise covered. The Muritala Mohammed regime, the only patriotic regime in the
history of Nigeria, saw Ola Oni as the patriot that he was throughout his life. What saved his job
therefore was the progressive leaning of the Muritala Muhammed military government compared
to the reactionary bent of the University of Ibadan authorities who wanted the new military
regime to relieve him of his job because of their opposition to his Marxist ideas. Ola Oni had
published two major works within two years: an 117 page, Political Programme titled The
Nigerian Peoples Manifesto (1974) and a 262 page economic programme titled: Economic
Development of Nigeria: The Socialist Alternative (1975).
Ben Obumselu, a professor of literature, captured this issue of intellectual proficiency well when
he stated that:
it doesnt become the lot of anyone to discover more than one or two truths in a lifetime.
But it is possible for a person even if he has discovered only one truth, or if he has
discovered none at all, to go and write six books about it. I think that is what is really in
vogue; the multiplication of expressions sometimes without anything to express.
Whichever way one may look at it, Ola Oni paid his dues to scholarship in this country despite
all the hindrances and petty-bourgeois academic rivalry and pettiness he suffered in his
Department. This cannot be dissociated also from the persecution, he faced at the hands of the
government which prevented him from attending many international conferences to advance his
academic profession.
After 12 years of teaching at University of Ibadan as a lecturer, Ola Oni applied for sabbatical
leave that was to commence on October 1, 1975. The leave was intended to enable him have a
study visit to the USSR and Cuba to meet other Marxist scholars and to exchange views with
them in his areas of research interest. The leave was granted by Appointment and Promotions
Committee of the University, but Comrade Ola Oni could not proceed as planned due to
governments refusal to release his international passport which had been seized earlier for his
political activism. Ola Oni informed the University, explaining the reason for his inability to travel
out of the country as planned.
He requested the sabbatical leave to be postponed to the following academic year (1976). This
was duly accepted. The University made some effort to assist Ola Oni to obtain a passport
before the commencement of the 1976 academic year. But all efforts failed. It was clearly a
conscious act on the part of the government to make sure that Ola Oni did not leave the country
after his passport was seized by the Balewa and Gowon governments in 1964 and 1967
respectively. He made passionate efforts to re-claim his passport from each of the successive
governments, but failed. He wrote to the Gowon regime and to Yaradua during the
Muritala/Obasanjo regime. Neither of these governments was prepared to release his passport.
He was never allowed to leave the country from the period of Balewas government (1964) until
his death in December 1999.

Page 27

There is no doubt that Ola Oni was very involved in political activities concerning the
transformation of society for the benefit of the poor. He became a leading force to be reckoned
with and an undisputable leader of the working people. His residence at New Bodija, Ibadan
became a Mecca for the oppressed Nigerians who trooped to this house from all over the
country to discuss the political situation with him and to learn how their struggles could become
more successful. His political activities included giving lectures or participating in symposia and
attending political meetings. These engaged and consumed so much of his time that he hardly
had any time for personal social activities. This, Ola Oni himself realised and this was one of the
reasons he considered it necessary to abroad to learn lessons and gather materials to extend
his research, but also to learn from the international socialist movement and so be able to pass
this on to the workers and other poor people of Nigeria.
In one of the letters he wrote to the Chief Passport Officer, under Obasanjo/Yaraduas regime,
he traced the circumstances surrounding confiscation of his passport in 1964 during Balewas
regime. He said that:
I am one of those who have been persecuted by previous regimes for my political and
ideological views. In the past, the police regarded people who called for social reforms,
especially socialists as security risks. This is inherited from our colonial masters. This is
why the police have since 1964 denied me of the right to have a passport to travel out
freely. This denial of a passport constituted a major obstacle for pursuing my academic
profession. For the past ten years, I have not been able to travel out of the country
because of the difficulty of securing a passport. It is well known that people whose
activities corrupt and undermine the sovereignty of our country have all the freedom to
move in and out of the country to transact their shady deals. I appeal to you to restore
my right to a passport, I was to go on study leave last year, 1976 (and before then
1975), and I could not go because of lack of a passport. The leave is now postponed till
June 1977, this year. Kindly do everything to let me have a passport with minimum
delay. The constitution of our country does not make it a crime against the state for the
citizen to advocate for a society that will liberate Nigerian people from poverty and
oppression that is for socialism.
Another letter on the same issue was written to the Inspector General of Police, M.D. Yusuf,
who had himself been political active and had a background of an activist. Ola Oni reported the
efforts he had been making to secure his international passport and how this had failed and
caused him untold hardship by preventing him from travelling abroad in pursuit of his academic
profession. Ola Oni reminded Yusuf in the letter of how his friend, S.G. Ikoku, had passed his
passport (No 35800) to him (Yusuf) for renewal in preparation for a trip to China on behalf of the
Federal Government during the civil war:
He (Ikoku) assured me it was passed to you but there was nothing else I received in
return. You may well check this up in your record. I wish therefore to appeal to you to
assist me in securing my passport and to have the right to travel in and out of the
country as any citizen of the country.
A year after, when no solution seemed in sight, he wrote another letter to the Chief of Staff,
Musa Yaradua of the Supreme Headquarters, at Dodan Barracks, Lagos. In the letter, he
stated:
I have not been able to travel abroad in pursuit of my profession due to the difficulty of
securing my passport. I have made several attempts to no avail. I attach herewith a
Page 28

photocopy of the receipt of my latest application. I am making this appeal to you to help
me out under the belief that it is the proclaimed policy of your government not to
persecute any citizen of this country for his political ideology.
With the way successive governments, both military and civilian including those claiming to
stand for reform, handled Onis passport issue, it became evident that the whole saga was a
conspiracy from the top rather than mere inefficiency on the part of the bureaucracy. It shows
that even when Ola Oni was ready to support them and work for them during the Civil War to go
to China to defend their cause, they could not even trust him; the passport that was meant for
the journey was never released to him.
Many invitations to international conferences had to be turned down as Ola Oni did not have a
passport to travel. A good example was the invitation extended to him by the Committee on
African Studies, Dollhouse University, Halifax Nova Scotia, Canada. But Ola Oni took the whole
episode with philosophical calmness. He saw it as part of the sacrifices he had to bear. Ola Oni,
as a believer in collective action, then sent his lieutenants to such conferences. Many received
admission to pursue higher degrees on his recommendation and some of them became
professors in their own academic fields. Some of the reasons for Onis persecution were
therefore nothing but paranoia or a figment of the imagination of the perpetrators.
Even those who did not agree with his political views were impressed by him. Edozien who
joined Ola Oni in the Economics Department, explained that he was enthused to join the
Department due to counselling of the Head of Department, Aboyade, who was his former
teacher at the University. Aboyade said that he (Edozien) would be joining a crop of young
lecturers, which at the time included Dotun Phillips, O. Teriba and Ola Oni. He advised that with
such teachers they would make the Department a vibrant one. This of course turned out to be
the case. Aboyade must have been satisfied with the intellectual output of these young lecturers
before referring to them as a role model to persuade a young intellectual to join the Department
and make a career in academia. Another time, Aboyade gave credit to Marxism when he said:
Marxism has great historical application especially in the study of the economics of the
third world. That is when one is looking at the broad sweep of history and social
interaction in space and time.
This was the extent of his sympathy for Marxism. He believed that while an analyst may use
such instruments to interpret policy in the application of social action in time and space, it was
contradictory to use such instruments for purpose of testing hypotheses. As such virtually all his
major works touch on national income, accounts, investment behaviour, economic planning and
development policy analysis. The methodology so adopted was basically empiricism, what he
usually referred to as making use of hard facts. The issue is that field work is not strange to
Marxism; many studies in the area of economics, politics, and sociology are carried out by
Marxist-oriented intellectuals by adopting this methodology. It is therefore necessary to point out
that the ultimate goal of any theory is to achieve results in practice.
The methodologies of measurement, hypothesis, survey, observation etc are just means to
achieve the desired goal. In the Nigerian situation, bourgeois scholars have exhausted their
intellectualism in trying to find a solution to the problem of poverty, which is the essence of the
discipline of economics and other social sciences, but they have failed woefully. So, for this
reason, they have no iota of excuse to assess the viability of Marxism because this remains one
area of knowledge that has not been given a trial in the country. What they should be concerned
with is finding the reasons that their bourgeois approach is failing and has not helped in solving
Page 29

the systems problems.

While G.G. Darah described the persecution meted out to Oni in the course of his revolutionary
scholarship as the usual victimisation suffered by heretics. But Wang Metuge analysed the issue
involved in a broad class perspective. Wang, a political science scholar identified three related
ways that class struggle manifests itself among African academia in general and in Nigeria in
particular. This he identified as through: the ideological persuasions of the intellectuals, the type
of courses (including the content) taught in the universities and the scientific methodologies
employed in understanding and explaining social problems. In discussing the class position that
a university lecturer occupies in society, Wang explained that university lecturers are intellectual
workers; they all sell their labour power, in the form of scientific knowledge, for salaries. To this
extent they are members of the working class. Now, the question may be asked, how is it
possible to talk about class struggle between and among members of the same class?
After all, the argument can be made that class struggle exists only between classes, and not
between members of the same class. On the surface, this question is valid, and the argument
correct. But we would like to note that a person may objectively be a member of a class but
subjectively belong to a different class by virtue of his or her aspirations and ideological
consciousness and persuasion.
Wang went further to identify four categories of lecturers in the university system in accordance
with their ideological persuasion, the contents of their teaching courses and the scientific
methodology they adopt. This classification includes those who have an ideology and are
conscious of it, but refuse to admit it to others; those who are conscious of their ideological
orientation and honestly uphold it privately and publicly, especially so in their academic work.
Looking at this classification concretely the last group is the one that can said to be seriously on
the side of the poor working people i.e. the intellectuals that have an ideological persuasion and
are conscious of it without hiding it, they uphold it and are not ashamed to proclaim it. This
group manifests itself position not only by what its members say but, more importantly by the
way they conduct their scientific endeavours. This group is also said to be a small minority of
intellectuals. Wang further details the trade-marks of this group:
These are the dialectical materialists, both by scientific commitment and by
philosophical disposition. They are interested in changing the existing order not merely
on moral grounds, but because this is consistent with the logic of progress. This is why
Oyevbaire classified them as the subversives. In reality, they are revolutionary
intellectuals. They are concerned with distinguishing appearance from realities,
symptoms from disease and forms from substance. As a result their major concern with
the masses is not about their poverty but their exploitation and domination.
Ola Oni and his group definitely belong to this category. This group, known among academics
as the Academy of Arts, Science and Technology, in the 1970s stood for changing the
dependant character of Nigeria, abolition of domination and exploitation of the country. To this
end, they employed scientific methodology and utilised theories that clarifed the nature of
exploitation and domination. They were concerned with how to utilise their intellectual capital as
instruments for the abolition of class domination and exploitation in society.
Wang Metuge also identifies another category which is closer to the above group, so small in
number, but fast increasing and very vocal. The group has one ideological persuasion but
outwardly profess to belong to a different ideological group entirely. The author made us to
understand that it is only through a very careful reading of what members of this group write
Page 30

and a thorough analysis of what they say that one can understand the actual ideological
persuasion they are made of. This group can best be identified not only by the scientific tools of
analysis they use, but also by the policy recommendations they make from the research they
embark upon. More often than not, their recommendations contradict the theoretical
formulations in their research and the idea at hand. Contradictions are explained away by these
intellectuals in the following manner:
our problems are caused by the nature of the existing system, that we cannot change
the system now, so they will say that we must be able to correct things as best as we
can within it (the system). Such recommendations are reformist or populist. These
intellectuals are the opportunists of the left that proclaim to be socialist but know little or
nothing about dialectics, some of them have never read about it. Those of them who
have read it have not bothered to understand it. The few among them that have
bothered to read and understand dialectical materialism do not employ it in their
research because they are afraid of its powers as a theory and as a methodology. To be
convinced of these powers will mean to deny their real interests. So, they fall back on
what they know best and what suits their interests most; bourgeois theory and bourgeois
methodology. The best among them therefore take solace in more indignation about
some manifestations of the system like corruption, inefficiency, illiteracy, disease and
poor health facilities and other problems.
They go further to make recommendation for better houses, higher wages, etc. for the
masses. But how these measures in themselves will save the masses from exploitation
and domination is not important or better still, cannot be ascertained because they are
neither scientifically equipped to tackle this fundamental problem nor are they interested
in changing the system itself.
This group can be further divided into two sub-categories, some among them are
academic professionals, others are bourgeois aspirants; they are all passengers in the
academic field. In the main, they are intellectual opportunists.
The fact is that the existence of this group has not been in doubt. But it amounts to intellectual
fraud on the part of right wing intellectuals to use this left opportunist group, who Ola Oni did a
great deal to fight against both openly and covertly, to generalise a blanket condemnation of
socialist intellectuals.
The bourgeois intellectuals that dominated Ola Onis Department of Economics at the University
of Ibadan that we have discussed in this chapter actually fall within the third group as discussed
by Wang. According to this scholar, this group, comprises of those who have a particular
ideological inclination, but are not perhaps conscious of it. This group of lecturers refer to
themselves as academics holding high the banner of professionalism. This group abhors value
judgement and emphasise the value of objectivity in scientific endeavours. It is difficult for them
to see that objectivity is real only in subjectivity. They tend to emphasise that as academics: we
should see things from all angles. But in reality, they know only one method of looking at
things, and do not care to understand the limitations of their tools of analysis, because they
already accept it as correct.
This category of lecturers is not concerned about changing the existing social order. They work
hard, do a lot of research, aiming to become professors or attain recognition as academics. But
how far the research they conducted contributes to the general good of the society is secondary
to them, because as professionals, their work must be value free. Their primary aim for doing
Page 31

research is to enhance their chances of rising up in the academic or professional hierarchy.

They can said to have been engaged in what Temu calls academic fetishism. Since their goal
is to enhance their professional interest within the existing order, they will do nothing to upset
that order as that would jeopardise their primary interest. The end result is that due to their
careerist orientation, their work legitimises the system as it is. Also because of the
methodologies they use in their teaching and research, and because of their status-quo
predispositions, this group of lecturers too, even though they are intellectual workers can be
said to have the mentality of the bourgeoisie, even though they are intellectual workers.
Having exhaustively used the scientific observations of Wang to investigate the class and
ideological relationships of Nigerian university, it is necessary to establish Ola Onis historical
position and his response to the bourgeois scholars of the Aboyade type. On methodology,
Wang recognises two phenomena - bourgeois and non-bourgeois methodologists. The
bourgeois methodologists believe that in other to achieve objectivity and precision that such
phenomenon such as measurement and quantitative analysis must be considered. According to
Wang, in Africa, it is the economists more than other social scientists, who have taken a lead in
this direction. Wang maintains that it is possible to find papers in almost every recent edition of
the Journal of the Economic Society of Nigeria filled with sophisticated linear equations. This is
the only way, it would appear, that the authors can claim scientific credibility. And as a matter of
fact, econometricians and statisticians now dominate most of our departments of economics.
Wang went further to assess the rationale for what is responsible for the particular methodology
a typical economist or social scientist adopts in his research. He points out that:
each scientific methodology breeds its own theory, and the theory in turn determines
the methodology to be employed. Theory and methodology build on and refine each
other. It is not an accident, therefore, that modernisation theory, social order and stability
theory have all emerged from bourgeois social sciences.
Wang goes on to explain that the non-bourgeois social scientists employ dialectical materialism
as a method of analysing and understanding phenomena. From this method has emerged the
political economy method of analysis and class analysis. This methodology has generated such
theories as dependency theory, the theory of unequal exchange and unequal development and
centre-periphery theory to explain problems of development in third world countries generally
and Africa in particular.
One thing that this bourgeois intellectual cannot take away from revolutionaries like Ola Oni is
that most of them were also trained and educated in the bourgeois tradition, either in advanced
capitalist countries or in Africa. Ola Oni for instance was trained at Exeter University and
London School of Economics (LSE), while Professor Omafume Onoge was trained at Harvard
University and Professor Bade Onimode (one of Ola Onis former students) was trained at the
University of Ibadan.
On the accusation that Marxist scholars teach ideology, which Aboyade said, was like teaching
religion. Metuge explains that each ideology in turn serves its own science. For example, what
the bourgeois scholars forget to know by mistakenly accusing Marxist intellectuals of being
rhetorical and ideological; in the same way that dialectical materialism gave rise to the ideology
of the proletariat. This is the very reason that what we have in the university is such that the
bourgeois scholars employ scientific methodologies and utilise theories, which muddle our
understanding of the African reality. And they are interested in perpetrating the neo-colonial
character of African societies. In other words to consolidate class domination and exploitation in
Page 32

Africa they employ their scientific energies to muddle our understanding of the very existence
and nature of the dependent character of African societies.
On the other hand, the role of the revolutionary intellectuals has been concerned with changing
the dependent character of Nigeria and Africa, about abolishing class domination and
exploitation. To this end, they employ scientific methodologies to explain the nature and origins
of Africas dependence. So, they are concerned with how to turn social science into an
instrument for the abolition of class domination and exploitation. The description of the
victimisation of Ola Oni by Darah as comparable to heresy is poignant. It captures how Ola Oni
was viciously treated by the Nigerian state, particularly the experience of the seizure of his
international passport.
Definitely if Aboyade was genuinely concerned about Ola Onis inability to travel, he could have
helped to reach out to the government so as to get his travelling papers ready for such journey
since he was very close to the corridors of power by virtue of the work he was doing for them.
Aboyade had been working for various governments since Tafawa Balewas era in the area of
economic policy. He would not go to the extent of offering such help because Ola Oni was a
significant burden to them in the Department. His academic progress would have further
increased this burden. This also explains why they did everything possible to obstruct the man
and to prevent him from turning Ibadan into another University of Dar-Es-Salam, Tanzania.
The ideological basis of this victimisation was confirmed by Ola Oni when he described the role
of the Department of Economics, University of Ibadan as the spring board of the reactionary
economic policies of the successive Nigerian governments. With academics like Aboyade
having been closely involved with the development of such government economic policies since
independence.
Ola Onis role in such circumstances was to identify the economic policies as anti-poor policies
(and pro-rich) resutling an increase in the level of poverty. At various times, Ola Oni developed
alternative positions to such government policies which emanated from the same University
Department. Fortunately, Nigerian working people, especially the poor workers, peasants,
artisans, students and so on embraced his ideas rather than the unpopular government policies.
However, we should understand that the unpopularity of these policies was not what was
responsible for their failure. But rather this demonstrates the correctness of Ola Onis position
and analysis. If the policies had been appropriate and assisted economic development of the
masses of the country, whether they were criticised or not by Ola Oni, would not have mattered.
The outcome would have justified the means and the formulators of the policies would have
been vindicated. But this has not the case.
On the other hand, one thing that Ola Oni also wanted people to note was that these policies
were actually meant for the benefit of the ruling class despite their pretension that they met
certain needs of the poor. For this reason, the poor always need to resist unpopular policies.
The progress made by Bade Onimode, a student of Ola Oni who followed the path of socialist
scholarship in the same Department of Economics was a vindication that Ola Onis labours
were not in vain, despite the persecution meted on him. Onimode shared the same ideological
position as Ola Oni and co-authored a major scholarly book with him. Above all, they belonged
to the same revolutionary and radical academic organisations.
Bade Onimode, apart from becoming Head of the Department of Economics, also became a
Deputy Vice-Chancellor of the University. He authored and edited many books. He was a
Page 33

recognised scholar internationally. The relationship between Comrade Ola Oni and Professor
Bade Onimode at the level of their academic career can best be compared to the relationship
between Socrates and Plato. It is a historical fact many of the original ideas associated with
Plato could be traced back to Socrates. In the same vein, Bade Onimode published several
works on issues that had been addressed by Ola Oni in his academic career. Unfortunately,
much of Ola Onis published work was seen as political and idealogical rather than academic by
his colleagues at the Department of Economics.
This situation persisted because for Ola Oni, in the true tradition of revolutionary scholarship,
the liberation of the masses was more of a priority. Comrade Ola Oni can therefore be
described as the sacrificial lamb for the liberation of radical scholars who came after him.
Previously the coast was free for socialist scholars to engage in research without much
hindrance like before. Unfortunately the tide has now turned again and socialist scholars are
again suffering the same neglect and prejudice that Ola Oni suffered.

Page 34

CHAPTER FIVE: WORK AMONG STUDENTS

Comrade Ola Oni worked closely with Nigerian students and in particular the University of
Ibadan students while he was a lecturer at the University. He started lecturing at the University
of Ibadan in 1963. For two and a half decades at the University, he was fully involved both
practically and theoretically, in the struggles of Nigerian students. According to Oni, the essence
of organisation is to educate, while the goal of education of the oppressed people is to organise
against the oppressors. Ola Oni will be remembered as one that inspired the formation of an
ideological students group called Young Socialist Movement later changed to Marxist Socialist
Movement (MSM).
The group (MSM) which turned out to be a school on its own right had produced a lot of
intellectual cadres across the country. It was also known for its popular organ Militant. Marxist
Socialist Movement (MSM) was established like any other club in the University. The
preoccupation of the group was to educate and train intellectuals in the socialist path of social
development, as an alternative to the capitalist thought and ideology which is responsible for the
under development of the third world countries like Nigeria.
At the same time great attention was equally placed on explaining the oppression and
exploitation that the working classes in the developed societies are passing through as well.
Students that passed through MSM political classes would come across Marxist theory of labour
value, which in the main, is out to treat the mechanism of exploitation of the working class by
the bourgeois (i.e. Capitalist) class. Students were taught the analysis of what constitute classes
in the transformation of the society. Emphasis was put on Marxist analysis of classes rather than
Max Weber bourgeois conception.
An important topic was the state and the relationship it bears to classes in society. This occupies
a prominent position in the education programme of the group. Topics on imperialism also
feature very prominently. There were various other topics on contemporary issues of which were
historical and political in nature. For instance, socialists were trained to take positions on
national and international developments as they occurred.
The group did not limit its activities to theoretical understanding of the world; they were always
at the student struggles in the campus. According to Ola Oni revolutionary students have the
responsibility to apply their knowledge to their immediate environment. This responsibility
implies that revolutionary students engage in protesting or opposition to certain government
reactionary policies. Marxist student often got involved in student unionism so as to give their
agitation a mass base. As Marx put it, philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways;
the point (however) is how to change it.
Marxist Socialist Movement (MSM) was established in 1964 and by the time Ola Oni left the
university in 1988, thousands of cadres had graduated through this school. Many of these
cadres took academics as a career while others are in government or private employment. This
is the reason it is hard to find a Nigerian Marxist scholar (cadre) who did not directly or indirectly
passed through Ola Oni. It is not that Ola Oni was the first socialist scholar in the country.
Before him there were people like Eskor Toyo, Nzimmiro, Tunji Otegbeye, Kolagbodi, Wahab
Goodluck, Fatogun, Aka Alao-Bashorun, Sam Ikoku, Gogo Chu Nzeribe, Nduka Eze and some
others who have been involved in socialist and revolutionary struggles or in the nationalist
movement against colonialism before the final attainment of the Nigerian independence in 1960.
One fact however that distinguishes Ola Oni from his contemporary comrades or the generation
before him was that he worked among the youths and Nigerian students than any of them.
Page 35

Before Ola Oni came to University of Ibadan in 1963, a Nigerian Socialist Group (NSG) led by
Nzimmiro who was then, based at Onitsha had contemplated establishing a socialist group at
the campus but this never materialised. Oni had an unsurpassed capability to direct and
influence people and events. Students were not left out of his organisational constituency.
Though, he realised the revolutionary potential of students in the struggle for social change, he
never failed to point out the strategic position occupied by the working class and therefore the
limitation of the petty-bourgeois nature of the social class to which students as a group belong.
This is why he was identified more with struggle and politics than with his academic career. As
an orator, he was a delight to watch any time he participated in labour workshops, student or
workers symposia at television and (or) radio stations or lecturers, student rallies etc. No
bourgeois apologist among his contemporaries can escape his wrath of criticism at any public
forum. He combined his mastery of dialectical analysis with oratory gift which of course often
sway students to his side on volatile and controversial contemporary issues generating debates.
His popularity in university campuses across the country was without comparison.
Onis frequent participations at students symposia or lectures might have been responsible for
the mass attraction to MSM which was his baby. And this in no small measure helped the
growth of the organisation.
The prominence of Ola Oni became doubly identified and distinguished most at a period of
militant action. Ola Oni would never allow any opportunity of such to slip away. He often
perceived this as the right time of harvest for his past revolutionary activities among workers
and students. Ola Oni believed that a revolutionary should work at all time even if the situation
of effecting change is not at sight; he believed that it is only when there is an organisation on
ground (however weak) that the hope for revolutionary change can be possible. This is because
it is an organisation that exists that can utilise any opportunity of revolutionary situation that
comes ones in a while and like thief in the night. This was what guided his daily routine of
revolutionary activities.
Apart from all this, Ola Oni was always at the MSM education meetings holding at the campus
every Sunday evening to give tutorials and guide members of the group. There, intricate classic
works on Marxism were simplified and dissected for easy understanding of every student. It is
not an exaggeration to say that Marxism covers all aspects of knowledge. Every student of
Marxism knows this. But Marxists also know that dialectical materialism which forms the
cornerstone of Marxism proceeds from the standpoint of the fact that knowledge is
inexhaustible. So, we are only saying the obvious if we assert that student with Marxist views
are intellectual, more sophisticated and politically more active than their counterparts in the
campus. What is more? MSM at University of Ibadan then constituted the nucleus and breeding
ground for the largest number of Marxist activists we have in the country.
One of the areas where students with Marxist world outlook wield a commanding influence is
the student union. This is not surprising, most of the resistance against unpopular government
policies especially in the 1970s and 1980s were led by progressive radical students. Members
of Marxist organisations in the campuses often occupied strategic positions in the student union.
In this way, they helped to articulate and streamline student struggle along progressive
tendency.
This is particularly important when one realises that school authorities itself sometimes sponsor
candidates to student union offices. Even political parties of different persuasions covertly give
Page 36

patronage to conservative or pro-establishment students so that they can influence student

unions policy direction in their favours. Period of Marxist leadership are usually noted for
dynamism and positive changes in students welfare.
Many battles were waged by the students against the university authorities of UI (Ibadan) and
Nigerian State as a whole when Comrade Ola Oni was a lecturer at the University. None of
these missed him. He was then an active participant in such struggles. He can go to any extent
to assist student when they are in struggle. Such assistance includes finance, providing
materials like papers, help to publish or roll out educational materials for the students free of
charge. Sometimes, he would be physically present at the action spot to counsel them on the
way to achieve a successful struggle. His participation in the struggle of the students went
beyond University of Ibadan where he influenced many generations of radical socialists
students such as Bade Onimode, G.G.Darah, Laoye Sanda, Jimi Adesina, Olu Adegboro,
Father Rev. Murumba, Paul, Jonathan Zwingina, Solomon Abegunde, Sunday Obamba, Ranti
Osunfowora, Aluko Olokun, Onyekpe, Tunde Kolawole etc. He also carried out political work at
The Polytechnic, Ibadan where he raised many cadres as well. These include among others:
Daniyan, Rauf Aregbesola, Femi Aborisade, Kunle Bakare, Remi Ogunlana, Bayo Owolabi,
Gbenga Awosode, Victor Adebamgbe, Remi Babatunde, Phillip, Remi Agbeleye, Remi Oladipo,
Bola, Olaniyan, Omolewa Balogun, Fayemi, Abiodun Olamosu etc. Many of them are active
politically presently. Though Ola Oni knew very well that all necessary works among students
cannot be achieved by concentrating all his effort, only in schools at Ibadan, he believed that he
had to start from somewhere.
So, apart from these two institutions he extended his activities to other universities like Ife,
Lagos, Benin, Zaria, Calabar, Port-Harcourt and others where he often travelled to give lectures
and participate in symposia. But the strategy adopted by him and his organisation so as to
properly direct and control the affairs of students movement in Nigeria along revolutionary line
was the formation of Patriotic Youth Movement of Nigeria (PYMN). The organisation was like a
co-ordinating committee within the advance layer of the Nigerian radical student leaders across
the country. Its aim was to give direction to the struggle of the larger mass movement of
National Union of Nigerian Students (NUNS) later known as National Association of Nigerian
Students (NANS). PYMN was a very popular organisation on the campuses among union
leaders and students activities until recently when the organisation became abused and has
since failed to perform its erstwhile role. PYMN did a lot to bring together under one umbrella,
different student political organisations of divergent tendencies or ideological persuasion. Along
this line, one of its objectives was to raise the political consciousness of cadres. For this reason
the tempo of radical student unions were maintained for a long time and left tendency was able
to have their way even when they were not officially occupying union positions at the national
level. PYMNs first Secretary General was Laoye Sanda who was a close associate of Ola Oni
till the end. It should be pointed out that at a later date in the history of PYMN, the earlier control
exercised by Onis group was stopped on the premise that students should maintain their
independence from outside groups. Onis group at this point lost full control of the organisation.
Despite this, the struggle within the organisation (PYMN) continues on the basis of inter
movement political lines.
Comrade Ola Oni associated the degeneration in PYMN at a later date to lack of control by a
central revolutionary organisation outside the student movement. From inception, Onis group
view students movement as being in transient, that it can only achieve its revolutionary role in
changing society only when it aligned with the working class and other oppressed masses in the
country; and that because of its inherent elitist or petty-bourgeois background, it can hardly
stand on its own. So to guarantee that student movement would be on the side of the people in
Page 37

the task of revolutionary transformation of the country, there is a need for a revolutionary party
(or movement) closely linked with workers, farmers, artisans, student movement, professionals
and other oppressed masses. Such organisation must be one that possesses revolutionary
discipline that will be able to extend this to all other organisations under its control or influence.
Since Comrade Ola Oni became a lecturer at the UI in 1963, he had not looked back in the
struggle to change society. He served as a member of a generation that linked the struggle of
the pre-independent era to the coming generations. If not for him and the group he helped to
form, the tradition of struggle that led to independence would have fizzled out of the memory of
the youths in the 1970s and 1980s. It was him and his group that injected necessary zeal and
tradition of struggle into the minds of post-independence generations of students at a time when
many comrades of his generation that were heroes before dropped out of the struggle and
abandoned it for the rest of their lives. But for the social change as envisaged by revolutionary
organisation to come about, there is the need for continuity. It is when there is continuity that
revolutionary change can be realised. Ola Oni was abreast of this law of social change and this
made him not to be so easily disappointed despite the shortcoming of some comrades. As Lenin
Ilyanov used to say, revolution has no time table, it will come like a thief in the night.
Revolutionaries cannot wait till when the situation is ripe before they carry out their revolutionary
task. More importantly, unceasing preparation for revolutionary situation is a necessity for a
successful revolution.
Shortly before Ola Oni came to the University in 1963, the students of the University exhibited a
high level of patriotism in 1961 when they protested against Balewas federal government which
was about to sign military defence pact (called Nigeria Anglo Defence Pact) with British
government. On the basis of this agitation the plan was promptly dropped. One other patriotic
struggle of the period was the 1961 protest of Ibadan students against one American Peace
Corps lady that was serving in Nigeria. The lady named Margery Michelmore (Miss) wrote a
postcard after her three weeks stay in Nigeria where he castigated the country and described it
as primitive, dirty and backward.
Unfortunately for her, the card was misplaced and later it got into the hands of one conscious
undergraduate, Ejiofor Osakwe who reported the matter to the school authorities. The student
union government took the case up and this led to a big protest and demonstration against such
racist attitude by the lady perceived as an American representative in Nigeria. The protest
spread beyond the boundary of Nigeria and the struggle attracted supports and sympathies of
every patriotic Nigerians to the side of the students. The situation was so serious that the lady
had to be smuggled out of the country after she had tendered a public apology for her
misdemeanour to the entire country.
The nationalist patriotic act of the student at this time was very high. The existence of such
tradition of struggle was a fertile land for the propagation of Ola Onis socialist ideological ideas.
Ola Oni was very happy on coming to the premier University as an Assistant Lecturer, the
position he viewed as an opportunity to bring up revolutionary minds, which on their own were
already instinctively imbued with a socialist hue.
The good work of Ola Oni as a young lecturer and activist of a socialist ideological background
came to limelight and became openly recognised in 1971 as a result of the struggle that
emanated from Zik Hall. Zikists were agitating against poor cafeteria system. What started as an
affair of only one hall in the university in a matter of days became a national affair. The Zikists
(Zik Hall students) who were known for their tradition of struggle came up with allegation of
inefficiency and corruption against the authorities in the operation of the cafeteria system. The
Page 38

protest started with hunger a strike embarked upon by Zik Hall students, thinking that the
University Authorities would come to its senses and that something would be done urgently, to
reverse the ugly situation in the poor cafeteria system.
However, the university authorities did not do anything until they allowed the situation to
degenerate. On Monday, 1st of February, 1971, the protest had reached its 3 rd day (having
started on Sunday 30th, January) and by this time, the situation was already tensed, leaving no
one in doubt that the outcome may not be palatable after all. The poor crisis management of the
authorities worsened the situation. The University Vice-Chancellor, Professor Adeoye Lambo, on
seeing the unfavourable situation, became frenzied and panicked! He decided to call in the
police to safe the situation. The step was no doubt a wrong one. The matter got aggravated.
The action marked an unprecedented violent intervention of the police in resolving student crisis
in the history of student politics in Nigeria.
As a result of the police confrontation with the students on receiving marching order for forceful
entrance into the campus, one part 2 agricultural science student, Kunle Adepeju, lost his life in
the ensuing confrontation with the police, he died from a gunshot. These other indiscriminate
shooting by police at students left other ten students wounded but they responded to treatments
at the University Teaching Hospital and Jaja Clinic where they were rushed to. The affected
students were J.B. Ogunrinola, R. Kasumu, F. Olotu, Dayo Alase, O. Fase Evans, Donald
Fajuyi, P.E. Etsegbe, O.S. Ogbeni, B. Akerele and W. Kabiawu.
Ola Oni led the Organisation of Nigeria Academy of Arts, Science and Technology, comprising
young, brilliant intellectuals such as Dr.Omafume Onoge (Harvard trained social-anthropologist),
Dr. Akin Ojo (a pioneer of nuclear physics) and Busari Adebisi (political science), Dr. Bade
Onimode (economics) among others, they were the first group to rise up to challenge the
university authorities and the police.
In their press statement which was duly signed by Onoge and Akin Ojo, the organisation stated
we declare, unequivocally, to the Nigerian public that the university grossly distorts the actual
sequence of events. Contrary to the official statement, we maintain that what happened on
Monday, 1st of February 1971 was an invasion of our campus by armed policemen who shot at
our students when they were carrying out a peaceful demonstration in defence of their
legitimate grievances.
Two facts were identified by the organisation as being the immediate cause of fuelling the crisis.
The first was the prolongation of the hunger strike that was due to the student lack of confidence
and trust in the university authorities arising, from a history of unfulfilled official promises. The
second reason was handing over of the university campus to the riot police, at a time that the
university authorities themselves knew that they could not control the police. The Academy
therefore called on the parents of the students and other concerned patriotic workers and their
associates to ensure that the shameful circumstances surrounding these deaths are thoroughly
investigated and exposed, to prevent our university from degenerating into a fascist institution.
This call was yielded by patriotic Ibadan market women who were enraged and disturbed by the
killing. They spontaneously embarked on a protest march to the Governors office, to express
their anger to the then military Governor Lt. General Adeyinka Adebayo. They threatened to
come back and fight back like wounded lions if such practice was repeated again and if the
killings of their children did not stop.
The matyr, Kunle Adepeju, whose parents happened to reside in Ibadan was buried at Molete
Page 39

burial ground. The burial was properly organised by the students unions government of the UI,
in the manner they wanted it. Students representatives across the country, patriotic workers,
professionals, market women, artisans and other poor Nigerians were in attendance to witness
the burial and the church service at St. Annes, Molete, Ibadan. Students at other universities in
the country reacted spontaneously to express their anger against the injustice. For instance, the
event led to a demonstration at University of Lagos which led to setting ablaze the police
stations close to the university (the two were located at the campus and Sabo quarters in Yaba).
Some of the students were arrested on reaching Adekunle police station at Yaba. Similar
demonstration took place at University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), Benin Institute
of Technology, Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Zaria, Kaduna Polytechnic, and Staff
Development Centre, Kaduna. At ABU, the effigy of Professor Adeoye Lambo (UI VC) was burnt
by the students, the placards carried at the students demonstration in Kaduna asked poetically
who is more dangerous police or cholera?
They (ABU) also sent 100 to UI students union whose account had been frozen. In Kano,
union students of the Abdullahi Bayero College demanded the removal of Professor Adeoye
Lambo in a protest letter handed over to the Kano State Commissioner for Home Affairs, Alhaji
Umaru Gumel. Student leaders all over the country converged at the present campus of The
Polytechnic, Ibadan to discuss how to honour one of theirs in death and commiserate with his
family and the Students Union of the University of Ibadan.
In relating the circumstances of the death of the first Nigerian student matyr, Kunle Adepeju to
students from other schools that converged at Ibadan, the union president, Solomon Abegunde
(popularly known as Chairman Mao) explained that the union called for a boycott of classes
after 72 hours that the university authorities had failed to respond to Zikist demands. This call,
according to him, was favourably responded to by students. It was after this that the VC called
them and informed them that the authorities wanted to close down the university. The president
of the union, Abegunde (Chairman Mao) stated further that the union advised him against taking
such an action. They told him that the union wanted to have a discussion with the students first
after which they were going to give him the feedback on their discussion. In his words, We
were about to report to him the voluntary decision of the students to end the strike and go back
to our halls of residence and classes when police started shooting volleys of tear gas. Then,
followed the spraying of the gas on the whole campus, principally directed at halls of residence,
the administrative block and the Jaja clinic where some students were receiving normal
emergency treatment. Abegunde accused the VC, as the cause of the whole confusion lacking
sense of crisis management. In his view, the VC should have waited for the students response
before calling the police into the campus. It was for this reason that students that have generally
agreed by consensus to call off their peaceful action and boycott of classes changed their
minds, on seeing the policemen. They were infuriated, hell was let loose. As the policemen
forged ahead against the students, they got scattered in several ways throwing mere pebbles at
the policemen. An orderly and organised students demonstration was allowed to degenerate
by the university authorities, culminating in the death of Kunle Adepeju. Despite Adepejus
death, the authorities did not deem it fit to commiserate with his family!
In the patriotic statement issued by Kunle Adepejus family, it was stated that
Our beloved son Kunle Adepeju filled the admission form and submitted same to the registrar,
University of Ibadan after paying the necessary fees, when found qualified he was admitted into
faculty of agriculture. The university authorities accepted responsibility to train this young
Page 40

budding Nigerian. The parents paid his fees regularly since 1968 and his records of
achievement are in our possession. The university authorities cannot therefore say that they do
not know that Kunle is in the university. It was alleged that on Monday, February 1, 1971, that
Kunle was shot dead by armed police on the university campus. Relatives, friends and well
wishers from far and near have been pouring into the residence of the alleged dead Kunle.
Today is Wednesday February 3, 1971; up till the moment of issuing this press release, the
university authorities has not thought it fit to inform us officially whether it was true Kunle has
been killed by police and what offence he has committed to warrant a cold blooded murder on
the campus of the university which he has gone in search of golden fleece. We have not seen
Kunle since Monday the 1st February 1971. We paid fees on Kunle to be educated at the
university and not to be murdered. We ask the Vice Chancellor and his staff where is our son,
Kunle Adepeju? What has he done to deserve this cruel death? Will Kunle die like this,
missing and unwept? Where is Kunle Adepeju?
In the reaction of Nigerian Trade Union Congress (NTUC) signed by its president, Comrade
Wahab O. Goodluck, the union recognised demonstration as a democratic right and a legitimate
weapon of the students, the world over to back their demands. The Congress therefore
condemned such barbarous onslaught, unleashed on the students, by calling in the armed
policemen and soldiers into educational institutions and working premises where students or
workers are on peaceful demonstration. The Congress promised that it will continue to support
with all the human and material resources at its disposal the total end to police terrorism and
brutality.
Comrade Ola Oni and his group decided to send emissaries round the country for assistance
from patriotic Nigeriens workers and professionals, to prosecute the struggle against the
injustice perpetrated by the University of Ibadan authorities and Gowons government. Yakub
Abdul Azzez, who was the Public Relation Officer of the union at University of Ibadan brought
the message from Ola Onis Academy of Arts, Science and Technology to a group of
progressive Nigerians in Lagos on the situation at Ibadan. At the meeting were Olu Awoyinfa,
Kanmi Ishola-Osobu, Gani Fawehinmi, Sola Oguntade, Ebenezer Babatope, and Jare Isafiade.
The meeting resolved that Fawehinmi, Kanmi Ishola-Oshobu and Sola Oguntade who were all
lawyers should defend the students. These lawyers have since then became very close
defenders of students causes. They will forever be remembered for their total commitment to
the cause of justice.
The avalanche of national reactions against the death of Kunle Adepeju nationally and
internationally made it impossible for the government to continue cover up this tragic incident.
As a result, Justice Kazeem was appointed as sole commissioner to probe the circumstances
that led to such tragic incident at University of Ibadan. The commission started its sitting on
February 10, at the old parliament building, Western State Secretariat, Ibadan. In attendance at
the opening ceremony and subsequent sittings were Messrs Yinka Ayoola, Olisa Chukura and
Funmi JIbowu (Barristers-at-law) who appears for the authorities of University of Ibadan; while
Dele Ige appeared for Kunle Adepejus family; Ibidapo Obe stood in for the state as a state
counsel, Messrs Gani Fawehinmi, Kanmi Ishola-Oshobu and Sola Oguntade stood for the
Students Union of University of Ibadan. Mr Emmanuel O.Olamosu stood in for Donald Fajuyi,
son of the late Western State Military Governor, Lt. Colonel Adekunle Fajuyi (who was among
the students that were injured during the attack from the police). Several university officials and
students appeared before the commission to give evidences. Among these were Professor
Adeoye Lambo (the Universitys Vice Chancellor), Mr. Nathaniel Adamalekun (the Universitys
Registrar), Mr. Oke (Chief Security), Mrs G.O. Apampa, Professor Wole Soyinka, Dr. Omafume
Page 41

Onoge representing the Nigerian Academy of Arts, Science and Technology, Mr. Odumuye,
Solomom Agunbiade and Yakubu Abdul Azeez representing the students.
The trial judge, in his opening address: We should realise that nobody is on trial here. Wole
Soyinka replied him to say: the commission recognises that no one is on trial. No single
individual. But society is on trial; that society into which much malformed matter has been
spewed by wrecking the backwaters of academic obscenities. He also reacted to comments
from certain quarters that some people are making political capital out of the students death:
they demand, was this not a political death? Said Soyinka, No one has bothered to
recognise of course that even for the students, most especially for the students, this is a
moment for self reappraisal the death of their comrade has however brought it into urgent
focus, they recognise that what internal revolution must take place within students identity must
take place now. It is too early to say what practical things will emerge from this exercise. What
is certain is that the long death of self criticism among students is at an end. From this event
which is the fascistic antithesis of everything a university should be, a situation has arisen which
cannot be allowed to peter out. There, definitely, we the heartless, conscienceless opportunists
will be found, exploiting away like mad.
At the probe panel itself, Wole Soyinka made certain revelation to indict the university system,
as it was constituted. Said he: the degradation of the whole university idea such as I
understand it, and as such as makes it one of the communities to which one should be proud to
belong, this degradation began at Ibadan, with outside interference over the Ikejiani affair in
1961 (This was in reference to a case of a senior lecturer of the university that was sanctioned
for wrong doings that involved compromising moral values and integrity of the university but the
same person was later chosen as a member of the university council).
Ideas such as autonomy, academic integrity and fierce intellectual pride were jettisoned; once
this initial compromise was made with power corruption. Since then, the attitudes of cynicism
was bred and even long after the initial causes were forgotten, this cynicism has continued to
permeate and to corrupt the sensibilities of new entrants, staffs and students who naturally
found their idealism unwanted and irrelevant. How else could one expect the faculty to react
when the chairman of the governing body of the university was none other than a former
lecturer who had been forced to resign for academic fraud; the university was handed over to
the political power structure Ife, Lagos, Nsukka followed suit, until we have the situation today
where most Deans, Professors and Vice Chancellors bend their energies only towards gratifying
the whims of whoever happens to hold the reins of power rather than to defending the university
idea for its own sake.
Soyinka concluded his statement by saying in this connection, I would like to say that it is a pity
that the terms of the Kazeem enquiry were made so broad. The reforms of the university should
come from within the university. It is directly related to the whole question of outside interference
in the running of the university, to the surrender of its autonomy to the transient manipulations of
political power.
For popular readership, a statement issued by students pointed out that the federal government
should strongly condemn the high handedness and repressive handling of student legitimate
grievances by the authorities of Ibadan. That: we demand for immediate removal of Professor
T.A.Lambo, and all administrative functionaries who were party to the authorities unconditional
handling over of the university campus to the riot police which led to the killing and the injuries
sustained by many students. That: we call for a review and overhaul of the present university
structure in this country. The specific changes should involve effective students participation in
Page 42

all the important organs and committees affecting the life of the universities, the abolition of any
privileged class on campuses and the establishment of greater association between all
segments of the university communities: staff, students, and workers. That: as soon as
possible the federal government should create a speedy and safe atmosphere to enable all
institutions continue their normal studies without further molestation and police intimidation.
That: the federal military government should carry out a general overhaul and reorganisation of
the Nigerian police as a means of infusing greater discipline and efficiency into this notorious
arm of its force whose ignoble relationship with citizens of this country has brought about ugly
and tragic incidents vis--vis farmers, workers and students: We therefore declare that our
present movement is in essence a fight against all the forces of evil and darkness operating in
our society; we also affirm that we are reflecting the genuine impulse of all the downtrodden and
oppressed peoples in our society: farmers, workers, market women, students, mothers and
fathers. The statement was signed by a Marxist student union president, Solomom Abegunde.
The position of students union on the tragic incident was advertised in the newspapers. At the
venue of the probe panel a lot of revelation came into the open. For instance, Corporal Osuolale
Sadeek, one of the police corps involved in the killing said that the bullets he fired on that day
did not hit Kunle but did not reveal the identity of the corps whose bullet actually did the
damage. All he could say as evidence was that he was not responsible for Kunles death, that
he fired nine shots into the air as ordered by his boss, that he was sure that none of these hit
Kunle Adepeju. Ibidapo Obe, the counsel to the probe panel asked Corporal Osuolale whether it
was the bullets of other corporals that killed Adepeju. He replied that he could not say. He said,
I am very sure about mine, he added. When he was asked to give an eye witness account of
what transpired that day as a participant in the operation, he explained that when he arrived at
the university, teargas was being shot at students who were then throwing stones, bottles and
other objects at buildings.
Furthermore, he said that when they realised that teargas was not enough to disperse the
students, he and other three riflemen were asked to get ready. At that point, according to him,
Osuolale, an order was given to the students to disperse peacefully but when they refused to
yield, the riflemen had no alternative than to fire at once. He told the commission of enquiries
that he did not regret his action at the university because he was only carrying out the
instruction of his boss who ordered him to fire. Another constable involved in the case, Mr. Albert
Ibikunle was accused of not being helpful to the probe panel. In the course of interrogation and
cross examination by all the counsels after the corporal had given his evidence, Justice
Kazeem, the sole commissioner of the panel observed that by the way the corps, Ibikunle
answered questions put to him; he was not helpful to the commission.
The judicial commission of Mr. Justice Kazeem dragged on for three months before it was
wound up. Despite this delay, the report of the commission was not released to the people in
good time. It was about a year before the federal governments White Paper on the report was
released to the public. In its report the commission found the Vice Chancellor, Professor Adeoye
Lambo, guilty of the cause of the incident that led to Adepejus death and charged him of
making error of judgements by not referring what took place on the evening of that day of the
incident to the senate.
The White Paper released by government of Gowon on Justice Kazeems report rejected most
of the recommendations of the commission. Some of the recommendations made by the
commission were: That the composition of the senate as provided for under paragraphs (3) to
(5) of the second schedule to the University of Ibadan Act 1962 be amended to enable
professors to be elected by their fellow professors instead of the present arrangement whereby
Page 43

they are members of that body as of right. That the hall masters be elected by the students
from among the senior members (officials) of those halls. That the position of hall masters be
properly honorific and that honoraria should no longer be paid to hall masters. Thus it would be
only those who are sufficiently interested in students welfare and activities that would be
maintained for election. That if, however, in the near future the duties of (hall) warden further
increase than they are at present, considerations might be given to the appointment of full time
wardens on the basis of the proposal made by Solomon Abegunde, President of the student
union. That as a matter of urgency, a working committee with sufficient students
representation be set up by the senate to review all matters relating to the power of discipline of
students with a view to an amendment of section 10 of the Act. Further rejection in the report by
the government was the commissions comment on the police by the commission which stated
that It is highly deplorable that policemen should be ordered to fire into air or not.
In defending the role of the police in the incident, the government White Paper stated that the
use of firearms on the relevant occasion was fully justified in the circumstances, though it
regretted that this resulted in the death of Adepeju. And that the commanding officer of the
police detachment Onagoruwas did exercise that discretion in good faith and was justified in law
to do so.
The straw that broke the camels back was the recommendation of the White Paper that ordered
each student to pay 1 to the university authorities for the damages done on the day of the
incident.
Unfortunately, for the government, the White Paper was released at a period when student were
already preparing for a year remembrance of their fallen martyr (Kunle Adepeju).
The White Paper was spontaneously rejected by the students across the country. NUNS
President, Olu Adegboro who himself was a Marxist student and close associate of Ola Oni set
the ball rolling by holding a press conference in Lagos. He condemned the White Paper which
he described as ...unjust, inequitable and inconsistent with the spirit in which it was set up. He
also chastised governments dismissal of Kazeem recommendation that ex-gratia compensation
be paid to the family of the late Adekunle Adepeju. The press conference ended with the
conclusion that no student of the University of Ibadan would pay the 1 levy ordered by the
government. The students did not end there. They went into action immediately thereafter. With
delegations of Nigerians students all over the country converging at the Tinubu Square Lagos,
bonfire was set up to burn four copies of the government White Paper on the Kazeem
commission.
On February 1972, the first anniversary of the death of Kunle Adepeju came to hand. Students
across the country arrived at University of Ibadan to participate in the anniversary. There was a
long peaceful procession of students starting from the UI campus (on a journey of about 13
kilometres) to Molete, Ibadan. The procession was militarily guided by contingent of 30
members of Pirate Confraternity (PC). Students wore specially designed vests which bore the
picture of the deceased martyr, Kunle Adepeju.
The occasion was magnified by many inspiring oratorical speeches given at the occasion.
Comrade Ola Oni was among respected scholars who gave oration at the grave side as in the
previous year. In attendance were Wole Soyinka, Bola Ige, UI Students Union president,
representatives of market women, the Nigeria Afro-Asian Solidarity Organisation and UI workers
union; NUNS president later launched NUNS black paper. The NUNS Black paper made an
eighteen point demands from the government. Key points among these includes: control of the
Page 44

circulation of the countrys wealth which was concentrated in the hands of few people.
Suggestion was made that any person that had more than 10,000 should forfeit the excess to
the state. They also called for the confiscation to the state, all assets and property of the
exploiters.
Ola Oni in his oration as Chairman of Nigeria Academy of Arts, Science and Technology read
out a Chinese poem of struggles written in deep blood at the graveside. The emotion that Ola
Oni put into reading the poem further incensed the people and made them to burst into tears.
Onis poem powerfully delivered at the occasion went thus:
Poems of the Revolt
The most they can do
The enemy can in no way
Take from us things that moves us
We stick to our guns, principles
That everywhere applies that we die for principle
For our liberation we give our blood
The wish that has on our hearts.
Splitting Blood
Ah! What is this?
That red stuff, what is it?
Blood; Yes, thats it.
Because of whom should I split blood
Why I so young be in this way?
Ah! Yes, that is so. Its just
That I am young and own nothing, worrying
Over the livelihood of my family
How I may educate myself then still more
About all the poor like myself and how they might live
Every worry concentrating
In my small heart how then could
Page 45

It be that I do not throw up blood?

Ah yes! We poor
Ought to split blood I see now
All can split blood not only I
And if the poor did not split blood
To cough it up for us?
But there is one thing
I still do not understand
Actually why is it that
I have to be so poor
Why have I to split blood?
Ola Oni and fellow Marxists especially students that were fondly being referred to as Ola Onis
boys exploited the opportunity, like Soyinka had rightly earlier argued in defence of political
activists for political ends. After all, the issue at stake is political. The opportunity was used to
expose the crisis in education which had long been persisting without attention. As they were
holding press conferences, numerous press releases were being published. Notable
outstanding poems were written by J.O. Osunkoya and G.G. Darah (both authors were also
student members of Ola Oni led organisation).
Osunkoyas poem went as thus:
Never an event without cause,
Never a cause without result
Some results seeming
Some results are vital,
Events always precede results,
That which took away Kunle was unprecedented,
In the history of ours,
A great soul was disunited.
Never was a soul assessed until his event of departure

Page 46

Never does a circle know is who amongst it

Till events couple results.
The day Kunle was disunited,
The value of the great soul
Was made known to the wise
It was painful even to the devil incarnates
Never has such honour been given to monarchs
Never shall be theirs for the value of great soul
Come and to the same circle
That mourns for thee
G.G. Darahs own poem was titled: Searching
(This was later published in Students popular magazine called ANVIL)
SEARCHING
I am the student voice
Searching for space
In the scroll of letter pages
I am the silenced voice searching
For echoes in silent senses
The brandied scorpion stung stingless
By honeyed tongues
I am the bell
Drugged to tranquil
By wooded canopies
Searching for camp
In the value silence melodies

Page 47

I am the under surface heaped

Bubble hurtling to surface
The surface of haze, maize
I am the unstring tune
Searching for twang in auditory palaces
I am the youths voice drowned like charcoal
Hiss amidst clatter
Of black smiths forge
I am todays voice
Tomorrows choice
Pleading, unheeded, unheard
At pedestal of adamant pinnacles
I am the young cry
Crying deserted, the only egret in the wilderness
Searching,
Searching,
Searching

The first anniversary of Kunle Adepojus murder by the state was commemorated by a memorial
lecture given by the number one critic of Gowons regime, Dr. Tai Solarin. Since then, February
1st of every year has become a day of remembrance of state attack, oppression, and murder
against innocent Nigerian students. Adepojus death, which culminated into a judicial
commission, has since brought into public focus, the gargantuan crisis in Nigerian education
sector most especially the undemocratic way the university were being run. All the efforts by the
government to cover this up failed woefully.
Even when the White Paper disclaimed the opinion and recommendations of Kazeem
Commission in this respect, the matter refuse to go away. Senate and Council of University of
Ibadan nevertheless made efforts to placate and assuage the students by accepting their
representation in many of the Universitys boards and committees. Boards where representation
were accepted include: Building, Works and Sites Committee (2 students); University Bookshop
(Nigeria) Limited (1 student; Consultative Committee on Community Development (3 students);
Joint Committee on Naming of Buildings (1 student); Committee on Security (2 students);
Page 48

Student Welfare Board (8 students); Library Committee (2 students); Career Board (2 students);
Ceremonials Committee (2 2 students); Sport Council (3 students); Press Council (3 students);
Staff/Students Lodging Bureau (5 students); Catering Board (11 students). But the council
rejected among others the representation of student in the Governing Council, Development
Committee, Finance and General Purposes Committee.
The Academy of Arts, Science and Technology brought forward the issue of democratisation of
education system in such a way that students can become part of the Governing Council and all
committees. This, according to the Academy, would help in preparing the students for the future
leadership of the country. The position of the Academy on democratisation was explicitly stated
in a statement signed by its president and secretary, Comrade Ola Oni and Dr. Bade Onimode
respectively. The statement titled: Critical Issue in the University Crisis was a response to
earlier UI Vice Chancellors address where he was trying to lay basis for a new democratic style
that will not only be advantageous to the teaching senior staffs but also to other levels of
workers and students that form greater percentage of university population.
The Vice Chancellor, in his address to the UI branch of Association of University Teachers (now
ASUU) pointed out: The university is a community which comprises students, senior staffs, and
workers, in the specific case of Ibadan University, out of a total population of about 15,000, the
students number about 7,000, the workers about 7,000 and senior staff less than 1,000 (1976
figure). Each of these groups has its own interest, perspectives and perceptions of university
events; to be just, any solution to this and other problems of the university should reflects the
perspective and interest of all (sic) the groups of the university community.
The Vice Chancellor has been and will always be committed to ensuring that the interest and
perspective of all the constituent units of the university community are considered at all times in
the decision making process. Ola Oni led Academy in response towards a more practical
proposal on the issue of bringing other categories of university community (students and junior
workers) into participation in decision making of the institution. In their four point proposal on
democratic governance in the Nigeria universities, Ola Oni and Bade Onimode stated: On the
senate, only democratically elected deans of faculties should be automatic members of senate,
all other senators must be elected on the faculty board, each faculty board should, have two
elected student representatives. Department heads should be elected by the academic staff of
each department.
The university council should have elected representatives of workers and students. This
concrete proposal put an end to the VC theoretical prognosis. So, with Kunle Adepejus death in
1971, student unionism in Nigeria was never the same again. Commemoration of his death
every year became a thorn in the flesh of successive military regimes. Ever since, no
reactionary policy emanated from government went unchallenged by students. Students were
the heroes and symbol of resistance against military in the 70s and Ola Oni and other radical
lecturers played a leading and central role in the success of the struggle.
The militant mood of the students hardly subsided (as a result of Kunles death) when Gowons
regime announced the introduction of National Youth Service programme. It was first mentioned
in December 1972 at Ahmadu Bello university (ABU), Zaria in a meeting that was to discuss the
implementation of the programme, four months before its expected implementation. On the
surface, the programme look plausible but students who had the greatest stake in the
programme were against it because it was prematurely planned. A programme of that nature
needed proper planning so as to guarantee its success. Moreover the students who were going
to be the major participants in the programme, supposed to be actively involved, consulted and
Page 49

taken into consideration in the planning stage.

However, the command system of military rule abhors cross fertilisation of ideas. The ViceChancellors welcome address at an inter-university workshop on National Youth Service did
not help matters. Said he: This is not a workshop to offer the head of state gratuitous advice on
alternative plans, which might include postponement, mass exemption or any alternative that
might be interpreted as national service dodging on our part. We must accept that the project:
National youth Service Corps is scheduled to start in July 1973 and that date is one of the fixed
points of our compass at this workshop. The essence of the workshop was to plan for a
successful launching of the programme itself and to discuss the implementation of the real
programme which the government has concluded in its agenda and was not ready to entertain
any interference or change on this, from any quarters.
All this students saw as diversionary. Many other Nigerians also kicked against the programme
and called for its postponement until a time it was well planned. Ola Oni introduced a different
dimension in his criticism of the programme. In a symposium organised by Association of
Economic Students at the University of Ibadan on the issue (NYSC) where he shared a platform
with some other lecturers like Professors C.O.A. Sowumi, Akeredolu Ale, Tekena Tamuno, E.C.
Edozien, Opeyemi Ola (University of Lagos), he berated the government on the scheme. He
said the government was only seeking for an easy way out of the prevailing difficult problems
confronting it. Though the aims of NYSC programme from inception was attractive i.e. to create
a spirit of self-reliance in young men and women newly graduated from universities; to give
them opportunities of getting to know their fellow country men and women and to realise the
objective of community development.
For Ola Oni, he argued that the ruling elite should first of all purge itself of its reactionary role in
nation building, before it could enjoy the support of the youths. He frowned at how the ruling
elite were hypocritically paying lip service to the countrys project while expecting the best from
the youths. This according to him was a contradiction. An umbrella organisation of all students,
NUNS also opposed the scheme and publicised their position in an advertorial announcement
carried in all Nigerian newspapers. It came out with detail analysis and reasons why they were
opposed to the programme.
In line with Ola Onis position NUNS stated the rapid social economic development and
political integration which the sense of dedication, national pride and consciousness is
inculcated in every Nigerians in both rulers and the ruled (both the government and the private
sectors). Worse still, these corps members are to be ditched into unemployment market after
the service. In spite of the logical and plausible arguments proffered by Ola Oni; Students and
others including the working class, the government went ahead to embark on the programme in
line with its militaristic culture. Gowon even went to the extent of threatening to deal ruthlessly
with those that were blackmailing his government on the issue.
The students reacted to this. A national coordinated action of student protest followed on
Monday March 5, 1973 to kick against the premature compulsory NYSC scheme. The entire
country was engulfed in a project against the new scheme. Student protest and demonstration
as mentioned became a yearly affair since 1971. Since the period, student activism became
more political and mature and the unions in various campuses were falling under the control of
socialist oriented student activists. The influence of Marxist ideas among students spread
especially when Banji Adegboro became NUNS President. And with the formation of Patriotic
Youth Movement of Nigeria (PYMN), political activism heightened. The development boosts the
political consciousness among Nigerian students. A high level of solidarity emerged as never
Page 50

seen before in the history of Nigeria student unionism.

Such solidarity in struggle had been exhibited many times. Typical of this was the solidarity
displayed by Nigerian students on the arrest of Univeristy of Lagos Student Union General
Secretary, Wole Olanipekun (among other arrested students) who was at University of Ibadan in
1974 for the 1st memorial anniversary of Kunle Adepejus death. The arrested students were
sent into various prison detentions in Agodi Ibadan, Ilesa and Warri. When the news of this
arrest spread, University of Lagos students went into action against the police. They protested
against the arrest of their colleagues and union leader. Some police were abducted. Within a
short space of time the protest spread spontaneously to other universities including University of
Benin, Nsukka and ABU, Zaria. Another case of student solidarity in action was the detention of
a teacher, Apa Aku, by name, who was then an anti-corruption crusader. He had a headlong
battle against a corrupt state Governor Mr. Gomwalk of Benue-Plateau State. Gowons regime
at the time plunged into a serious credibility crisis. Most of his commissioners have their hands
being soiled in corrupt practices. It took the pressure in the part of Nigerians to force J.S. Tarka
to resign his appointment as the Federal Commissioner of Communication having been
exposed for corrupt practices by his opponent, Godwin Daboh. The government of Gowon at
the time was stinking. Apa Aku was not the only victim of arrest under Gowons regime. Other
victims of the period that were known and recognised as vociferous critics of Gowons regime
and helped in winding it up were Comrade Ola Oni, Tai Solarin, Wole Soyinka, Edwin
Madunagu, Charles Akinde, Anthony Ngurube, Niyi Oniororo, Gbolagade Akintunde, Air Iyare,
Ebenezer Babatope, Gani Fawehinmi, Wahab Goodluck etc. They all passed through the holes
of Gowons prison houses.
The various releases issued by students at the time were testimony and evidence of their
maturity in waging combative struggle against the established instrument of oppression of
Nigerian state. Ola Oni always remind his ideological students of the importance of workers in
the struggle to achieve the ultimate objective of overthrowing the decadent capitalist system,
though he did not less recognise the heroic sacrifice of student activists as catalyst in the
revolutionary change. In the words of Karl Marx, Oni would emphasis: the mode of production
of material life conditions the general process of social, political and intellectual life. It is not the
consciousness of men that determines their existence, but their social existence that determines
their consciousness.
Truly, the struggle of the students had passed beyond selfish, bread and butter issue, but has
transformed into a politically inspired struggle, nationally and internationally affecting the lives of
every Nigerian. Ebenezer Babatope, in his book: Student Power in Nigeria (1956 1980)
captured the mood and the struggle of the period, he said: The moving spirits of the struggles
for peoples democracy at the University of Ibadan those days were the following students
whose names will go down in the history of this country as progressive young men who put in
everything they had, to fight the forces of reaction in the country. They include late Banji
Adegboro (President of University of Ibadan Students Union and NUNS; and was later expelled
by the university on raked up charges), Femi Bamgboye, Ben Oguntuase, V.I. Ozar, G.G.
Darah, Laoye Sanda, Segun Akinusi and Tunde Fatunde. The role of these students who
happened to be involved in the struggle for a better Nigerian society (even after leaving school)
was not fortuitous. All of them were members of Marxist Socialist Movement (MSM) at Ibadan
University and followers of Ola Oni socialist tendency.
A look at the demands of students of University of Ibadan and Ahmadu Bello University (ABU)
Zaria in 1975 show how their struggles have been linked with that of the people. In the press
release of these students in 1975, the government was called upon to meet the following
Page 51

demands: immediate end to the state of emergency, Abrogate decrees No 34 (emergency) and
53 (anti-strike); Release all political detainees Iyare, Madunagu and all students; The setting
up of peoples assembly composed of democratically elected leaders of peasants, workers,
students and professional associates to rule the country now; The utilisation of oil resources
for education at all levels for all the people now; The utilisation of oil resources for free medical
services; The utilisation of oil resources to house every family; Guarantee free press,
independent judiciary and independent autonomous university now; An end to the
discrimination against teacher training colleges now; Investigation of corruption in high places
now; Nationalisation of enterprises now and no to indigenisation for the enrichment of a few ;
In respect of ABU student, concrete issue pertaining to the Talakawas in the north were taking
care of. The demands stated as follows: We reject the Udoji recommendation in its totality and
call on the federal government to make known in a categorical statement on the progress so far
made on the armed forces salary review commission. The federal government should embark
as a matter of urgency on a programme towards providing free and adequate medical facilities,
pipe borne water, electricity, adequate and efficient infrastructures to the rural and as of now
forgotten areas; The federal government should waive community and cattle taxes and give
more subsidies to the various local authorities; In order to justify the benefits of the revenue
realised from the oil boom, free education should be provided at all levels; We call for the
immediate abrogation of Decree 24, which has accentuated arbitrary arrests, and violation of
the right of expression. In addition, we call for the immediate release of Iyare or his trial; All
NYSC members should be entitled to their graduate scale. However during the service,
members should be paid a uniform allowance and their arrears paid in lump sum immediately
after service; We sympathise with our brothers and sisters in the different professions and our
colleagues in other institutions of higher learning e.g. Colleges of technology and advanced
teacher /colleges of education and thereafter call on the federal military government to look into
their cases and come out with a solution immediately; We are convinced that the points we
have raised should form the cornerstone towards the delivery of this country.
The student strike of 1978 that has been popularly referred to as Ali-Must-Go can best be
described as a general strike of Nigerian students. It was a strike that shook the entire country,
to her foundation. The mobilisation for the strike was total and unprecedented. It covered the
every nook and cranny of the country. The action was not limited to students of universities and
other tertiary institutions. It involved also primary and secondary school students. The popular
action of 1978 may not be a surprise to watchers and keen observers of student activism in the
years running up to the big event. The protest took place against the background of an increase
in the fees for accommodation and feeding allowance. According to the new increase directive
from NUC, each undergraduate should pay =N=378 for feeding and =N=70 for lodging per
session. The meal ticket per meal before this increase cost 50kobo, with the increase, it was
raised to =N=1.50 (i.e. 300 per cent increase). The NUC explained that the new measures were
designed to salvage the universities from their poor financial predicaments. NUNS did all things
possible to prevail on the government to reverse the position and argued that such cost on
education could rather, be borne from other wasteful expenditures of the government than
making the students to pay for what they considered to be a right and which will serve as the
only way they were benefiting from oil money and taxes paid by their poor parents.
The protest started with a boycott of lectures throughout the country on 17 th April 1978. All the
press that covered the event remarked and testified that it was peaceful. But things changed the
day
after, on 18th April, when the police opened fire on students that were marching on to the Dodan
Barracks, the seat of the federal government (where the then head of state, General Olusegun
Page 52

Obasanjo resided) to lay their complaints. According to Babatope (1991), the federal
government had already told the police detachment drafted to the campus to open fire on the
students, should any attempt be made by the student to step beyond the gates of their campus.
This led to the killing of Akintunde Ojo, a part III student of environmental design at the
University of Lagos by the police bullet. Other casualties that were shot to death by the police at
the incident include Mukaila Bello a student of Premier College, Yaba, Lagos; Stephen
Balogun, a student of St. Finbarrs College, Akoka, Lagos; and a pregnant woman at Akoka. All
effort to safe Akintunde Ojo by taking him to University of Lagos Teaching Hospital proved
abortive. He died on his way. His death was a major twist in the whole struggle.
On reading the unfortunate plight of Akintunde Ojo the following day in the popular press,
students across the country became uncontrollable. The struggle that was originally planned to
be peaceful turned violent as a result of such police action. This infuriated other students across
the
country and made them to go violent. The situation at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria on 20 th
April 1978 was more worrisome (it aggravated beyond the level that was envisaged). The
disaster at ABU erupted when army Captain Officer in the military and a Sokoto prince could not
gain entrance into the campus, barricaded by the students. All pleading on his part to gain
access into the campus to see his friend was rebuffed by the students. It was reported that the
officer on leaving the scene of the barricade, threatened to show the students a lesson of their
lives. True to his words, this Captain Officer came back at the head of military detachment
advancing in all ferocity to the main gate of the ABU campus, Zaria. Before anyone knew what
was going on, the soldiers had started shooting at the students. Five students at a go were
murdered in cold blood in the shoot out while many others were seriously wounded. The five
students killed were: Nicholas Amani, Najib Daura, Lasisi Abubakar, Gwusu Khasai, and Nuhu
Amuda Yussuf.
The news of this unfortunate tragedy came to Nigerians as a surprise. The nation went into
another
mourning. The following day Friday 21 st April, 1978, the whole of Lagos was engulfed in a
mammoth demonstration. The demonstration went into the night and the whole metropolitan city
covered with smokes of governments burnt properties like the custom building along Ikorodu
road in Lagos and especially government vehicles. The popular slogan Ali-Must-Go which
became the demand of the students came into being on the street of Lagos from the protesters
who were (at that time) not limited to the students again. They included sympathisers of
students cause, school pupils, workers and the unemployed youths. The slogan was meant for
the removal of the then federal commissioner of education, Colonel Ahmadu Ali, who himself in
the years past was a student activist and union leader; he was the General Secretary of NUNS
when he was a student of the University of Ibadan. For him to have brazenly treated students
with disdain was highly unexpected and disgusted.
The National Emergency Committee for Democracy and Justice (NECDJ) led by Ola Oni
commented on the incident by saying: It is necessary that we state quite clearly, for ourselves
and posterity, the toll exacted by the armed police brutality and the extent of the savage
perpetrated. Nine students, workers and others are dead. The figure 9 is a cold statistic which
cannot adequately express the horrendous nature of the wanton destruction of life, the beatings,
injuries, indignities and anarchic, gratuitous brutality unleashed on students and the people in
Zaria, Lagos, Ibadan, Ife, Calabar and Benin last week. At Ife, the units of the Nigerian police
anti-riot squad terrorised the whole town for the whole day and in fact, arbitrarily closed the
major Ibadan-Ife highway on Wednesday, 19th April, beating and wounding many drivers coming
Page 53

from as far away as Cross River, Imo, Anambra and Bendel States and who unaware of the
arbitrary, abrupt closure of the highway.
In other to nip on bud the spreading of the demonstration and placate the aggrieved Nigerian
masses, the government immediately banned NUNS, its President Segun Okeowo was arrested
and detained for forty-four days while his lawyer Gani Fawehinmi, who had gone to court to
challenge this illegal detention of his client was detained for eight days. The government quickly
set up a 3-member judicial commission to probe the circumstances that let to the protest. While
the unsuspecting Nigerian society felt the government had established the commission of
inquiry to ensure that justice was meted out to all those who had murdered the students, the
government was however (actually) out to deal with radical forces within the various university
campuses suspected to have aided the students in their action.
Justice Usman Mohammed was announced as the Chairman of the Commission, while other
members include Dr. U.O. Eleazu (Director of National Policy Development Centre, one of the
think tank centre of Obasanjos regime) and Akintunde Ighodalo, retired permanent secretary in
Oyo State government in Nigeria. In buttressing the point for the motive of setting up the
commission of enquiry as spurious and aimed at the radical lecturers who were alleged of
teaching what they were not paid to teach at the very first day of the commissions sitting at the
National Arts Theatre, Iganmu, Lagos. The chairman of the commission, Justice Usman
Mohammed asked whether Comrade Ola Oni, Dr. Omafume Onoge, Dr. Akin Ojo, Dr. Bade
Onimode, Comrade Laoye Sanda and Dr. Wale Adeniran (who were then living at Ibadan) were
inside the hall. The impatience of the commission on these radicals became glaring when the
commission could not wait until it moved its sitting to Ibadan before asking the aforesaid radical
lecturers to present themselves to the commission. It became obvious that these left wing
lecturers must have been slated for crucifixion for their role in the crisis.
Comrade Ola Oni while testifying and giving evidence before the Mohammed Commission
made bold to describe himself as the chairman of the formed National Emergency Committee
for Democracy and Justice (NECDJ). The organisation he likened to the National Emergency
Committee that was formed against the background of 1949 Iva-Valley Enugu coal miners
massacre by the British colonialist police. The organisation was constituted after the tragic
massacres in order to ensure that there will be no cover up of the criminals who committed
them, The organisation led by Ola Oni later on set out to collect and collate all the newspaper
reports, radio and TV reports, reports by the universities, eyewitness accounts and statements
by Colonel Ahmed Ali and Professor Jibrin Aminu (NUC Chairman). It also called on patriotic
Nigerians that had information on the events to submit them to NECDJ. All information
received, according to it, will be treated in strict confidence.
It was at the peak of the 1978 protest that Ola Oni organised National Emergency Committee
for Democracy and Justice (NECDJ) of which he was the chairman. The committee major task
was to challenge the ruling class whose aim was to restrict education to its class alone, while
youths from the poor family were to be denied access to higher education. Ola Oni condemned
this action of Obasanjos regime to introduce accommodation and feeding fees as an attempt to
deny poor people children the right to education.
In Ola Onis opinion, education is both a right and a national need. And that education was one
of the basic means of human and cultural self-realisation as well as a means of realising the
productive powers of a nation. He stressed that the concept of development implies the
constant improvement in the quality of life in a nation, through the improvement of the
productive capacities of individuals. Education therefore, according to him, is a decisive tool. For
Page 54

Ola Oni on behalf of NECDJ made a comparative analysis of Nigeria with other African
countries endowed with lesser resources but yet are still able to meet the education needs for
her people. Countries like Tanzania, Angola, Mozambique which per capital income was lower
than that of Nigeria, were having free education. So, also was China, the most populated
country in the world, is able to provide free education at all levels. Even Ghana, with its
economic difficulties then still maintained the free education at all levels introduced by late
Kwame Nkrumah. He concluded that the problem of Nigeria in providing free education at all
levels is not the availability of resources but that of resource allocation. He maintained that the
crucial factor in a neo-colonial capitalist economy such as ours is that resources which should
be used for realising the basic needs of all the people, are monopolised and diverted for
realising the selfish objectives and distorted priorities of the ruling elite. That is why, according to
him, countrys resources was being wasted on festivals (FESTAC), jamborees, trade fair, Julius
Berger fly over, ring roads, massive importation of luxury cars and endless sumptuous state
cocktail parties etc.
Ola Oni in buttressing the class interest of educational neglect stated that the regime that was
quibbling about financing boarding and lodging of students why routinely and conveniently
subsidising the privileged class by way of allotment on health, transportation, estacode etc. The
same regime also remorselessly transferred national resources from the public sector to enrich
business men and contractors. Ola Oni worked and canvassed strenuously against this antipoor structural order be resisted. He argued that it was by so doing that the masses will not be
condemned to the reserve army of nannies, gardeners, cooks, stewards and other menials.
The left wing organisation, NECDJ provided an alternative suggestions on how free education
at all level, free medical services, adequate housing and transportation schemes can be
achieved as it is being enjoyed by 60 per cent of the worlds population living in socialist
societies (then). The organisation suggested that to achieve this basic need, the government
must accept to do the following: common ownership and comprehensively planned use of the
means of production now wasted and subjected to the anarchic control of individuals, full
employment of labour through which we can eliminate the present colossal wastage of human
resources, the introduction of comprehensive public transport network in order to eliminate the
squandering of our resources on the importation of private luxury cars, the repossession of our
national surplus which is now being drained away to foreign metropolis by the multi-nationals,
the abolition of state construction projects through the wasteful private contractor system,
which, to give one trenchant example, has been one of the major factors responsible for the
collapse of the UPE.
By simply restructuring our economy and priorities as above we can multiply the governmental
resources several fold for the provision of basic amenities. NECDJ pointed out that the issue of
democratic norms as a way of governance has to be tackled headlong. According to the
organisation, history shows abundantly that social crisis and conflict are endemic to expansion
of the democratic content of society. NECDJ therefore called on all progressive and patriotic
Nigerians to demand and struggle for the following immediate structural changes as an
aftermath of the 1978 Ali-Must-Go student protest: The abrogation of all decrees and laws
which restrict the freedom of popular assembly and peaceful demonstration through which the
masses can publicly articulate their grievances; the immediate release of the students and
workers detained; the lifting of the ban on NUNS; the restoration of Okeowo to the constituent
assembly, and the swift punishment of those who murdered the students and workers; The
democratisation of the composition of the service commissions of all the armed forces. The
organisation saw this as the only structural guarantee that the armed forces will never again be
deployed against students and workers. The democratisation of decision making organs and
Page 55

processes in our educational institution, that is representatives of parent, teacher associations,

as well as those of students and workers union should control the present undemocratic
composition of the NUC, the University Councils, and the various University Senates.
They also called for the immediate removal of Jibrin Aminu and Colonel Ahmadu Ali as they
epitomised the insensitive bureaucracy of the undemocratic education organs. They called on
all patriots to support the Nigerian students movement in their persistent struggle for free
education at all level. One impressive feature of the present students struggle which it pointed
out unlike the parochial, chauvinist, and divisive struggle of the elite class, the student union
was national and united: By transcending the spurious divisions of ethnicity, religion, and state;
the student by their united action have shown themselves to be one of the main integrative
forces in our nation today. The release ended by thanking the panel of lawyers led by Gani
Fawehinmi who (according to NECDJ) as in 1971 have again come to our aid in undertaking the
conduct of the legal defence of any student in any case arising from the present struggle.
Professor Tamuno (1989), remarks on NECDJ and event of the period as an academician rather
than administrator he was (as VC in 1978); he was able to drive the point home when he stated
inter-alia: Both in tone and content, the NECDJ press statement went beyond the rather time
limit of the NUNS and union release during the 1978 crisis; more combative, more forthright,
than the student approaches to the lack of winning minds to the cause of the weaker side in any
confrontation with the relevant authorities. He went further to state: any careful analysis of the
NECDJ statement on the 1978 crisis will clearly demonstrate that its premise and conclusions
rested on strong ideological convictions on the part of its academic, campus bound members
most of whom had, in the nature of their calling, had close relations with the aggrieved students.
Also as social scientists and critics, the NECDJ members most readily associated the plight of
students with that of the generality of Nigerian citizens whose basket of woes and complaints
they easily recited and recycled as part of their contribution to the battle of ideas during the
1978 crisis. Above all, they made invaluable contributions to the psychology of student unrest
in Nigeria. As such, the NECDJ members need not be dismissed as mere propagandists or
opportunists fishing, as it were, in troubled water. In respect of NECDJ Chairman, Tamuno
stated: its Chairman, Comrade Ola Oni, for example, had shown remarkable consistency in his
identification with several student protest movements seeking redress of intra-mural grievances
and advocating extra-mural reforms in the larger Nigerian society. For these roles, Onis critics
often pilloried him while student activists hailed him as a friend in word and deed.
This was the same Tamuno Tekana, a professor of history who was the Vice Chancellor
University of Ibadan at a very critical moment in the university (1974-1979). The report of
Usman Mohammed Commission and the governments white paper that followed the famous
1978 Ali-Must-Go students protest exposed clearly the lack of autonomy in the university
system. The commission recommended that radical lecturers led by Ola Oni should be
sanctioned for their role in the protest on the premise that they were not teaching what they
were hired to teach. They were accused of indoctrinating students with their preferred
ideologies and that there ( unbalanced exposure to different philosophies with a whole faculty
being rightist or leftist and not tolerating other views). The commission therefore recommends
that people involved in such advocacies as racial bigotry or racism, interethnic hatred, religious
chauvinism, violent revolution, occult arts and witchcraft (sic), ideology dogmatism etc. should
be shown the way out. But unfortunately, none of these categories of people except the last one
tagged ideological dogmatism were really known in the campuses. This goes a long way to
justify the position that the main and the only reason why the commission was set up was to
witch haunt the radical and socialist lecturers and administrators at the universities. The
inclusion of other identified categories of people said to be responsible for the crisis was just a
Page 56

smokescreen to sack Oni and his group of Marxist lecturers.

One would have thought that such recommendation will affect a person like Colonel Ahmadu Ali
whose utterances on the student protest confirmed that he was an ethnic chauvinist. Nothing
reveals this more than his angry response to the popular call for his resignation by Nigerians. At
a point, he described the Daily Times Editorial against him as ill motivated; he said that people
were calling for his head because he came from the northern part of Nigeria, forgetting however,
that the struggle was a national one, that casualties that came from ABU, Zaria in the north were
more than any other part of the country.
The commission also justified the killing of University of Lagos student Akintunde Ojo who died
out of the police bullet. According to the commission and the government white paper: students
demonstrating outside the universities should be treated like any other citizens and that
university authorities should not involve themselves in off campus demonstration for which
students should obtain clearance from the police, who would give such condition they see fit if
permission is given,. In respect of the summary dismissal of Comrade Ola Oni and his
colleagues neither the commission recommendation nor governments white paper see anything
wrong with the failure of the VC to refer the matter to the senate before taken action, a
testimony to lack of university autonomy in the country. While the Mohammed Commission in its
report recommended that in no circumstances should the army be invited again into any
Nigerian University campus to quell (sic) disturbance.
This should be left to the police assisted by efficiently engaged university campus security. On
the other hand, the federal military government in its white paper however moderated this view.
It stated: Government notes the extenuating belief expressed by the commission that some
soldiers went out illegally with live ammunition and shot students without orders to do so and
without the knowledge of their commander. Government however wishes to acquaint the public
with the internal security drill of the law enforcement agencies. In case of crisis, the police would
normally intervene using baton and tear gas. If the situation deteriorates, the police would issue
a warning when unheeded then the police would open fire and they normally shot at knee with
the intention of disabling rioters. If this fails and the army is called upon to restore law and order,
they would handle the situation in accordance with the mandatory internal security drills which is
routine.
However unlike the police, when soldiers find it necessary to shoot, they shoot to kill in
accordance with their training. Government therefore appeals to the public at large not to
create a situation whereby the army would be involved in maintaining law and order. The public
is however assured that the army would not be used except when it is absolutely necessary.
Government however rejects the recommendation of the commission that on no occasion
should the army be invited again to any Nigerian university campus to quell disturbance. This
recommendation, according to the government will not help the country in dealing with
disturbance if need arises in any part of the country.
With this line of argument, the government white paper directed the Chief of Army Staff to take
appropriate disciplinary action against the military officers involved in the Zaria shooting. In the
similar vein, the Inspector General of Police was required to take such disciplinary action as was
necessary concerning the police officers and men involved in the same incident. What is more?
The white paper report exposed the hypocrisy and downer standard of the ruling class on matter
like this. While on one hand, it referred the guilty military personnel to military institution for
necessary punishment while on the other hand it summarily sacked the universitys radical
lecturers and other administrators without referring their cases to the appropriate institutions in
Page 57

the university. Such practice would persist as long as reports of such commission of enquiries
are hidden from the public.
The 1978 student strike came as a surprise to many people especially when seen against the
background of close rapport that existed between the Muritala-Obasanjo governments and
students at inception. Muritala Mohammed, even as a military Head of State, on assumption of
office recognised students as a strong pressure group that should be seen as partner in
progress. Regular consultative meetings were taking place between the two parties. At such
meetings Major General Shehu Yaradua (Chief of Staff Supreme Headquarters) and Ahmadu Ali
(Commissioner of Education) and others used to lead the government side. While students
representatives at such meetings comprised of Segun Okeowo (President of NUNS), G.G.
Darah, Femi Bamgboye, Wale Kolabo, Sola Akinsuli, Ike Ozar and Yussuf Mamman. The
meetings were going on successfully and even continued by Obasanjos regime after the
assassination of General Muritala by Colonel Dimka on 13 th February 1976, six months after he
came to power. The cordial relationship between the government and students manifest itself
when Muritala, the military head of state was assassinated during Dimkas coup. Nigerian
student spontaneously went on the streets protesting against the coup and the assassination.
The end to the mutual relationship emerged with Obasanjos government who at a point
stopped the earlier consultative meeting where issues concerning students and education were
usually discussed. And before long he introduced school fees in the universities. History has
proved every military government to be deceitful. They may pretend at the inception to be in
support of the masses, but in the actual fact the aim is to consolidate them in power. Even in an
exceptional cases like that of Muritala Mohammed, it cannot be used to justify military rule
because however good an individual might be, the system is so undependable to render such
good work nugatory; and this was what happened in the history of military rule in Nigeria.
The 1978 Ali-Must-Go protest like all hitherto students demonstrations did not pass without
recording its casualties. The Mohammed Commission set up to probe into the remote and the
immediate causes of the crisis found Comrade Ola Oni guilty. All the notable members of his
organisation NECDJ were axed and made to suffer together with Ola Oni and were
compulsorily dismissed from service for their roles during the crisis. The list of casualties
includes Dr. Omafume Onoge, Dr. Akin Ojo, Dr. Bade Onimode, Wale Adeniran (all from the
University of Ibadan) and Laoye Sanda of The Polytechnic, Ibadan. Others include Dr. Edwin
Madunagu and Dr Benedicta Madunagu (both teaching at the University of Calabar), Ebenezer
Babatope and Dr. O.P. Sogbetun of the University of Lagos. Two Vice-Chancellors were also
affected; they were Professors J. Ade Ajayi and Iya Abubakar of University of Lagos and
Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria respectively. Bassey Ekpo Bassey a radical journalist with
Chronicle at Cross River State owned newspaper was summarily dismissed for alleged writing
an inciting article in support of the student struggle.
Included in the victimization list were students: Mr. Appah of University of Calabar was among
the dismissed students. Segun Okeowo came out of the struggle as a hero. Okeowo was a very
active student leader that will be remembered for his patriotism and his uncompromising
leadership. He earned a seat at the Constituent Assembly in 1978 to represent students
interest but this was subsequently withdrawn from him on the basis of his uncompromising
position. He was subsequently detained. He regained his freedom from detention after 44 days
following a ruling on a writ of habeas corpus and order of a Lagos High Court. Okeowo went to
University of Ife after his rustication for two years, to complete his study.
Ola Oni and his other comrades affected by the witch haunt in 1978 could not be recalled until
Page 58

the civilian government of the second republic came. They were all recalled in 1980 on
resolution of National Assembly fought for by ASUU under the leadership of Dr. Biodun Jeyifo.
As the affected people have tales of gloomy experience to tell. It was a step backward than the
Gowon brutality of 1973 when he gave an order to eject striking lecturers forcefully out of their
official residential quarters. In Obasanjos case he gave an order that all affected people should
not be entertained or employed in any working place in the public sector. That was why Dr,
Benedicta Madunagu for instance, who was given employment by the College of Education in
Uyo was withdrawn when the information reached the provost of the institution. In Dr. Omafume
Onoges case, he was not allowed to leave the country to assume his new appointment as a
Professor of Sociology at University of Dar-Es-Sallam in Tanzania. Onoge therefore remained in
Nigeria for upward of two years without a job. Not everybody could be lucky as Comrade Laoye
Sanda who was readily appointed as a project manager in his uncles industrial company. Dr.
Akin Ojo went into partnership immediately with some financiers in computer business.
Comrade Ola Oni was contented with managing his brothers (Niyi Oniororo) publishing
company.
Onoge used to describe the event as Obasanjos heresy, a distortion to scholarship in Nigeria.
It is the belief of Onoge that all over what MAMSER did later under Babangida regime which
gulped hundred of millions of Naira was exactly part of what they aim to achieve and had been
doing this before they were axed and dislodged by Obasanjo military junta.

Page 59

CHAPTER SIX: DEMOCRATIC PLATFORMS

It is only recently that most Nigerians have come to realize that the leadership problem
in Nigeria has become chronic. Since independence in 1960, we have not really succeeded in
having visionary and pro-poor peoples leaders at the helm of affairs. What we have had are
rulers who got to power through ballot rigging and military coups and not leaders freely elected
by the poor masses. These rulers have then ruled in the interests of the corrupt and rather than
the majority of poor people in Nigeria.
Leadership functions range from such roles as: planner, policy maker, executive, expert,
group ambassador, facilitator of gratifications and punishments, exemplar and the symbol of a
group. Leadership in essence aims to meet a situational challenge. Ola Oni like Marx, Engels,
Lenin, Trotsky, CLR James and Africans like Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral before him, believed that
the political leadership which had been located in non-productive groups of wisdom-seekers,
divine monarchs or property owners must unambiguously be shifted to the mass majority
(working class) whose primary attribute was the production of the sustenance of society.
Like the bourgeoisie replaced feudal rule and pushed society forward in a modern
direction, so future progress now lies with the ascendancy to leadership of the proletariat whose
objective material and cultural interests coincide with the future advancement of a socialist
democracy.
Ola Oni spent over half a century pursuing this cause. In clarifying his mission, he
succinctly made it clear on several occasions that no bourgeois leader however benevolent can
solve the problems of capitalist society in favour of the poor majority. Any leader who accepts
operating within the capitalist system must also be compelled by economic crises within the
system to oppress and suppress the mass of working people. No capitalist leader can allow the
interests of the poor people to be the primary concern of government. He further argued that:
the changes expected by the working people will not and cannot be brought about by
any capitalist leader. It is the working people themselves - in organized action of struggle
against the imperialist and their domestic agents who can change their conditions for the
better. It is the working people, led by the organized working class that can end the
capitalist system and bring about the proletarian socialist changes.
In reacting to the issue of military intervention in politics which was perceived as
progressive by some leftists, Oni argued,
that such ways of militarist socialism coming from the top is unreliable for it tends to
promote the interest of few privileged bureaucratic elites that control and manage all
these institutions. When situations like these occur, the working people must know that
they still have to continue to organize themselves to see that the real power is
democratically held by them. Military socialism, that does not recognize and allow the
working masses to control power, cannot pass the test of being called a proletarian
socialist government.
Jerry Rawlings of Ghana and Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia were typical examples
of military socialists that later turned against the people who helped them gain power. Many of
their victims were sent into exile and many others were executed. Ola Oni was one of the few
socialists who were not carried away by the euphoria of the military. Oni identified various forms
of military oppression that had taken place since 1966, despite the promises on coming to
Page 60

power of correcting the anomalies of the civilian politicians before them. This led Oni to state
that:
In Nigeria since independence, the ruling regimes have not hesitated to make the
democratic rights granted in the Nigerian constitutions meaningless. Labour laws were
imposed to restrict the rights to free and independent trade unionism. Military regimes
deprived people of basic rights to political action; passed arbitrary detention decrees;
promoted repressive bureaucracy in educational institutions to silence students militancy;
banned unions of workers and students and proscribed the right of people to peaceful
assembly and demonstrations.
Ola Oni distinguished himself as an authentic leader who espoused revolutionary ideas
and created movements that aimed to supplant the existing oppressive, exploitative and
backward social order.
He may not have been as lucky as Kwame Nkrumah, Vladimir Ilyrich (Ulyanov) Lenin,
Leon Trotsky, Nyerere, Nelson Mandela, Patrick Lumumba etc. They were revolutionaries,
socialists or nationalists, but also became rulers of their countries. Ola Oni like Martin Luther
King, Malcom X, Franz Fanon, Amicar Calbral, Walter Rodney etc, stood for democratic ideals.
He also helped to shape and influenced the world by the movements he created and initiated.
Undoubtedly he influenced nothing less than five generations of students of Marxism.
Omafume Onoge observed a pattern of how authentic leaders like Ola Oni associated
with the poor people whose cause they were fighting. In his discourse on leadership, Onoge
pointed out that:
Only a leadership that has maximum empathy for the people can be relevant to the
qualitative movement of the nation. External signs of such empathy include the leaders
simplicity, even in forms of dress. His presentation of self does not alienate the people.
This is the reason genuine leaders like Ola Oni could not be distinguished from peasant
farmers or proletarian workers in the style of their dress and austere material needs. Ola Oni
had all opportunities to acquire wealth and properties if he wanted to do so, but he did not
choose this way of life because he had confidence in power of the people to bring about a
socialist revolution. Even if this did not happen in his lifetime, it did not matter. His confidence in
revolution was wholesome. It was enough that he had done what he could for the future benefit
of the workers and popular masses.
As Mukwugo Okoye put it: for us, the aim if reached or not makes life great. Try to be
Shakespeare, leave the rest to fate. Even if these lofty ideals could not be realised in his life
time, he was sure that future generations would take up the struggle where providence had
allowed him to stop. That was why more than anybody else of his generation, he laboured until
his last breathe on earth, to impact socialist ideas on the younger generation.
In Nigeria today, national greatness is defined in terms of wealth and military might,
where the emphasis is on how to develop instruments and institutions of coercion while the
Nigerian people are victims of hunger and lack of education. Such a situation as this has been
made into a state culture. The degrading depth to which this consciousness has sunk is a
consequence of this superman image. The view recently canvassed by certain politicians is that
the injustice of June 12 2003 should be accepted by conceiving it as a military coup. Ola Oni
never regretted his association with the popular masses in whose interest he was committed. As
he said:
Page 61

Although we are poor as a political family, we enjoy the happiness we have that we
are involved in the struggles. This gives us hope.
Experience of history has confirmed how abandoned ideas of yesteryears resurface
again after several years and became an inspiration for great changes. It should be recalled:
that the great Asoka of India built his mighty empire on the ideas of Gautama
Buddha, Charlemagne on those of Christ, Lenin on those of Marx, as Hitler modelled his
Third Reich after Nietzsches lunatic visions and that Rousseau, John Stuart Mill and
John Locke gave powerful inspiration to democratic revolutions in Europe, America, Asia
and Africa.
Ola Oni, more than anybody of his generation must have been counted lucky, although
his revolutionary work did not translate into revolution or political change. It must also be
recognized that ideas are not created out of a vacuum as abstract thought but they are a
product of economic condition, the firmament, dissatisfaction and instinctive purposes that
already exist in society. The events of June 12, 1993 stirred up the Nigerian masses against
the oppressive military junta of Babangida and then Abacha for five years.
This was a good case of the role that philosophers can play in politics. Ola Oni together
with others like Beko Ransome Kuti, Anthony Enaohoro, Frank Kokori, Gani Fawehinmi, Pa
Micheal Ajasin, Femi Aborisade, Prof. Wole Soyinka, Femi Falana, Chima Ubani and
organizations such as United Action for Democracy (UAD), Campaign for Democracy (CD),
Joint Action Committee of Nigeria (JACON), Labour Militant (LM), Civil Liberties Organisation
(CLO), National Conscience Party (NCP), National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), the press
and others rose up to the challenges of defending the June 12, 1993 election result won by
Chief MKO Abiola.
Who ever envisaged that the work of these human rights and socialist activists could stir
up such magnificent mass of Nigerians in their millions? Not even the Babangidas and Abachas
of this world could believe what they saw. This was what Mukwogo Okoye meant when he
asserted:
For tens of thousands of people who normally desire peace, decorum and
security above everything do not rise up in revolt and thus risk their jobs, their lives or
their friendships in the quest of a mirage at the bidding of a philosophical visionary. But if
the social and economic conditions are such that their day-to-day sufferings grow and life
becomes almost an intolerable burden, that even the weak and cowardly are prepared to
take risks and do so. It is then that they listen to the voice of the philosophical agitator
who seems to show them a way out of their misery.
Such responses by the people to the call of the philosophers earned great honour and
acceptance in society, though this did not necessarily crystallize into success during elections.
Probably, as it is usually said, politics is an area not meant for philosophers. For according to
Voltaire, the two most important objects of philosophy are the discovery of what is true and the
practice of what is good. In contrast, politics does not always depend on rationality or good
intention for success.
In Nigeria, politics can be described as a rough game in which grit, cunning and
endurance are often necessary for success; it has its bagful of perils and disappointments and
Page 62

not infrequently it is those who can play on the habits, ambitions, rivalries, fears, hopes and
greed of others, who carry away the great prizes. Successful politicians among intellectuals in
history though few, were characterized by their toughness, cunning and cynicism; success in the
highly amoral and competitive game of politics seems to be marked out for men who like the
fox, the owl, the spider, and bat grow fat by sweet reserve and modesty. Events in Nigeria over
the years confirm this assertion hence the reasons that politics is being associated with
violence, deceit, corruption, hypocrisy and procrastination.
It is not without trying and involvement in politics that philosophers of the past, like the
contemporary ones, did not become successful politicians. Great men like Bertrand Russell
(Britain), Jean-Paul Sartre (France), S. Radhakrishnan (India) and others including Ibn Khaldun
(Tunisia), Hegel (Germany), Karl Marx (Germany), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France), John
Stuart Mills (Britain), all tried their hands in politics without making a success of it, but are better
known for their philosophical contributions. This dictum is not without its precedents among the
great ancient philosophers such as the Greek Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Confucius (China).
Anaxagoras Diou who generally believed in the Platos famous statement
Until philosophers are kings and princess of the world have the spirit and love of
philosophy and wisdom; and political leadership meet in the same person cities will
never cease from ill, nor the human race.
They were all made to pay for all their efforts to turn the kings into philosophers during
their time. Socrates was forced to commit suicide, Plato was sold to slavery, Diou went into
exile for ten years and was later murdered and Aristotle died in exile after having been a tutor to
the young Alexander of Macedon for good six years and lectured at his Lyceum for twelve years.
Confucius, who was consulted by the Princess Dukes, was exiled from three states in China
Chi, Sing and Wei, before finally he restricted himself to his home state Lu where he later
became a successful intellectual, including cultural studies, poetry, ethics, ceremonies, music
and literature.
The urge to take theory and ideas to practical struggles where they can be tested, to
Oni, this was revolutionary practice. This explains why Oni was always involved at all levels of
politicking even at odd time despite the popular perception that there were no honest people in
politics. Oni knew that if we were to wait until politicians were honest, we would surely wait for
eternity. Oni went into practical politics with politicians to carry out his programme of how society
should be organised. Events have shown that he did not keep quiet when he was supposed to
be crying out. Many a time he broke his relationship with influential and notable political figures
when his principles conflicted with theirs.
There was a time Ola Oni joined Chief Obafemi Awolowos party, the Unity Party of
Nigeria (UPN) after the non-registration of his own party during the second republic (1979
1983); he could not stay long with this party more than 6 months for ideological and tactical
differences. Although Awo was an icon and a well celebrated politician, Ola Oni never tired of
criticizing Chief Awolowo on current political issues, even at the risk of being isolated from such
people. Many Marxist students who came into political limelight in the second republic came in
through this background. Ola Oni contended that Chief Awolowo came to accept socialism only
later in life after he was released from prison in 1966.
According to Ola Oni, Awo agreed to the nationalization of the commanding heights of
the economy, but Ola Oni recollected that Awo differentiated between his own form of socialism
which he referred to as Democratic Socialism and Revolutionary Socialism which was
Page 63

more widely known and generally referred to as Communism. One of Awolowos arguments
against revolutionary socialism was that it was associated with violence, whereas he believed
socialism could be achieved gradually and peacefully especially in Africa.
Some do not see the success in Awos political career in his position as a national
opposition leader, but with the successful implementation of his welfare programmes for the
masses of Western Nigeria. He was premier of the Western Region for four years before going
to the National House of Representative at the centre. While the Nnamdi Azikwe led National
Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) (which the Trade Union Congress affiliated to in
1946) collaborated with the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) to form government at the
center with Alhaji Tafawa Balewa as the Prime Minister, Awo occupied the position of National
Opposition Leader. Awo was also able to use this position to canvass for the programme of his
party and drew support to himself and his party for this reason.
Despite the mass support Awo and his party enjoyed in the west and other parts of
Nigeria, Ola Oni did not spare Awo. His polemics against Awo and his programme of welfarism
was unequalled. Oni never stop exposing the limitations of the Unity Party of Nigerias welfarist
programme which essentially was meant to deceive people and stop them moving towards
socialism.
Although Awoists claim to stand for socialism, this was disclaimed by Ola Oni. He
grouped them within what he called Welfare Liberal reformism. He pointed out that Awos
thoughts as contained in his books: Thoughts on Nigerian Constitution (1966), The Peoples
Republic (1967) and The Strategy and Tactics of the Peoples Republic (1970) that represented
the action and policy of his party was very bourgeois in perspective. He went further to say that
the world outlook as enshrined in these writings did not go beyond the application of bourgeois
economics and British bourgeois constitutional law to Nigerian problems. Awos thought
therefore merely looked at the defects of capitalism from the perspective of Keynesian
economics and Christian ethics. This is the very reason that this programme (Awos thought)
largely resembled the welfare programme of the British Labour Party and the Liberal Beveridge
welfare state of the 1940s.
Ola Oni argued that the central strategy of the welfarists was directed towards resolving
the contradictions between the ruling class and the working masses. They canvassed for the
government to give more concessions to the masses to achieve stability in the system which
they thought was otherwise at risk. So Ola Oni argued that the welfarists are just concerned with
the preservation of the present system of neo-colonial capitalism like the conservative liberals.
This is the very reason that the programme of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) for instance was
so concerned about the provision of social amenities and opportunities for the masses as a way
of advancing the capitalist mode of development of the country. The party tried to achieve this
goal by using state power to redistribute income and wealth; and using the budgetary processes
to divert this wealth from the rich to the poor so that the gap between the two classes was
reduced.
In Ola Onis view, the poverty of the welfarist tendency was exposed in practice in the
five states under the control of the UPN in the second republic (1979-83). Ola Oni maintained
that, in terms of resource mobilisation and implementing projects, there was no difference
between the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and other liberal conservative parties like the National
Party of Nigeria (NPN), the Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP) and the Great Nigerian Peoples
Party (GNPP).

Page 64

This is the very reason that the UPN was restricted to the annual traditional ritual of
budgeting expenditure for implementing projects. So, if they could not get funds from the federal
government, they would be in serious trouble. These welfarist governments like their
conservative counterparts engaged in the contract system as way of implementing projects and
their expenditures were geared towards enriching private capitalists. Ola Oni also identified the
common ground shared by both tendencies. They both believed in returning to lassez-faire
economics and the rejuvenation of capitalism. Both also agreed to attract and encourage more
inflows of imperialist capital into the country.
In contrast to the welfarists, the conservative liberal reformists do not apologise for
capitalism. They believe that capitalism can work if the state withdraws from its involvement in
the economy. They are opposed to state ownership and management of economic projects and
argue that the state should sell its shares in many state owned companies. They believe that the
parastatals, such as the Airways, the Railways, the Post Office, National Electric Power
Authority (NEPA), Ports, should be turned over to private capitalists. They also argue that all
controlled state institutions like the universities should try to organise profit-making projects to
get funds rather than just relying on the state for money. They believe that the state should
restrict itself to laying favourable foundations for private capitalism by providing subsidised
services, allocating funds to financial institutions to provide loans to the productive sector. These
conservative reformists also canvassed for large scale capitalist farming, scientific resultoriented management, workers to be remunerated in accordance to their productivity, educated
elites to go into scientific farming, agro-allied industries to be established and encouraged, iron
and steel industries developed for the economy, foreign capital to be discouraged and a
premium placed on small enterprises.
This economic agenda was pursued by the conservative leadership of the country
(including military rulers) in the period of Alhaji Shehu Shagari, Ibrahim Babangida, Shonekan,
Sanni Abacha, Abdulsallam Abubakar, Olusegun Obasanjo and more recently under Alhaji Umar
Yaradua and Goodluck Jonathan. These policies are therefore not strange but the programme
is now being implemented to the letter as never before.
Despite the differences between each tendency (conservatives and welfarists) in the
area of economics, they have much in common in the area of politics. They both believe in
political stability and the lack of this can largely be traced to the absence of unity. Ola Oni went
further to identify the contradiction of the welfarist liberal reformists that gave the impression that
they were fighting for the interests of the poor masses in addressing the redistribution of wealth
in society, whereas in the area of politics where this economic structure can be made
practicable, their position is very evasive and has nothing to offer to the masses. The capitalist
interest that is common to each tendency is the very reason that they are united on how the
political problem of the country can be resolved.
They all believe in federalism as a way of achieving stability and unity. The only
disagreement between them is in its form for how to meet the interests of the particular ethnic
groups which they claim to champion; hence the agreement between them on the need to
create more states. They believe that stability can only come by allowing all the ethnic groups in
the country to be catered for with their own states. And that the domination of one ethnic group
by another cannot make for a united and stable country. In order to achieve this aim the
positions and privileges at the centre must be shared out equitably in accordance with the
federal character, Oni insisted. Ola Oni further stressed that the liberals therefore frowned at a
highly centralised federalism. They seemed to prefer cooperative federalism in which the centre
becomes a forum for sharing power and resources. To these liberals, the issue of expanding
Page 65

freedom and democracy for the masses is not one of the goals of political reform. They are
more concerned about reforms for stabilising their dictatorship and for creating favourable
appropriation of capital. They are not able to see how the political problems are tied up with the
process of competitive capital accumulation. In reality, it can also be said that this agreement of
the ruling class in theory does not hold. Often times the latent contradictions in the system burst
into the open and this leads to disability. The Civil War (1967 1970) and the June 12, 1993
revolts were good examples.
Awos general conception of socialism was influenced by the general idea that this
represented by state capitalism in the former Soviet Union and other Eastern European states.
The fact is that, the classic socialist revolution of October 1917 in Russia was achieved
without bloodshed. Violence only came in 1918 when the reactionary forces (both feudalists and
bourgeoisies) that had been deprived of power, launched a war to stage a comeback. All
Marxists share the idea that no ruling class would want to abdicate power. It is not enough to
carry out a revolution or come to power. What really matters is how to defend the socialist state.
Radical military officers like Murtala Mohammed in Nigeria, Thomas Sankara in Burkina Fasso
or Jerry Rawlings in Ghana were overthrown by reactionary forces. Only a socialist revolution
from below of the organised working class supported by the poor masses and led by a strong
revolutionary party can withstand a counter-revolutionary onslaught. Socialism is the self
emancipation of the working class who will defend their revolution to the extent that may be
necessary.
Awo had the whole conception of revolution wrong by associating it with violence.
Trotsky, who led the Red Army of Russian Revolution, put it aptly by saying that the work of a
revolutionary project was eighty-five percent (85%) political and fifteen percent (15%) military. As
such, military questions are not primary for socialist revolutionaries. For a revolution to be
successful it must, first of all, to be won in the minds of the mass of poor people.
The fundamental area of disagreement between Awolowo and Ola Oni was in the area
of class struggle. Oni renounced Awos postulation and his theory of the end justifies the
means approach. According to Ola Oni:
Awo did not seem to appreciate sufficiently the problems of the transition from
capitalism to socialism. He just refused to accept that such a transition involves social
struggle between those who benefit from capitalism and the masses who are at the
receiving end, being exploited and victims of oppression . . . The issue is not a question of
what one wishes. It is a question of abiding by scientific laws of social change . . . When it
comes to understanding social change, the bourgeoisies knowledge of society cannot
make us get at the truth, in this regard, Marxist knowledge is the gate-way out.
The capitalist system is an arrangement that exists to serve the interests of the
capitalist while socialism is an arrangement for liberating the masses from them. Such
liberation can only be achieved by the masses themselves by struggling against the
resistance of the capitalists.
Awo did not agree to this. His view was that winning votes in elections and
parliamentary legislatures are sufficient to bring socialism about. But we must observe
that Awo went as far as accepting dialectics, even though an ethical one, that changes
take place by progressive resolution of contradictions in which evil is not permanent and
will eventually be replaced by good. It means that he accepts that socialism which
represents the good is bound to displace capitalism which represents evil ...Where Awo
Page 66

went wrong was not to recognize that contradictory relations in thought, in matter or in
society were relations of struggle, because the survival of one calls for the destruction of
the other.
In a capitalist society, this struggle is a process of struggle for power. The working
people know from practical experience that they have to organize and fight before their
employers or the ruling class will grant some token benefits for their welfare; and if the
goal is socialism the exploited masses will have to wrestle power from the capitalists
before socialism or the socialist objective can be realized.
The real source of Awos error was his non-recognition of socialism as a liberating
ideology for the emancipation of the masses from capitalism. Socialism means more than
just a system providing for the peoples material well-being, free education, free health
services, securities etc. The key essence of socialism is that it is a system in which
exploitation of the working masses is abolished and genuine equality (that could last)
exists because economic and political power is democratized . . . The real difference
therefore, between a (welfarist) capitalist system and a socialist one is that in the former,
the capitalist monopolize economic and political power which enables them to exploit the
masses, whereas in the socialist system the monopoly of power by a few will not exist
and will be democratically controlled by the people.
Probably, events of the time in Nigeria with the annulment of June 12, 1993 presidential
election, won by MKO Abiola, would have taught Obafemi Awolowo a big lesson if he lived
longer. And most probably he would have reconsidered his belief in the peaceful approach to
achieving socialism through the electoral process. There is no doubt that such cases abound
across the world and particularly in Africa. Other examples of socialists being removed by force
include Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Thomas Sankara in Burkina Fasso, Allende in Chile and the
recent annulment of elections in Algeria and Burma. Military intervention and coups to replace
democratic processes and progressive regimes is still part of bourgeois antics as the recent
history of Venezuela shows. If they could not tolerate the bourgeois regime of Abiola for
instance, how on earth could they tolerate a socialist regime of Awo? The annulment of the June
12, 1993 elections was just a continuation of the rigging election tactics of the first and second
republics of Nigeria.
Mahmud Tukur, who shared common perspectives with Ola Oni described the situation
more aptly (at Bala Mohammeds anniversary) when he said:
the struggle to establish true and meaningful democracy in Nigeria is not going to
be easy. This struggle is going to demand very great sacrifices on the part of those
participating in it, sacrifices including the supreme one. It means also that those who
enjoyed privileges in the past are not going to give up easily those privileges just because
of arguments, however, strong and cogent those arguments may be. They are going to
fight and employ all dubious and fascist means to sustain their power and privileges
including eliminations . . . All the talk about religion and God coming from these people,
who are enjoying privileges, is a smoke-screen put up to fool the masses, the downtrodden. These dubious people believe in no God, they believe in no life thereafter, they
believe in no life apart from this one and if you try to intervene between them and their
privileges, they will eliminate you unless you are prepared to face them . . . (Therefore),
we should not fool ourselves that Nigeria is different from those other countries like
Britain, the United States, France and the Soviet Union where very bitter civil wars had to
be fought before democracy could be established, including democracy of the bourgeois
Page 67

variety. And it also means that all this talk about history not repeating itself, that since
Nigeria had already fought a civil war, it is not likely to fight another is sheer nonsense. It
is bunkum.
Tukur concluded by stating that: there is every indication that history is about to repeat
itself in Nigeria and that unless those who truly believe in the peace, tranquillity and stability of
Nigeria, those who believe in progress and peace, try very hard, there is also no avoiding
another civil war.
A decade after this prophetic statement, Nigeria is fast moving towards the brink of civil
war. A lot of things have happened to-date. A popular election that was believed to be the most
free and fair in the annals of Nigerian history was annulled by Babangidas military junta; only to
be replaced by another Military junta personified by Sanni Abacha. Abacha started from where
Babangida stopped. He detained the winner of the June 12 1993 Presidential election MKO
Abiola for four years before he finally died in detention. Many opposition leaders especially
labour and human rights activists were incarcerated in detention while some others, were driven
into exile; still others, including journalists, were framed for plotting a coup. Mrs. Kudirat Abiola,
Rewane Alfred, Ken Saro-Wiwa and others were killed by the Abacha led government.
Another way of looking at the shortcoming of reformism, as represented by Awolowo, is
the fact that with his contribution of free education in the old Western region, the succeeding
regimes have crippled this achievement and it remains a thing of the past only to be
remembered as a historical fact from the archives. For a lasting solution to the problem of
humanity, poor-people must be carried along, properly mobilized to implement the changes
themselves. By so doing it will become difficult, if not impossible, for such changes to be
overturned by any succeeding reactionary forces. Hence the relevance of socialist ideology as
canvassed by Ola Oni, as an instrument of achieving societal change. Democracy and morality
in government as experienced today in the Western world is as a result of the bourgeois
revolution which they passed through during their political development. Even this remains
limited and the real power still remains in the hands of the rich.
Furthermore, even if state capitalism, mistakenly referred to as state socialism, was to
be achieved through democratic means: such success could not be guaranteed, on a
permanent basis, without putting the economic and political power in the hands of the working
masses and linking the struggle with that of the international working class. Oni pointed out that
Awos programme is therefore likely to lead us to state socialism which in the face of
imperialist aggression will be very difficult to sustain.
Oni must have been cautious in his choice of the words state socialism to describe
state capitalism as the ultimate goal of Awos ideology. This is because there is a big gulf
between state capitalism and scientific socialism. While state capitalism describes a system in
which party leaders exercise bureaucratic control to manage state economy as well as political
institutions; which made it possible to dish out welfare programme. On the other hand, scientific
socialism tends towards removing bureaucratization of control in both political and economic
institutions. It provides for working class control of the economy and their participation in the
administration of the entire society at different levels of governance. It is only by this means that
enough resources can be generated and made available with nationalization. This can be
equitably shared among the working people themselves, by their own decisions.
Many meetings were called with the aim of developing a united revolutionary party but
these failed. Comrade Ola Oni and his group, after having sacrificed and made compassionate
Page 68

efforts in this manner, finally concluded that unity will come in the course of practice and is not
something that can be achieved mechanically by wishful thinking. There are many factors both
objective and subjective that accounted for this failure. It was the opinion of Oni that most
comrades lacked knowledge of how a socialist revolution would come about and that they
largely depended on theoretical formula; instead of taking into consideration concrete, historical
and practical experiences. He identified three trends among revolutionary organizations on the
issue of how to organize and advance the struggle of the working class. These he categorized
as the:
National Democratic Revolutionary (social democrats)
Revolutionary Romantics
Peoples Democratic Revolution.
National Democratic Revolutionary
The first one was personified in Nigerian history by Sam (S.G.) Ikoku who together with
his Lagos group believed Nigeria was not ripe for a proletarian revolution because of the
numerical weakness of the working class. All that could be done was to support the
progressive bourgeoisie in the struggle against feudalism and imperialism. They should
therefore help to consolidate the unity of the bourgeois state. Other members of this Lagos
group include Ebenezer Babatope, Kanmi Ishola Oshobu, Jubril Martins Kuye, Kayode Aluko
Olokun.
The problem of this idea is that it does not realize that the bourgeoisie of this era is
incapable of an independent position from imperialism. It is in essence a dependent,
unrevolutionary and agent-like capitalist that derives its resources and privileges from
corruption, embezzlement, 10 percent commission, from the (mis) rule of the state apparatus on
behalf of world capitalism. There is no doubt that Awo, Zik, Aminu Kano and others fell within
this category despite their populism.
This was the reason they let down many Marxists who looked up to them as being
capable of providing leadership to confront imperialism. Ola Oni traced the origin of this trend in
historical perspectives. According to him, the regimes of Nkrumah in Ghana, Nasser in Egypt,
Surkano in Indonesia etc, that were often referred to as socialist-oriented, were the outstanding
examples of what the National Revolutionary Democrats aspired to achieve. And in Nigeria, he
stated further:
During the colonial period, it was this perspective that made Nigerian
revolutionary cadres prefer to join the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons
(NCNC) instead of organizing a separate proletarian vanguard party as advocated by
Biodun Coker who formed the first Nigeria Labour Party (NLP) as far back as 1950, but
other labour leaders including the so-called socialists did not see the need for this
formation, they preferred the NCNC. The programme of the Socialist Workers and
Farmers Party (SWAFP) and the NLP immediately after independence also reflected the
national democratic revolutionary approach. The Peoples Redemption Party (PRP)
represents the latest example of the national revolutionary democrats.
The PRP could not advance the revolutionary changes necessary in society beyond
what was achieved in Kaduna and Kano States when under its control because of the limitations
inherent in the mode of struggle it adopted. It is for this reason that the party under-rated the
violent character of the struggle against their enemy; whereby too much trust was placed on

Page 69

bourgeois processes of fair play and justice. It relied on bourgeois political manipulations of the
present judicial and administrative processes and on manoeuvres among the bourgeois parties.
The party under-rated the fascistic nature of the counter-revolutionary forces and refused to pay
attention to mass mobilisation for mass action. Ola Oni recalled that there is no place in history
where people have liberated themselves from feudalism and imperialism by gradual peaceful
processes. And that social democratic approach to revolution has always brought disaster to the
revolutionary movement. He cited the experiences of revolutionary movements in Indonesia,
Sudan and Chile to buttress this position. He then warned the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP)
that the imperialists and their domestic agents would not tolerate any process of gradual
steering of neocolonialism towards a revolutionary path however peaceful. He then persuaded
the party from going into alliance with the bourgeois parties because they cannot depend on
such alliance for the necessary revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, he pointed out that the party
had the responsibility of forging alliances with the working class and the peasantry to advance
the revolution. The demise of the PRP is a clear justification of the shortcomings of the national
democratic revolutionary approach (social democratic reformism).
Revolutionary Romantics
The second trend Ola Oni identified is what he tagged Revolutionary Romantics. This is
the trend of some comrades who so much believe in armed struggle or guerrilla warfare. Their
thesis drew heavily from the former deputy to Chairman Mao, Lin Biao who stressed using the
countryside to encircle and finally capture the cities. This trend was not known in Nigeria before
the mid-seventies when it was championed by the Anti-Poverty Movement. There is no doubt
that they were able to attract people because of the popularity of countries like Cuba, Vietnam,
North Korea, Algeria etc where the approach was relatively successful. The shortcomings of this
idea can be located in peasantry as a social group that is dispersed, therefore unorganized and
such an uprising could easily be squashed, or at best it would resort to acts of terrorism that
would not be beneficial to anybody.
Oni stated that:
An extreme manifestation of this tendency is that it is the quickest short-cut to
revolution. They look forward towards revolutionary military coups. They are disposed to
individualist heroic destructive anarchism. They see the systematic mobilization of the
working people through the organization of the vanguard party as time wasting. They
ridicule and condemn comrades who participate in electoral struggle or those that
engaged in open day to day class struggles against the bourgeoisie.
On their position on arms, Oni stated that:
No genuine and serious Marxist-Leninist organization will reject armed
insurrection, (but) what the carrier of this tendency, the Anti-Poverty Movement did not
know is that the masses do not automatically take to armed struggle. People can only be
made aware of armed struggle as a solution after they have seen that other modes of
struggles cannot achieve the end results.
So, armed struggle has to be part and parcel of poor peoples popular mass action. This
tendency could more easily be dismissed now than in the 1970s (when it was the fashion)
because all the regimes put into place by this approach with the support of former USSR have
collapsed. This is a justification for a permanent revolution perspective, that it is not coming to
power that really matters, but how this power can be made permanent. Prominent members of
Page 70

this APMON were: Biodun Jeyifo, Edwin Madunagu, Charles Akinde, Anthony Egurube, Gbola
Akintunde. They had the support of Nigerian Dockworkers Union.
Peoples Democratic Revolution
The third, which is the last category of trends identified by Ola Oni, is the Peoples
Democratic Revolution. Oni associated his group with this trend which sees revolution as a
continuous process of struggle to transform Nigeria into a proletarian society. They believe the
revolution has no room for stages in the way the advocates of the national democratic revolution
sees it. In this approach, according to Oni, the socialist programme is played up as an
immediate urgent goal and direct attention is focussed on the mobilization of the exploited
masses.
We therefore rule out the immediate stage in which the bourgeoisie have to lead
an antifeudal and anti-imperialist revolution (because we are convinced that) no section of
Nigerian bourgeoisie can be relied on to take an anti-feudal and anti-imperialist position in a
revolutionary way ... Hence the struggle against feudalism and imperialism cannot be divorced
from socialist struggle, for only the proletarian forces can be relied upon for the successful
overthrow of these exploiting interests.
One of the other tactical issur that has always generated controversy, when organising a
united left or socialist platform, is the issue of the vanguard party. What Madunagu termed Elite
Vanguardism. Not a few comrades share this belief with Madunagu that what is needed is a
national, mass based and revolutionary socialist organisation rather than a localised, esoteric
and academic tagged Vanguard Revolutionary Party. But the knotty problem has always been
how to constitute this ideal Vanguard Party, that is, which of the social groups? While some
believe that it is the historical responsibility of the working class to proclaim or put it in place,
others disagree.
Oni falls within the category of comrades that believe that it is not enough for people to
answer comrades like a title as the basis of being member of a Vanguard Party. A vanguard
party cannot be a party of Dick and Harry. If it is to follow the footsteps of V.I. Lenin, a
revolutionary party is expected to be a party of entirely professional revolutionaries. So, it is not
a party that can be brought into place after a meeting or a seminar like a front party. This reason
informs Onis position that a vanguard party will evolve over time after the coming together of
the various groups in a front movement. And that it is in the process of doing this that the
serious and committed cadres can be sought and crystallized into what is called a vanguard
party.
The essence of a revolutionary vanguard is to be felt more in a tyrannical situation where
freedom and liberty of citizens cannot be taken for granted. Oni felt that if people know what
revolutionary cadres have passed through in terms of arrest and detention, while some have
paid the capital price of death; that the issue of vanguard party would have been taken more
seriously rather than equating it to a front organization. There are even some Comrades that
have exhibited their opportunism in the past or who were already a spent force in the struggle
who were still being invited to participate in regular meetings called by the Socialist Movement.
Ola Oni must have had in mind the case of Dr. Victor Allen while insisting on why
revolutionaries could not afford to be lackadaisical as revolutionary activities are matters of life
and death. Dr. Victor Allen was a trade unionist from Leeds in UK who was in Nigeria hosted by
the organisation that Ola Oni was a leading member. His activities caught the attention of the
Page 71

security agents and he was arrested and detained along with other Nigerian socialists, Sidi
Khayan and Olu Adebayo on June 16 1964 on charges of sedition that they meant to overthrow
the Tafawa Balewa led Federal Government, a charge that was regarded as a serious offence in
many of the law books of the commonwealth countries,
After the end of the protracted trial that ensued the visiting comrade was convicted and
sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on November 10, 1964. He served his term in Jos
Prison. This caused a steer in the British Parliament where the Secretary of State of the
Commonwealth Relations was invited and faced serious interrogation by members of the
parliament. One of the fears of the Parliament was that Dr. Allen would have completed his jail
term before considering his appeal that he had tabled before the authorities concerned. They
also wanted to know efforts made so far by the British Government on his case and how he had
been treated in detention.
The first hearing of his appeal was fixed for April 1, 1965 and this was not done until
pressure from both domestic and external forces and the victim himself who embarked on
hunger strike that ended in March 25, 1965 after formally informed of the commencement date
of appeal. Before retiring the case at the Court of Appeal, it became glaring to Ola Oni and
others that both Nigerian Government and British Government were interested parties that
would not let go Victor Allen, it was for this foresight that the organisation had to plan to safe
Victor Allen by making him to escape from the detention by disguising as Islamic prophet
(Alpha) with big head tie. Ola Oni confirmed as much that he was responsible for the purchase
of the materials used for this purpose.
How socialist are those that have been found wanting in practice? This made Eskor Toyo
lash out at Nigerian Socialists when he stated that:
It is only in the socialist movement in Nigeria that people are called upon to
behave like harlots whose bed is free to all callers, no matter their past or present who
come along with a silly seductive smile.
Oni argued against those that believed that the source of a vanguard revolutionary party
can only come from the proletarian workers and claimed that such a position was not historically
correct. This is because Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and other leading Marxists of past
generations were not of proletarian origins.
He argued that what mattered was the orientation and focus of the party programme.
That it should have a working class orientation and strive to be rooted in the working class with
the intent of making the party that of the workers without necessarily reducing itself to the level
of an amateur. According to Ola Oni, a vanguard party should be composed of the advanced
layers of manual workers, intellectual workers, peasants and other oppressed peoples. But
workers, especially industrial workers, were a premium because of their revolutionary role in this
epoch when history has reposed on it as the only group that has the power and vision to
challenge and replace capitalism in its imperialist stage.
So, a vanguard party of a revolutionary type is not the same as a workers party. A
workers party can be a reformist or a socialist (front) party without necessarily being a
revolutionary vanguard party. But on the other hand a revolutionary vanguard party can emerge
from such a mass workers party depending on how revolutionaries actively work in it and how
the balance of forces shifts to their side at a particular point in time.

Page 72

On comparing Ola Onis group with others before and after independence; Ola Onis
group distinguished itself as a real revolutionary organization of the poor people that made its
mark and paid the price for its total commitment to the struggle for the emancipation of the mass
of poor people. It has had no equal in the history of revolutionary organizations in Nigeria.
The best way to analyse such organizations is to review the way they handled the crises
that erupted in the areas where they were active.
Ola Onis group were a significant part of the leadership of revolutionary politics
throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The crisis of students and education at the time were well
publicised. Members of Ola Onis group were either part of the leadership of the students union
or the political movement, or both. Where the organization did not actually control the students
union, they were able to use the movement to influence the actions of the union.
The Police, as the coercive arm of the state, are always willing to serve as willing tools to
carry out the anti-poor people orders of the government and to disrupt gatherings of the masses
when they organise to discuss vital issues and how their lives can change for the better. On one
of these occasions, speakers were drawn from different parts of the old Oyo state to discuss,
The State of the Nation at Mapo Hall, Ibadan. But this was prevented by the police who would
not allow the officials to open the hall for the meeting.
Among the expected speakers were Professor Toye Olorode, Dr. Idowu Awopetu from
University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University) and Comrades Ola Oni and Laoye Sanda
from Ibadan. Dr. Idowu Awopetu was visibly furious and agitated. He behaved as if he had not
experienced such misuse of power by the powers that be before. He approached Ola Oni who
had just arrived at the venue only to find confusion instead of meeting people. Awopetu told Oni
that: we should resist this injustice. He asked whether it is illegal to meet in our country? Ola
Oni was calm, reserved and speechless at first. Then he told the people that surrounded him, in
a very low voice (that could only be heard if one listened very carefully), that, this is the type of
country we have, it lacks freedom. This is the very reason there is no alternative to the socialist
mode of development and the bourgeoisie are only afraid because they fear the people. They
do not want the poor people to learn the way out of their predicament.
People started leaving one after another after this informal discussion.
This obstruction came after earlier successful lectures and symposia at the venue. One
of these lectures was given by G.G. Darah (from Unife) where he traced the origin of Nigerias
problems to colonialism and the history of Nigeria as a nation. The state must have felt
threatened by the success of this series of meetings that had been dominated by progressive
forces. So, in order to check mate this mobilisation of the working people for progressive
change, they exercised their power to protect their pro-rich class interests by using the police to
stop further mobilization of the poor people.
Ola Oni never shied away from a fight. He engaged in many of these in the course of his
revolutionary life both against the state, the ruling class, but also with other comrades to agree
the correct perspectives on issues of the day. Differences on perspectives and the fight against
opportunism were the two main sources of division in revolutionary organizations. These were
responsible for the break-up of organizations that were still small in terms of numerical strength.
The issue of division between small organizations does not actually matter to socialists. What
matters is a sound analysis and clear understanding of events that can stand the test of time. A
numerically weak organization with correct perspectives and suitable revolutionary confidence
Page 73

can blossom with a large membership explosion when a favourable revolutionary situation
arises.
This tradition is not new in the history of revolutionary activities across the world; it is
common and explains why there are several different socialist organizations. It is also a pointer
to good things to come from a fighting revolutionary organization. That is to say an organization
that has engaged in different forms of internal debate and struggle, will not shy away from acting
on truth at all times if it finds itself in power. This is because in such an organization, the fighting
spirit would have become contagious. In battles among comrades, theoretical issues are
thrashed out and polemics flow from all directions. When conflicts within revolutionary
organizations lead to their break-up, this is sometimes not palatable either party, as they may
have been very close with personal friendships.
The various organizations in which Ola Oni was active during his political career were a
product of conflicts within the Socialist Workers and Farmers Party (SWAFP) and the Nigeria
Labour Party (NLP) in 1963 and 1964 respectively. The Marxist Revolutionary League, named
Labour Militant, led by Femi Aborisade broke away from Ola Onis Socialist Workers Party in
l986. Not long after this another youth organization, the Patriotic Labour Front Group led by
Femi Ahmed Israel, D.D. Adodo, Lanre, Femi Obayori and Yakub gravitated to Ola Oni and they
later merged to form the Socialist Revolutionary Vanguard (SRV).
Ola Oni explained the conflicts within the SWAFP and NLP, by saying:
Many young revolutionary Marxist-Leninists within the two parties violently
disagreed with the leadership of the parties for directing the proletarian movement into an
alliance with the bourgeois movement. They asserted that such an alliance amounted to
selling the United Progressive Grand Alliance (UPGA) to the working masses. They
argued that the alliance would make it difficult to liberate the working people from the
politics of ethnic divisions which was the main sustaining base of the bourgeois
dictatorship. The revolutionaries in these parties regarded both the Nigerian National
alliance (NNA) and the UPGA as the same as they were both bourgeois oppressors of
the masses and that the so-called progressive nature of the UPGA was due to its
oppositional position. When in power, the revolutionaries explained, UPGA would just be
as oppressive to the proletarian forces as NNA. Honest comrades in these parties fought
against the bureaucratization of the parties and the diversion of the resources of the
movement by the leaders for private use.
The resources were monopolized by the leadership and not properly used for
advancing the revolutionary mobilization of the masses in a serious way. Lip-service was
paid to grassroots organization. For example, the newspaper, Advance, would not have
seen the light of the day but for the resolute pressure from the more revolutionary
comrades within SWAFP. Even then, the newspaper was not properly managed, to make
the paper fulfil its revolutionary purpose. The leadership of the Nigerian Labour Party
used the resources of the party to run private businesses to enrich themselves. In
response to the growing criticism of the leadership of these parties, the leaders resorted
to bureaucratic control of the organs of decision making to prevent the revolutionary
comrades from knowing what was really going on. The leaders used their control of the
resources of the movement to employ some opportunist young comrades as party thugs
to suppress revolutionary comrades who criticized them at meetings or violently throw
them out of such meetings.

Page 74

This is why Ola Onis group ultimately pulled out of both the Socialist Workers and
Farmers party (SWFP) and the Nigerian Labour Party (NLP) and created their own independent
platform. This option was timely and paid off. The group dominated the political revolutionary
scene in the following decades 1970s and 1980s.
The disagreement among members of the Ola Oni-led organization that later led to the
breakaway of the faction known as Labour Militant was more over practise than theoretical
differences. Although some of the leadership of Labour Militant may not accept this. The first
organizational and political contact the Ife student leaders, who later formed part of Labour
Militant, had with Ola Oni was in l986. They attended an Alliance for Democratic Rights (ADR)
meeting, at Onis house. Other organizations expected to come to the meeting did not attend,
only three groups were in attendance. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) (Onis group) was
represented by Ola Oni, Laoye Sanda, Bayo Owolabi and Biodun Olamosu, while the Ife
students were represented by Segun Sango, Muyiwa Osunkoya and Lanre Arogundede. The
latter, Lanre Arogundade, then the president of NANS was not physically present at the meeting
on health grounds. He was being attended to by Mrs. Kehinde Ola Oni in a room adjacent to the
sitting room where the meeting took place.
The Ife students stayed the night at 6, Odeku Close, the home of Ola Oni, after the
meeting. They had useful discussions with Ola Oni. The organizational leadership of Femi
Aborisade came to the limelight when building and consolidating the Lagos branch of the party
that was referred to as the Lagos Section and later the Labour Militant Tendency by its
members. In a matter of months, this branch became the strongest branch in terms of activities,
but could still not be compared with Ibadan in terms of experience and its financial contribution.
The Polytechnic, Ibadan branch (students) of the organization had no equal among
other such students organizations. The basis had been laid by Rauf Aregbesola, Olaniyan,
Femi Aborisade, Kunle Bakare and Bayo Owolabi, before they graduated from The Polytechnic.
The school also produced Remi Ogunlana as the Senate President of the National Association
of Nigerian Students (NANS) n l983 and Johnson Fayemi as Public Relations Officer of NANS in
1985 that were also members of the Ola Onis organisation.
The strength of Lagos section could best be appreciated with the way they actively made
use of the paper or organ of the party, Workers Vanguard. They broke new ground and opened
up many contacts among workers in factories, shops and communities and students in their
schools. Thousands of copies of Workers Vanguard were sold. Femi Aborisade, as the
education officer of Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) at the time, did not hide his ideological
disposition as a Marxist nor his relations with the SWP, a budding revolutionary organization. He
used his position in the best interest of workers. Educational programmes were held regularly
with rank and file workers across the country. Radical scholars and Marxists were involved as
leading lecturers and facilitators in such workshops, Public lectures and symposia were
organized and were a veritable avenue for sales of workers Vanguard. Aborisade was later
sacked from the central labour body, Nigeria Labour Congress due to his ideological tendency
that becomes too radical for the leadership of the Congress. This happened without prior
warning or trial.
Two important reasons could be given for this flagrant abuse of democratic values by an
organization that should be expected to promote and care for democratic principles and praxis.
First, the leadership of the Congress and other industrial unions were still under the control or
influence of the Socialist Working Peoples Party (SWP), the new organization formed around
1980 by erstwhile leaders of NLP. So, this group would have been irritated that Ola Onis group
Page 75

were brazen enough to penetrate their territorial jurisdiction, the organised working class. So
they took all necessary steps and all possible bureaucratic means to prevent further penetration
by the group.
The second reason was the fact that the organization that Femi Aborisade was
associated with was ideologically critical of the NLCs bureaucratic leadership that held
allegiance to Soviet bureaucracy in Russia. Femi and other comrades in the Lagos Section of
SWP were in the fore front of advocating workers control of a nationalized economy rather than
the bureaucratic control of the economy as was the practice in the Stalinist countries of Russia
and Eastern European. The NLC and other political supporters of the Soviet Union must have
stuck to this bureaucratic apparatus due to the financial benefits derivable from such a
relationship and because of the reason Trotsky gave, that it is always difficult to detach oneself
from the organization where you developed political consciousness. This may also be due to
their ignorance of the state of degeneration that had turned to be the way of life of Soviet
bureaucracy.
The progress made by the October l917 Russian revolution that overthrew capitalism
and landlordism had been tremendous and intimidating. The revolution changed the history of
the world and marked an entire new stage in the development of mankind. However, that was
not to last.
Russia rose from this as a developing country to one of the developed countries of the
world within a quarter of a century. Though the revolution did not achieve the objective set out
from inception for the bureaucratic degeneration that crippled in. So the success recorded could
be traced to the upper hand that state capitalist society still had over capitalist regimes because
of the advantage of central planning and state intervention. For example as at 1980s, the
country was second industrial and worlds leading producer of oil (25 per cent of world
production), gas (35 per cent) and steel (24 per cent). Its electricity output was equivalent to that
of the whole EEC, and accounts for 17 per cent of the world production. Its achievements with
the nationalised means of production, distribution and exchange are gigantic and imperishable.
State capitalism has demonstrated its right to superiority over capitalism, just for a period. So if
state capitalism could achieve such feat, one can best imagine what would be the result of all
out socialist policy by genuine Marxist in power.
These achievements were the result of state ownership of the economy and central
planning; but as Trotsky rightly predicted this could not last with the attending bureaucratic
jeremiadry that would soon stultify whatever progress or achievements were recorded. This
turned out to be the case from the l970s when the effects of the Stalinist bureaucracy started to
be felt. In the years between l918 and l963 for instance, industrial output (in Russia) rocketed by
52 times while in USA it increased six times and in Britain only doubled. In the l950s the
economy in Russia grew by an average of 12 per cent a year, a rate easily out stripping almost
every capitalist power even at the peak of the boom. But a dramatic change came with the
record going down the hill in the last twenty years before the country finally collapsed in l989. At
this time, Russia had developed only at a tortoise pace . The rate of development of the
economy had been lower than that of capitalism in the period of the economic upswing or even
in some years of economic decline. In l979 (for instance) the Gross National Product grew by
0.9 per cent, in l980 l.5 per cent, and about 2.5 per cent in l98l and l982.
The friends of Soviet Union therefore glorified only the above-recorded achievements of
the country and kept quiet about the reactionary force that the bureaucracy had become and
which had a devastating effect on her economy.
Page 76

Thus, the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) bureaucracy and their patrons outside could
not stomach such an ideological challenge; especially when it was coming from vibrant youths
with the backing of Ola Oni and the will to carry their perspective to the doorsteps of the
workers. The NLC preferred for them to be kept down, made docile, apathetic and apolitical and
so did not realize the revolutionary potential they possessed. The efforts of Femi and his
comrades to awaken the consciousness of the working class and the countrys youth were
geared towards registering the presence and relevance of the working class.
Before long, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) became the first socialist group of its
kind to be rooted in rank and file workers. It was able to substantially influence some unions at
national and local levels. Many other members of the organization held positions at the unit or
state levels. Among these were Peter Asamba and Akerele who both at different times occupied
the positions of President of the National Union of Footwear, Leather and Rubber Workers;
Adeyemo, unit Chairman and NEC member of NUSDE); Textile Workers Union; Kunle
Bakare, an Engineer of Lagos State Ministry of Works also had influence with workers in the
ministry and the Lagos State branch of Civil Service Technical Workers Union, where he
worked. They also penetrated University of Lagos where they were able to make contacts with
Rotimi Ewebiyi, Rasheed Ojikuti (Rasky) and Aiyelabola, students of physics and accountancy
respectively.
The growth of the organization within such a short period of time was enormous. At a
later period, when the organization stood on her own under the platform of Labour Militant (the
name of the organisations paper), efforts were made to broaden her activities across the
country among the working class and the student-youths. Some of their members were
employed on a full time basis to work for the organization, at different times these included:
Comrades Femi Aborisade, Rotimi Ewebiyi and Biodun Olamosu. A certain chains of events led
to the Lagos Section of the Ola Oni led SWP to transform itself to an independent organization,
officially named the Marxist Revolutionary League (MRL), but only known publically and referred
to by the name of her organ, Labour Militant (LM).
The genesis of the disagreement for this split was in the characterization of the Soviet
Union and other Stalinist countries. Among the leading comrades of the SWP (as at l986) only
Comrade Laoye Sanda was ready to defend the Stalinist countries as being genuinely socialist.
Comrade Ola Oni argued for revolutionary patience among the comrades that polemicised
against the Soviet Union. He said that their knowledge of Soviet Union, should be put into use
in our country so that we shall not make such mistakes that the revolutionaries before us made.
When arguments on such issue became tense and hot, Ola Oni would charge the militant
tendency that their British section cannot fight Thatcher with their theory. His argument was
basically that he recognized the undemocratic nature of the Soviet Union, as identified by
Trotsky and Trotskyites across the world, but that it was not enough for us to think that this
problem could be automatically resolved at once. He stressed further that we should realize that
struggles are going on at various levels including in the Soviet Union. He wanted members to
know that the practice of factions that frequently lead to break up of Trotskyites organizations
cannot be the alternative to the problem. He would then ask whether it was Stalinism that was
responsible for such frequent break-ups of Trotskyite groups.
At the end of the day, Ola Oni wanted the organization (SWP) to be neutral in the
ideological battle being waged among various socialist tendencies across the world, especially
in Europe. Ola Oni would say that the conditions that poor people in third world countries (like
Nigeria) were suffering were not the same as the situation in Europe. He said further that
Page 77

European socialists could afford the luxury of debating their differences without taking practice
seriously because the issue of basic needs had been resolved in their society. In Europe if one
does not work he/she would not starve. He therefore wanted members to concentrate on how to
improve the situation of the poor masses. He also wanted members to be pragmatic on the
issue of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European Stalinist countries because he believed
they still served as a check on the imperialist countries of the world. And for this reason, he
believed that hardly any country could achieve a socialist revolution (at the time) without the
support of Soviet Union against the danger posed by imperialism.
On the business side, he also wanted the organization to realize the implication of our
taking the line of anti-Sovietism on our economic project, the bookshop of the organization that
was stocked mainly by Soviet published books. This was the main means through which the
organisations newspaper, Workers Vanguard was financed.
This position of Ola Oni represented the general position of the mainstream members of
the organization. Some of the future Labour Militant members had just been exposed to the new
idea of anti-Stalinism. Darah and Aborisade in the course of their travels abroad separately
came across the Militant Tendency, a British socialist organisation led by a 70 year old South
African emigrant, Ted Grant. The group was militant like their name indicates and represented
the Marxist tendency within British Labour Party. They had two members in parliament and they
wielded more influence at the local council level of British politics. The group became more
visible during the regime of Margaret Thatcher. The anti-poor neoliberal policy of Thatchers
government was strongly opposed by this group and they were responsible for leading the
agitation of workers against the government. The governments popular rating dropped
drastically with the anti-poll tax movement which was led by the Militant. This was responsible
for bringing down Margaret Thatcher. Nevertheless, the Tories were able to retain power
because the Labour Party shirked its responsibility to mobilize along with the Militant Tendency.
This period was the climax of the revolutionary activities of the group (Militant). The group was
later defeated and expelled from Labour Party before and when the right wing leader, Tony Blair,
formed a government.
The Militant Tendencys representative, Bob, used to come to Nigeria and stayed in Ola
Onis house for days with the mission of sorting out the issue of perspectives and how the two
organizations could work together under the platform of the International later known as the
Committee for a Workers International (CWI). Bob had a great influence on the section in
Nigeria.
Ola Onis clear headedness on Trotskyism was not in doubt even though the same could
not be said for his other leading comrades. His library contained classical books by Trotsky. He
also sold Trotskyites books in his bookshop. In line with Ola Onis persuasion, a revolutionary
cannot afford to act dogmatically on the matter of theory. This was the very reason Karl Marx
said that one practical step is better than a dozen of theories. It is also a historical fact that Marx
and Engels worked together under the same political platform with people of different trends like
anarchism, religionist and syndicalist believing that things will sort themselves out in the course
of struggle, theory and practice. If a socialist organization was to be built on the basis of pure
revolutionary ideas, Marx would have had nothing to do with Lassalle of Germany or Bakunin of
Russia. Despite their theoretical differences, they still worked together to advance the interests
of the working class internationally.
Ola Onis position was in fact the position of Lenin before the 1917 revolution in Russia.
Lenin did not follow the dictates of the second international on a lot of issues. He and his
comrades looked at issues as compassionately as possible on the basis both of general theory
Page 78

and the particular circumstances. This is how physical science differs from social (behavioural)
science. In the former, everything about it is universal whereas in the later there is a mixture of
universalism and particularism. Lenin also understood along with Marx that he was out to
resolve the problem of humanity practically and he also saw Marxism as science of
revolutionary struggle as a guide to such practical struggles rather than just theory for theory
sake.
This was the reason why it was possible for the various socialist trends to come together
in practice despite their theoretical divergences on the platform of the Russian SocialDemocratic Labour Party. The division of the organisation came about in the course of practice
and this exposed the opportunistic tendency within the organisation; that was to be later
expressed in theory. If we realize that the source of theory is practice; we can then agree that
the fundamental way of resolving any problem should be through practice. Marxism is both
science and art as medicine is also science and art; ditto engineering science. On looking
closely at the opportunists in history, it will be realized that this manifested itself in their tiredness
of pursuing struggle for social change before backing this up with a suitable theoretical
formulation.
On the other hand, in a situation where a comrade is found to be practically upright and
their theoretical errors cannot be related to their practical commitment, this can best be
described as a mistake which can be corrected because such comrades can always come to a
realization of the need for practical correction. Lenin also buttressed this position better, when
he said that it is only those that are not practically relevant that will not make mistakes. As the
Russian Revolutionaries movement was embraced by the masses and became a mass
revolutionary organization, so the party also shed her load of opportunists who could have been
a cog in the path of the organizations progress in the future. This was one reason that the
socialist revolution was ultimately successful in l9l7.
Furthermore, it will also be realized that the failure to develop socialism in Russia after
the death of Lenin was due to the absence of workers democratic control of the economy under
the leadership of Joseph Stalin. This was the reason Russia remained at the level of State
Capitalism. From the point of theory and practice, the Soviet Union was never a workers state
because it was never under the control of the working class.
Lenin did not have time to provide the correct leadership necessary to develop the
socialist state before he died in l924. After the revolution of October l9l7, the white Guard (army)
backed by world imperialism launched a war against Russia. This was what the newly emergent
socialist country confronted until l9l8 when they defeated the old capitalist order in the war.
During the war, Lenin was shot which led to complications with his health and a stroke. He was
able to survive the stroke and was doing everything he could to lay a solid foundation, in both
theory and practice, for both a workers state in Russia and World Revolution. He was able to
identify the salient problems that the young socialist country confronted.
One of these was the issue of the bureaucracy, especially because of the weakness of
the economy of Russia and the cultural level of the working class that was low at the time when
compared to the capitalist countries of the west: France, Britain, USA, Germany etc. It was for
this reason that Lenin made the following recommendations to tackle the bureaucracy that
official positions should be by rotation; no officials should earn a salary more than a skilled
worker; no standing army, but an armed people; and that the working places factories,
schools, hospitals etc should be controlled (directly) by the workers themselves.

Page 79

The leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, personified by Joseph
Stalin, managed to take control from Lenin while he was on his sick bed, before he died in 1924.
This can best be described as a counter revolution against the ideas of the 1917 socialist
revolution. Trotsky described it as a Thermidorean regime. This Stalinist regime did a great deal
to erode the revolutionary legacy of Lenin. Trotsky had been the leader of the 1905 Soviet in St
Petersburg, Minister for Foreign Affairs in Lenins government and the organiser and head of
Red Army during the war of intervention. However, he and others were defeated in the struggle
that ensued between the forces of revolution and Stalinism.
The argument of Stalinists, that they were defending the established bureaucracy in the
Soviet Union, stems from the fact that the many companies and businesses had been
nationalised. As a result, the country had no large-scale private property nor monopoly capitalist
multinational corporations as we know them in Western capitalist economies. For this reason,
they believed that since state property predominated, the Soviet economy and the state
apparatus, comprising the leadership of the Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and the
Political Bureau, were presumed to be the true representatives of the working class. They were
defending state structures that had emerged from the l9l7 socialist revolution in Russia.
One of the practical problems after the revolution was the issue of experts, intellectuals
with the necessary knowledge of science and technology. This was the reason for hiring some
classified workers who were handsomely compensated with privileges that were commensurate
with those received by their contemporaries in the west. This was one of the roots of the
bureaucracy. Instead of resolving this issue with practical measures proposed by Lenin, Stalin
justified it as being historically necessary without doing anything to curb its corrupting influence.
These privileges were then extended to state officials, including political and public officials.
This was at the cost of industrial development and the welfare programme of health,
education, housing etc. What took place was intensive, primitive exploitation of the workers and
poor peasants, backed up by a highly repressive state that led to the death of almost all the
Bolshevik leaders of the 1917 revolution with many others and a huge system of concentration
camps which came to be known as the Gulag.
The only difference between the privileged state bureaucrats of the Soviet Union and the
capitalist leaders of the West was not in the amount of public resources that they controlled, but
the source of their wealth. The Soviet bureaucrats relied directly on the state treasury for their
resources, while the bosses got theirs from the profits of their companies. Above all, they all
depended on the working class as the source of their wealth. In both the USSR and the
capitalist West, the working class were relatively poor and did not benefit from the wealth that
they helped to create.
This was made clear in the late l980s when the Stalinist countries were collapsing one
after another. Billions of Rubles, the Russian currency, were found in the private custody of the
leaders of the so-called socialist countries. This showed the extent of the degeneration of the
state capitalist economies of these Stalinist states.
Mikhail Gorbachev, Secretary-General of the Soviet Communist Party confirmed the
atrocities that had been exposed earlier by Trotsky in the 1930s. Such actions had led to
Trotskys expulsion from the Soviet Union and his subsequent exile and eventual assassination
in 1940, on the instructions of Stalin. In the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union (CPSU) in February l986, Gorbachev pointed out the following state of
degeneration of party leaders:
Page 80

disregard for laws, report-padding, bribe-taking and encouragement of a

toadyism and adulation had a deleterious influence on the moral atmosphere in society.
The principle of equality between communists was often violated. Many party members in
senior executive positions were outside control of criticism, which resulted in failures of
work and serious breaches of party ethics. Naturally, party organizations and the party as
a whole were fighting these phenomena and expelled from the CPSU a considerable
number of renegades. Among them were people guilty of embezzlement, bribe-taking and
report-padding, people who violated state and party.
Ola Onis theoretical work as an economist indicated his Marxist understanding of how to
embark on socialist construction as part of a move to world socialism with workers democratic
control of the nationalized economies. Typical of the classical work that Ola Oni bequeathed to
African revolutionaries is the: Economic Development of Nigeria: The Socialist Alternative
(1975). The book is extensively reviewed in other chapters of this book. The book places
emphasis on workers control as the engine room of achieving socialist development through a
workers state. Since Ola Oni started his revolutionary activities in the early 1960s, and stood
out as a substantive leader of socialist cause in both his academic and political works, he had
always emphasized the issue of workers control. This is confirmation that Ola Oni understood
the set back and the problems posed by Stalinists.
Lanre Arogundades claim that Comrade Ola Oni was a Stalinist of the Mao Zedong line
of revolutionary struggle is not correct. This is a misinterpretation of issues by people that
substitute appearance for content. This category of people sees Ola Oni as more of a peasant
from his appearance. They interpret this to mean that he was a peasant through and through in
theory and in practice. There is nothing to justify this perceived assumption in the works or views
that Ola Oni expressed.
One issue of importance in the perspective of Maos line of revolution is the peasant
strategy as a road to achieve socialist revolution. It is in advancing this idea that his theoretical
formulation on guerrillaism came about. This was largely adopted and practiced by many Latin
American revolutionaries without lasting success.
Guerrillaism is a strategy of struggle that seeks a short cut to achieve our common goal
of socialism is similar to other approaches like a coup-detat, anarchism, terrorism etc. The
justification of its advocates is to put pressure on the ruling class so that substantial concessions
will be made. Sometimes, this may lead to a section of the army taking power. But wide
experience clearly shows the inherent problems, with this form of struggle and why it is not
recommended. This is why almost all the governments that came to power through guerrilla
method of struggle in Latin America, except Cuba, lost out and did not in any way benefit the
poor people for which they claimed to be fighting. The method or the approach is individualistic.
Capitalists can adopt the same methods to get rid of any opponents coming to power by this
means. This contrasts with socialism, which Marx defined as the self emancipation of the
working class, and can only be achieved by collective action of the working class themselves
supported by the other poor people including the peasantry.
A more fundamental shortcoming of guerrillaism is that it involves less mobilization,
therefore, relegating to the background the necessity for political mobilization of the working
class, peasants and the youths. This is a way of keeping the masses down and less conscious
about what the whole struggle is about. The masses by this means may not see the need for
their participation and the advocates of this method do not expect mass support beyond
Page 81

sympathy. With this approach, they hope the masses will not give them problems when they
have seized power or are involved in a state of war. In this case they will be forced to operate
under-ground as the ruling class will not accept the excuse that the organization does not
support guerrilla action. This will make political work in a democratic setting almost impossible.
Ola Oni was in the forefront of propounding a theoretical justification for a workers
movement path to socialist revolution. Such a guerrillaist did not exist in Nigeria during Ola Onis
time. There was a group in the 1970s known for advocating this political line and their base was
at Ife, but they soon disintegrated. Ola Oni was very critical of the methods of this organization,
but was not public about this to avoid the risk of being accused of working for the state. The
guerrilla system of struggle is also inimical to the development or growth of other forms of
struggle like the workers collective action because the state will lump all revolutionaries together
as one, mobilize against them by propaganda and could kill them since armed struggle is
involved. In such instances, advocates of other methods of struggle, like Ola Onis support for
collective working class action supported by other poor people will be forced to abandon active
struggle.
While the other groups and trade unions were looking up to USSR, China and other
Stalinist countries in Eastern Europe for financial and other supports, Ola Oni was the toes of
C.L.R. James in Britain for the annual book fair exhibition that he organised. C.L.R. James
pioneered Trotskyism in Britain in the 1930s when the struggle between revolutionary Marxists
and opportunism was fresh.

Page 82

CHAPTER SEVEN: ONI AS A TRADE UNIONIST

Comrade Ola Oni began his preparatory role as a trade union and labour activist when he
was a student of Kings College, Lagos and later as a teacher at Eko Boys High School, Lagos.
His school mate at Kings College, Comrade Chu Gogo Nzeribe, served as an immediate
inspiration to him while in school. Nzeribe was his senior at the school and later a Trade Unionist.
Nzeribes source of revolutionary commitment and activism attracted him to Oni. As an aspiring
revolutionary youth, Oni usually preferred to remain in Lagos, at the service of the trade Union
and Labour Movement, during holidays. He got involved in trade union activities early in his life.
The fact that he had a scholarship meant that he was financially independent and did not have to
work or raise money during the holidays.
Trade Unions at the time were not for careerists but those who were prepared to genuinely
ght against workers exploitation and colonialism. Ola Oni could only afford to partake in the struggle
on a part time basis because of his schooling. The ambition of his parents was to send him abroad to
acquire degrees so that he too could rise to top positions in government. But the circumstances that
shaped Onis ambition were different. Apart the inuence the political situation in the country at that
time had on him, the upsurge in the worlds anti-colonial struggle arising out of the growing inuence
of the Soviet Union after the World War II and the success of Chinese revolution in 1949 led to the
spread of revolutionary socialist ideas among youth all over the world. As such, Ola Oni preferred to
cast himself in the mould of a young revolutionary with role models like: Eskor Toyo, Omotoso, Sam
Ikoku, Alao Aka Bashorun, Ayo Ogunseye etc. They had gone to study abroad with the hope of
coming back to render useful service in the pursuant of a revolutionary change along socialist lines.
The Post and Telecommunications (P & T) Workers Union was one of the unions that Ola Oni helped
to organize from the beginning.
Even when he left for London to study economics, he managed to keepabreast of the
happenings in the Nigerian labour movement. What he could not experience in practice he made
up in theory. He was acquainted with events at home through regular contact and information
from members of his organization United Working Peoples Party.
Back in Nigeria, his rst point of call was Lagos to pay visits to his comrades - Eskor
Toyo, Sam Ikoku, Aka Alao Bashorun, Imoudu, Coker, Otegbeye, Wahab Goodluck, Nzeribe,
Aghedo, etc. before heading to Ibadan, where he taught Economics and lived for the rest of his
life. Since returning to Nigeria, his role in trade unions and the labour movement had been
legendary.
Ola Oni revolutionized Ibadan after the image of how Lagos had been. Apart from setting up
revolutionary organizations among students, lecturers, university workers, peasants and artisans, he also
worked actively with workers and trade unionists in Ibadan and beyond. He engaged in educational
programmes for workers because he strongly believed that the average worker should be well grounded in
class consciousness, in understanding economics and current affairs, beyond just trade union
consciousness. He was always at home to honour invitations from the unions inviting him for lectures.
Since Ola Oni settled in Ibadan and made the place his home, he was the representative of labour
and revolutionary movements. In Ibadan, for any mass action movement to be successful, Onis support
had to be sought. One can be sure that Ola Oni would do everything humanly possible to make such action
a success. He did not mind spending his own personal resources on any action to achieve success. No
sacrice was too much for Comrade Ola Oni. Even his foes within the labour movement did not joke with
him when it came to taking action. For despite the differences that existed between him and Goodluck and
Fatoguns group on tactics in the course of their revolutionary careers, the duo still found time to visit Ola Oni
at Ibadan to discuss issues of practical revolutionary struggle and to invite him to participate in educational
programme for workers in the trade unions where they had influence.
Page 83

In the course of his revolutionary career in the labour movement, Ola Oni worked at
various different positions: He was a member of Ibadan Joint Action Committee (JAC) in l964 to
ght the struggle for the Morgan Awards; organizer and initiator of Western Council of Labour that
was formed to unite all unions in the old western region (1964-70); adviser to the Labour Unity
Front (LUF), one of the existing four Central Labour Organizations led by Imoudu before the
present NLC. He was also a member of the Trade Union Committee that was formulating policies
for Labour Unity Front (LUF).
Various organizations that involved workers and trade unions during the civil war period (1967-70)
were either initiated by him or received his active support. This included the resuscitation of the
Joint Action Committee of Trade Unions for unions in Ibadan and the Taxi Users Association to
prevent a rise in taxi fares in Ibadan. He coordinated for over three decades the Council for Public
Education. This was an arm of the Nigerian Academy of Arts, Sciences and Technology and
organised lectures, symposia and publications to educate workers on government policies, on
economic development plans, incomes, reports of commissions and decrees which touch on the
living conditions of workers. By their testimony, the public educational work of the Council had
aided many trade unions in their activities. He was also the Chairman of Movement for Economic
Justice and Price Control formed during the civil war. The Movement conducted the agitation for
price control and after the war Ola Oni had the support of the organization to institute court action
against the Federal Government in the well known case, usually referred to as the bottle deposit
case. He was also known to have assisted Trade Unions in Ibadan to form the Workers Wage
Review Committees which made recommendation to the central body for the purpose of
presenting workers memoranda to the Adebo and Udoji Commissions in l971 and l974
respectively. He was an active member of University Committee that looked into the anomalies
arising from Udoji Awards. The report of the committee was subsequently presented to Williams
and Williams.
In his own constituency at University of Ibadan, he was an executive member of the
Association of University Teachers (the progenitor of todays ASUU) in 1968-74, chairman of the
union at the University of Ibadan (1973-74); General Secretary of the union at the national level
(1972-73). This Union came to the limelight due to its commitment to the cause of its members
at the time when Ola Oni was at its leadership. The unions radical disposition started from this
period and continues. He was also a Trade Union Adviser to the University of Ibadan Workers
Union (the progenitor of NASU) during Irekhes Executive (1963-66). He assisted in organising
this same union in the course of its transformation to an industrial union (1977). It is now known
as Non-Academic Staff Union of University, Polytechnic and Colleges of Education (NASU). In
the course of this assistance, he held consultations with the union leaders across the country
during his tour of all Universities and some Polytechnics. He also participated in all preparatory
conferences that worked out the constitution for the new union. He was a trade union adviser to
the Federation of All Nigerian University Workers union (now NASU) (1977-78).
Militant trade unions originally emerged in l931 with the formation of the Railway Workers
Union that split off from the oldest trade union the Nigeria Civil Service Union. Other unions
formed along the same time as the RWU were Nigeria Union of Teachers (NUT) (l931); Marine
African Workers Union (1936). By l945, Comrade Michael Imoudu was already a household name
as the leader of Railway Workers Union that led the struggle for the cost of living allowance.
Imoudu exemplied total commitment to the struggle of workers of his union and the labour centre
under his leadership. Imoudu was celebrated for his militancy in the union activities and anticolonial political struggle. It is now generally accepted that trade unions and the labour movement
played a fundamental role in the struggle for decolonialisation of Nigeria. This struggle was later
hijacked by bourgeois politicians who now claim to be leaders of the struggle for Nigeria
independence. This falsication will be conrmed when the true history of Nigeria is written. The

Page 84

tradition of the working class to ght for justice against oppression and exploitation was
maintained throughout the 1950s and 1960s.
On attaining iindependence in October l960, the labour movement which played the
decisive role in the struggle was side tracked and ditched by the bourgeois politicians in
collaboration with the colonialists. From this experiment, labour had no option than to restrategise. And instead of aligning with the bourgeois political parties like they did with NCNC in
the 1940s and 1950s; they agreed to form an independent working class political party of their
own. This was achieved in l963 with the emergence of Socialist Party of Workers and Farmers.
But this broke into two in the following year, 1964 after the most revolutionaries left the party to
form Nigeria Labour Party (NLP) led by Imoudu, Eskor Toyo and Omotoso. The party was formed
at the football eld of Ibadan Grammar School, Ola Oni was the indisputable leader of the party in
Ibadan together with Barrister Omotosho. The other factions that remained in SPWF was led by
Dr. Tunji Otegbeye, Wahab Goodluck, Dapo Fatogun and others. Most progressive trade unionists
went into these political parties while the conservatives were against workers being drawn into
partisan politics.
At the time the military came to power in January l966, the Socialist Party of Workers and
Farmers and the Nigeria Labour Party were already weakened, so the ban imposed on all rightwing political parties and organizations like the NCNC, Action Group, Northern Peoples
Congress, NEPU and others, only accelerated the process of disintegration of these two labour
parties. One factor that contributed to this disintegration was the ethnic politics introduced by the
bourgeois parties. Instead of seeing themselves as revolutionaries, they capitulated into electoral
political parties whose aim was to win elections like their bourgeois counterparts. This explains
why SPWAF and NLP were persuaded to join the United Progressive Ground Alliance (UPGA) of
the liberal bourgeois political parties against the conservatives New Nigeria Alliance (NNA) of the
feudalist Northern Peoples Congress (NPC).
Broad labour parties have since then found it difficult to play its traditional revolutionary role.
Whatever pressure labour was able to mount on the government subsequently shifted to the
platform of labour unions and ideological socialist groups. Ola Oni can be said to be the bridge
between the past and the later generations of activists. The student Marxist organization, the
Marxist Socialist Movement (MSM) and the Nigerian Academy of Arts, Sciences and Technology
were to continue the revolutionary work of the past among the students and intellectuals
respectively. These movements later came to play a key role in the struggle against various
military regimes and dictatorships. The Labour Movement became marginalized with the coming
of the Military and things got even worse with the advent of Nigerian Civil war.
The Labour leadership allowed themselves to be incorporated into the various factions of
the war which invariably caused the division among the workers into Biafra and Nigeria factions,
depending on the ethnic background of the workers. The Military conscious of the past role of
labour movement, enacted various anti-labour decrees forbidding unions to participate in party
politics or support any political party. The absurdity came to the climax when the military
eventually outlawed strikes. They did not stop at that, the radical and most militant trade unionists
that represent the best tradition of the working class were sacked and banned from active
unionism. This included only the revolutionary unionists, like: Comrades Michael Imoudu, Wahab
Goodluck, J.U.Akpe, R.A. Ramos and P.A. Isagua. And the Labour Centers, the third NLC was
restructured with a view to crippling the institution and ensuring that it become harmless. The
circumstances of the restructuring by the Murtala/ Obasanjo military junta portended treachery.
Before the restructuring the nagging issue of division among the existing four labour
centers Nigeria Trade Union Congress (NTUC), Labour Unity Front,(LUF), United Labour
Congress (ULC) and Nigeria Workers Council (NWC) had been resolved by workers themselves

Page 85

and the issue had been put behind them. Not a few people believed that the disunity question in
the unions was resolved in l975 when most workers leaders met at a burial ceremony of late
Comrade J. A. Oduleye, a Treasurer of NTUC/ULC. The opportunity the burial afforded them was
utilized to meet and discuss problems facing trade union movement and the issue of disunity
among unions which was preventing the formation of one labour center. The decision reached at
the time, regarded as Apena Cementary Declaration resulted in a far reaching compromise. This
was followed up with a delegate conference, where the earlier decisions were formalized. And that
seemed to many as the beginning of the end to labour schisms, bickering and disunity.
The government of the Murtala/Obasanjo dictatorship was not happy with the way the
labour unions resolved their problems amicably amongst themselves without recourse to the
government. So the government resorted to open old wounds by accusing the unions and the
various centers of corruption, embezzlement of unions properties and other nancial resources. It
also alleged the unions had undue relationships with international labour centres who sponsored
them against the government and its policies.
The restructuring of labour unions by Murtala/Obasanjo Military dictatorship later turned
out to be a smokescreen. The governments entire game plan was to cut the wings of
revolutionary labour. This was achieved by introducing professional, paid official, Secretaries who
were not elected and whose tenure of office would be secured without any iota of threat. In other
words, the leadership of labour would be passing to a new set of bureaucrats who are not
responsible not accountable to the rank and le ordinary membership of the unions. The Labour
Ministry was even to be the one that conducted recruitment exercise for the position of General
Secretary and others in the trade union hierarchy.
This was the background to the bureaucracy that was later imposed on the trade union
movement; where professionals dominated the affairs of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC)
under the Bafyau leadership. Paschal Bafyau was also the General Secretary of NUR and his
deputy Adams Oshiomole was the General Secretary of National Union of Textile, Tailoring and
Garment workers.
The situation was worse at the state level where most NLC officers were paid officials. The
danger of these paid official secretaries was not in their lack of trade union background, many of
them had a long association and a working class career, but the problem lay with the new
undemocratic restructuring which intended to turn them in to big bosses, like the Super
Permanent Secretaries in the civil service. This was introduced under the guise of having
continuity in the unions. The issue of continuity had never been a problem in the unions. Union
secretaries could be elevated from among its members. That had been the tradition in the past.
For such secretaries to have enough time for their jobs, the worker concerned could secure leave
from their employer. Ola Oni himself, before this restructuring, had been a part time General
Secretary of the Polytechnic Ibadan Workers Union. He was able to combine this with his work at
the University of Ibadan where he lectured on a full time basis.
This arrangement was not limited to the secretaries but also extended to the chair or
presidency of the unions. The experience, since the inception of the l978 labour restructuring, was
that these secretaries lived in a world of their own, isolated from the workers, making it difficult for
them to know the feelings and yearnings of the poor workers. In this way, they became the police
of the state in the industries. It was they that enforced the conditions that made it mandatory for
local or state union chapters to get clearance from the national headquarters of the unions, before
embarking on strike action. On many occasions, these bureaucrats had turned against the interest
of striking workers without looking at the objectives and the essence of the struggle (which might
even come up, spontaneously).
Ola Oni used to remind workers of the repercussion of institutionalizing a bureaucracy in

Page 86

the trade union movement. Ola Oni, himself, failed to achieve the position of General Secretary of
the NLC in l978, because he was removed for his Marxist background. This was despite the fact
that Ola Oni was the most qualied applicant for the position and topped the list in the recruitment
exercise. Alhaji Aliyu Musa Dangiwa was given the position of General Secretary of NLC. He was
a former Lecturer at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, who had previously been a government
nominee on the four person consultative committee with responsibility for restructuring Labour
(1978). He was appointed because of his closeness to the government.
Many radical trade unionists and intellectuals believed that Ola Oni was being over looked
because of his antecedents as a Marxist and a militant intellectual who would not compromise his
principles. He was also denied the position of General Secretary of the Non-Academic Staff Union
of Universities, Polytechnics and Colleges of Education (NASU), the union he helped to organize
for this same reason. Oni was feared by both the state and the labour bureaucrats alike. His role
in the labour movement could not pass unnoticed. He featured so regularly in workers
programmes where he was always available to educate workers on what should be their role in
changing the backward society they lived in. Ola Oni was an encyclopedia of labour history in
Nigeria. He wrote a lot on labour related issues. He has been in the forefront of organizations that
struggled against various governments, from the colonial period up to the point of his death in
l999.
Ola Oni used to encourage his followers to take up trade union work on a full time basis.
Some responded to this call with the hope of using this to advance the cause of revolution, in line
with Ola Onis idea of the proper objectives of trade unions. Ola Oni planned to transfer his
services to the trade unions as an educator on a part-time basis, but none of the unions he
approached gave him the opportunity. This one of the reasons for the decay we have witnessed in
the trade union movement in recent period.

Page 87

CHAPTER EIGHT: PHILOSOPHER AND REVOLUTIONARY

It is only recently that most Nigerians have come to realize that the leadership problem
in Nigeria has become chronic. Since independence in 1960, we have not really succeeded in
having visionary and pro-poor peoples leaders at the helm of affairs. What we have had are
rulers who got to power through ballot rigging and military coups and not leaders freely elected
by the poor masses. These rulers then rule in the interests of the rich and corrupt rather than the
majority of poor people.
Leadership functions range from such roles as: planner, policy maker, executive, expert,
group ambassador, facilitator of gratifications and punishments, exemplar and the symbol of a
group. Leadership in essence aims to meet a situational challenge. Ola Oni like Marx, Engels,
Lenin, Trotsky, CLR James and Africans like Nkrumah, Amilcar Cabral before him, believed that
the political leadership which had been located in non-productive groups of wisdom-seekers,
divine monarchs or property owners must unambiguously be shifted to the mass majority
(working class) whose primary attribute was the production of the sustenance of society.
Like the bourgeoisie replaced feudal rule and pushed society forward in a modern
direction, so future progress now lies with the ascendancy to leadership of the proletariat whose
objective material and cultural interests coincide with the future advancement of a socialist
democracy.
Ola Oni spent over half a century pursuing this cause. In clarifying his mission, he
succinctly made it clear on several occasions that no bourgeois leader however benevolent can
solve the problems of capitalist society in favour of the poor majority. Any leader who accepts
operating within the capitalist system must also be compelled by economic crises within the
system to oppress and suppress the mass of working people. No capitalist leader can allow the
interests of the poor people to be the primary concern of government. He further argued that:
the changes expected by the working people will not and cannot be brought about by
any capitalist leader. It is the working people themselves - in organized action of struggle
against the imperialist and their domestic agents who can change their conditions for the
better. It is the working people, led by the organized working class that can end the
capitalist system and bring about the proletarian socialist changes.
In reacting to the issue of military intervention in politics which was perceived as
progressive by some leftists, Oni argued,
that such ways of militarist socialism coming from the top is unreliable for it tends to
promote the interest of few privileged bureaucratic elites that control and manage all
these institutions. When situations like these occur, the working people must know that
they still have to continue to organize themselves to see that the real power is
democratically held by them. Military socialism, that does not recognize and allow the
working masses to control power, cannot pass the test of being called a proletarian
socialist government.
Jerry Rawlings of Ghana and Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia were typical examples
of military socialists that later turned against the people who helped them gain power. Many of
their victims were sent into exile and many others were executed. Ola Oni was one of the few
socialists who were not carried away by the euphoria of the military. Oni identified various forms
of military oppression that had taken place since 1966, despite the promises on coming to
power of correcting the anomalies of the civilian politicians before them. This led Oni to state
that:
In Nigeria since independence, the ruling regimes have not hesitated to make the

Page 88

democratic rights granted in the Nigerian constitutions meaningless. Labour laws were
imposed to restrict the rights to free and independent trade unionism. Military regimes
deprived people of basic rights to political action; passed arbitrary detention decrees;
promoted repressive bureaucracy in educational institutions to silence students militancy;
banned unions of workers and students and proscribed the right of people to peaceful
assembly and demonstrations.
Ola Oni distinguished himself as an authentic leader who espoused revolutionary ideas
and created movements that aimed to supplant the existing oppressive, exploitative and
backward social order.
He may not have been as lucky as Kwame Nkrumah, Vladimir Ilyrich (Ulyanov) Lenin,
Leon Trotsky, Nyerere, Nelson Mandela, Patrick Lumumba etc. They were revolutionaries,
socialists or nationalists, but also became rulers of their countries. Ola Oni like Martin Luther
King, Malcom X, Franz Fanon, Amicar Calbral, Walter Rodney etc, stood for democratic ideals.
He also helped to shape and influenced the world by the movements he created and initiated.
Undoubtedly he influenced nothing less than five generations of students of Marxism.
Omafume Onoge observed a pattern of how authentic leaders like Ola Oni associated
with the poor people whose cause they were fighting. In his discourse on leadership, Onoge
pointed out that:
Only a leadership that has maximum empathy for the people can be relevant to the
qualitative movement of the nation. External signs of such empathy include the leaders
simplicity, even in forms of dress. His presentation of self does not alienate the people.
This is the reason genuine leaders like Ola Oni could not be distinguished from peasant
farmers or proletarian workers in the style of their dress and austere material needs. Ola Oni
had all opportunities to acquire wealth and properties if he wanted to do so, but he did not
choose this way of life because he had confidence in power of the people to bring about a
socialist revolution. Even if this did not happen in his lifetime, it did not matter. His confidence in
revolution was wholesome. It was enough that he had done what he could for the future benefit
of the workers and popular masses.
As Mukwugo Okoye put it: for us, the aim if reached or not makes life great. Try to be
Shakespeare, leave the rest to fate. Even if these lofty ideals could not be realised in his life
time, he was sure that future generations would take up the struggle where providence had
allowed him to stop. That was why more than anybody else of his generation, he laboured until
his last breathe on earth, to impact socialist ideas on the younger generation.
In Nigeria today, national greatness is defined in terms of wealth and military might,
where the emphasis is on how to develop instruments and institutions of coercion while the
Nigerian people are victims of hunger and lack of education. Such a situation as this has been
made into a state culture. The degrading depth to which this consciousness has sunk is a
consequence of this superman image. The view recently canvassed by certain politicians is that
the injustice of June 12 2003 should be accepted by conceiving it as a military coup. Ola Oni
never regretted his association with the popular masses in whose interest he was committed. As
he said:
Although we are poor as a political family, we enjoy the happiness we have that we
are involved in the struggles. This gives us hope.
Experience of history has confirmed how abandoned ideas of yesteryears resurface
again after several years and became an inspiration for great changes. It should be recalled:
that the great Asoka of India built his mighty empire on the ideas of Gautama

Page 89

Buddha, Charlemagne on those of Christ, Lenin on those of Marx, as Hitler modelled his
Third Reich after Nietzsches lunatic visions and that Rousseau, John Stuart Mill and
John Locke gave powerful inspiration to democratic revolutions in Europe, America, Asia
and Africa.
Ola Oni, more than anybody of his generation must have been counted lucky, although
his revolutionary work did not translate into revolution or political change. It must also be
recognized that ideas are not created out of a vacuum as abstract thought but they are a
product of economic condition, the firmament, dissatisfaction and instinctive purposes that
already exist in society. The events of June 12, 1993 stirred up the Nigerian masses against
the oppressive military junta of Babangida and then Abacha for five years.
This was a good case of the role that philosophers can play in politics. Ola Oni together
with others like Beko Ransome Kuti, Anthony Enaohoro, Frank Kokori, Gani Fawehinmi, Pa
Micheal Ajasin, Femi Aborisade, Prof. Wole Soyinka, Femi Falana, Chima Ubani and
organizations such as United Action for Democracy (UAD), Campaign for Democracy (CD),
Joint Action Committee of Nigeria (JACON), Labour Militant (LM), Civil Liberties Organisation
(CLO), National Conscience Party (NCP), National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), the press
and others rose up to the challenges of defending the June 12, 1993 election result won by
Chief MKO Abiola.
Who ever envisaged that the work of these human rights and socialist activists could stir
up such magnificent mass of Nigerians in their millions? Not even the Babangidas and Abachas
of this world could believe what they saw. This was what Mukwogo Okoye meant when he
asserted:
For tens of thousands of people who normally desire peace, decorum and
security above everything do not rise up in revolt and thus risk their jobs, their lives or
their friendships in the quest of a mirage at the bidding of a philosophical visionary. But if
the social and economic conditions are such that their day-to-day sufferings grow and life
becomes almost an intolerable burden, that even the weak and cowardly are prepared to
take risks and do so. It is then that they listen to the voice of the philosophical agitator
who seems to show them a way out of their misery.
Such responses by the people to the call of the philosophers earned great honour and
acceptance in society, though this did not necessarily crystallize into success during elections.
Probably, as it is usually said, politics is an area not meant for philosophers. For according to
Voltaire, the two most important objects of philosophy are the discovery of what is true and the
practice of what is good. In contrast, politics does not always depend on rationality or good
intention for success.
In Nigeria, politics can be described as a rough game in which grit, cunning and
endurance are often necessary for success; it has its bagful of perils and disappointments and
not infrequently it is those who can play on the habits, ambitions, rivalries, fears, hopes and
greed of others, who carry away the great prizes. Successful politicians among intellectuals in
history though few, were characterized by their toughness, cunning and cynicism; success in the
highly amoral and competitive game of politics seems to be marked out for men who like the
fox, the owl, the spider, and bat grow fat by sweet reserve and modesty. Events in Nigeria over
the years confirm this assertion hence the reasons that politics is being associated with
violence, deceit, corruption, hypocrisy and procrastination.
It is not without trying and involvement in politics that philosophers of the past, like the
contemporary ones, did not become successful politicians. Great men like Bertrand Russell
(Britain), Jean-Paul Sartre (France), S. Radhakrishnan (India) and others including Ibn Khaldun

Page 90

(Tunisia), Hegel (Germany), Karl Marx (Germany), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (France), John
Stuart Mills (Britain), all tried their hands in politics without making a success of it, but are better
known for their philosophical contributions. This dictum is not without its precedents among the
great ancient philosophers such as the Greek Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and Confucius (China).
Anaxagoras Diou who generally believed in the Platos famous statement
Until philosophers are kings and princess of the world have the spirit and love of
philosophy and wisdom; and political leadership meet in the same person cities will
never cease from ill, nor the human race.
They were all made to pay for all their efforts to turn the kings into philosophers during
their time. Socrates was forced to commit suicide, Plato was sold to slavery, Diou went into
exile for ten years and was later murdered and Aristotle died in exile after having been a tutor to
the young Alexander of Macedon for good six years and lectured at his Lyceum for twelve years.
Confucius, who was consulted by the Princess Dukes, was exiled from three states in China
Chi, Sing and Wei, before finally he restricted himself to his home state Lu where he later
became a successful intellectual, including cultural studies, poetry, ethics, ceremonies, music
and literature.
The urge to take theory and ideas to practical struggles where they can be tested, to
Oni, this was revolutionary practice. This explains why Oni was always involved at all levels of
politicking even at odd time despite the popular perception that there were no honest people in
politics. Oni knew that if we were to wait until politicians were honest, we would surely wait for
eternity. Oni went into practical politics with politicians to carry out his programme of how society
should be organised. Events have shown that he did not keep quiet when he was supposed to
be crying out. Many a time he broke his relationship with influential and notable political figures
when his principles conflicted with theirs.
There was a time Ola Oni joined Chief Obafemi Awolowos party, the Unity Party of
Nigeria (UPN) after the non-registration of his own party during the second republic (1979
1983); he could not stay long with this party more than 6 months for ideological and tactical
differences. Although Awo was an icon and a well celebrated politician, Ola Oni never tired of
criticizing Chief Awolowo on current political issues, even at the risk of being isolated from such
people. Many Marxist students who came into political limelight in the second republic came in
through this background. Ola Oni contended that Chief Awolowo came to accept socialism only
later in life after he was released from prison in 1966. According to Ola Oni, Awo agreed to the
nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy, but Ola Oni recollected that Awo
differentiated between his own form of socialism which he referred to as Democratic Socialism
and Revolutionary Socialism which was more widely known and generally referred to as
Communism. One of Awolowos arguments against revolutionary socialism was that it was
associated with violence, whereas he believed socialism could be achieved gradually and
peacefully especially in Africa.
Some do not see the success in Awos political career in his position as a national
opposition leader, but with the successful implementation of his welfare programmes for the
masses of Western Nigeria. He was premier of the Western Region for four years before going
to the National House of Representative at the centre. While the Nnamdi Azikwe led National
Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) (which the Trade Union Congress affiliated to in
1946) collaborated with the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) to form government at the
center with Alhaji Tafawa Balewa as the Prime Minister, Awo occupied the position of National
Opposition Leader. Awo was also able to use this position to canvass for the programme of his
party and drew support to himself and his party for this reason.
Despite the mass support Awo and his party enjoyed in the west and other parts of

Page 91

Nigeria, Ola Oni did not spare Awo. His polemics against Awo and his programme of welfarism
was unequalled. Oni never stop exposing the limitations of the Unity Party of Nigerias welfarist
programme which essentially was meant to deceive people and stop them moving towards
socialism.
Although Awoists claim to stand for socialism, this was disclaimed by Ola Oni. He
grouped them within what he called Welfare Liberal reformism. He pointed out that Awos
thoughts as contained in his books: Thoughts on Nigerian Constitution (1966), The Peoples
Republic (1967) and The Strategy and Tactics of the Peoples Republic (1970) that represented
the action and policy of his party was very bourgeois in perspective. He went further to say that
the world outlook as enshrined in these writings did not go beyond the application of bourgeois
economics and British bourgeois constitutional law to Nigerian problems. Awos thought
therefore merely looked at the defects of capitalism from the perspective of Keynesian
economics and Christian ethics. This is the very reason that this programme (Awos thought)
largely resembled the welfare programme of the British Labour Party and the Liberal Beveridge
welfare state of the 1940s.
Ola Oni argued that the central strategy of the welfarists was directed towards resolving
the contradictions between the ruling class and the working masses. They canvassed for the
government to give more concessions to the masses to achieve stability in the system which
they thought was otherwise at risk. So Ola Oni argued that the welfarists are just concerned with
the preservation of the present system of neo-colonial capitalism like the conservative liberals.
This is the very reason that the programme of the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) for instance was
so concerned about the provision of social amenities and opportunities for the masses as a way
of advancing the capitalist mode of development of the country. The party tried to achieve this
goal by using state power to redistribute income and wealth; and using the budgetary processes
to divert this wealth from the rich to the poor so that the gap between the two classes was
reduced.
In Ola Onis view, the poverty of the welfarist tendency was exposed in practice in the
five states under the control of the UPN in the second republic (1979-83). Ola Oni maintained
that, in terms of resource mobilisation and implementing projects, there was no difference
between the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and other liberal conservative parties like the National
Party of Nigeria (NPN), the Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP) and the Great Nigerian Peoples
Party (GNPP).
This is the very reason that the UPN was restricted to the annual traditional ritual of
budgeting expenditure for implementing projects. So, if they could not get funds from the federal
government, they would be in serious trouble. These welfarist governments like their
conservative counterparts engaged in the contract system as way of implementing projects and
their expenditures were geared towards enriching private capitalists. Ola Oni also identified the
common ground shared by both tendencies. They both believed in returning to lassez-faire
economics and the rejuvenation of capitalism. Both also agreed to attract and encourage more
inflows of imperialist capital into the country.
In contrast to the welfarists, the conservative liberal reformists do not apologise for
capitalism. They believe that capitalism can work if the state withdraws from its involvement in
the economy. They are opposed to state ownership and management of economic projects and
argue that the state should sell its shares in many state owned companies. They believe that the
parastatals, such as the Airways, the Railways, the Post Office, National Electric Power
Authority (NEPA), Ports, should be turned over to private capitalists. They also argue that all
controlled state institutions like the universities should try to organise profit-making projects to
get funds rather than just relying on the state for money. They believe that the state should

Page 92

restrict itself to laying favourable foundations for private capitalism by providing subsidised
services, allocating funds to financial institutions to provide loans to the productive sector. These
conservative reformists also canvassed for large scale capitalist farming, scientific resultoriented management, workers to be remunerated in accordance to their productivity, educated
elites to go into scientific farming, agro-allied industries to be established and encouraged, iron
and steel industries developed for the economy, foreign capital to be discouraged and a
premium placed on small enterprises.
This economic agenda was pursued by the conservative leadership of the country
(including military rulers) in the period of Alhaji Shehu Shagari, Ibrahim Babangida, Shonekan,
Sanni Abacha, Abdulsallam Abubakar, Olusegun Obasanjo and more recently under Alhaji Umar
Yaradua and Goodluck Jonathan. These policies are therefore not strange but the programme
is now being implemented to the letter as never before.
Despite the differences between each tendency (conservatives and welfarists) in the
area of economics, they have much in common in the area of politics. They both believe in
political stability and the lack of this can largely be traced to the absence of unity. Ola Oni went
further to identify the contradiction of the welfarist liberal reformists that gave the impression that
they were fighting for the interests of the poor masses in addressing the redistribution of wealth
in society, whereas in the area of politics where this economic structure can be made
practicable, their position is very evasive and has nothing to offer to the masses. The capitalist
interest that is common to each tendency is the very reason that they are united on how the
political problem of the country can be resolved.
They all believe in federalism as a way of achieving stability and unity. The only
disagreement between them is in its form for how to meet the interests of the particular ethnic
groups which they claim to champion; hence the agreement between them on the need to
create more states. They believe that stability can only come by allowing all the ethnic groups in
the country to be catered for with their own states. And that the domination of one ethnic group
by another cannot make for a united and stable country. In order to achieve this aim the
positions and privileges at the centre must be shared out equitably in accordance with the
federal character, Oni insisted.
Ola Oni further stressed that the liberals therefore frowned at a highly centralised
federalism. They seemed to prefer cooperative federalism in which the centre becomes a forum
for sharing power and resources. To these liberals, the issue of expanding freedom and
democracy for the masses is not one of the goals of political reform. They are more concerned
about reforms for stabilising their dictatorship and for creating favourable appropriation of
capital. They are not able to see how the political problems are tied up with the process of
competitive capital accumulation. In reality, it can also be said that this agreement of the ruling
class in theory does not hold. Often times the latent contradictions in the system burst into the
open and this leads to disability. The Civil War (1967 1970) and the June 12, 1993 revolts
were good examples.
Awos general conception of socialism was influenced by the general idea that this
represented by state capitalism in the former Soviet Union and other Eastern European states.
The fact is that, the classic socialist revolution of October 1917 in Russia was achieved
without bloodshed. Violence only came in 1918 when the reactionary forces (both feudalists and
bourgeoisies) that had been deprived of power, launched a war to stage a comeback. All
Marxists share the idea that no ruling class would want to abdicate power. It is not enough to
carry out a revolution or come to power. What really matters is how to defend the socialist state.
Radical military officers like Murtala Mohammed in Nigeria, Thomas Sankara in Burkina Fasso
or Jerry Rawlings in Ghana were overthrown by reactionary forces. Only a socialist revolution

Page 93

from below of the organised working class supported by the poor masses and led by a strong
revolutionary party can withstand a counter-revolutionary onslaught. Socialism is the self
emancipation of the working class who will defend their revolution to the extent that may be
necessary.
Awo had the whole conception of revolution wrong by associating it with violence.
Trotsky, who led the Red Army of Russian Revolution, put it aptly by saying that the work of a
revolutionary project was eighty-five percent (85%) political and fifteen percent (15%) military. As
such, military questions are not primary for socialist revolutionaries. For a revolution to be
successful it must, first of all, to be won in the minds of the mass of poor people.
The fundamental area of disagreement between Awolowo and Ola Oni was in the area
of class struggle. Oni renounced Awos postulation and his theory of the end justifies the
means approach. According to Ola Oni:
Awo did not seem to appreciate sufficiently the problems of the transition from
capitalism to socialism. He just refused to accept that such a transition involves social
struggle between those who benefit from capitalism and the masses who are at the
receiving end, being exploited and victims of oppression . . . The issue is not a question of
what one wishes. It is a question of abiding by scientific laws of social change . . . When it
comes to understanding social change, the bourgeoisies knowledge of society cannot
make us get at the truth, in this regard, Marxist knowledge is the gate-way out.
The capitalist system is an arrangement that exists to serve the interests of the
capitalist while socialism is an arrangement for liberating the masses from them. Such
liberation can only be achieved by the masses themselves by struggling against the
resistance of the capitalists.
Awo did not agree to this. His view was that winning votes in elections and parliamentary
legislatures are sufficient to bring socialism about. But we must observe that Awo went as far as
accepting dialectics, even though an ethical one, that changes take place by progressive
resolution of contradictions in which evil is not permanent and will eventually be replaced by
good. It means that he accepts that socialism which represents the good is bound to displace
capitalism which represents evil ...Where Awo went wrong was not to recognize that contradictory
relations in thought, in matter or in society were relations of struggle, because the survival of one
calls for the destruction of the other.
In a capitalist society, this struggle is a process of struggle for power. The working people
know from practical experience that they have to organize and fight before their employers or the
ruling class will grant some token benefits for their welfare; and if the goal is socialism the
exploited masses will have to wrestle power from the capitalists before socialism or the socialist
objective can be realized.
The real source of Awos error was his non-recognition of socialism as a liberating
ideology for the emancipation of the masses from capitalism. Socialism means more than just a
system providing for the peoples material well-being, free education, free health services,
securities etc. The key essence of socialism is that it is a system in which exploitation of the
working masses is abolished and genuine equality (that could last) exists because economic
and political power is democratized . . . The real difference therefore, between a (welfarist)
capitalist system and a socialist one is that in the former, the capitalist monopolize economic
and political power which enables them to exploit the masses, whereas in the socialist system
the monopoly of power by a few will not exist and will be democratically controlled by the
people.
Probably, events of the time in Nigeria with the annulment of June 12, 1993 presidential

Page 94

election, won by MKO Abiola, would have taught Obafemi Awolowo a big lesson if he lived
longer. And most probably he would have reconsidered his belief in the peaceful approach to
achieving socialism through the electoral process. There is no doubt that such cases abound
across the world and particularly in Africa. Other examples of socialists being removed by force
include Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Thomas Sankara in Burkina Fasso, Allende in Chile and the
recent annulment of elections in Algeria and Burma.
Military intervention and coups to replace democratic processes and progressive
regimes is still part of bourgeois antics as the recent history of Venezuela shows. If they could
not tolerate the bourgeois regime of Abiola for instance, how on earth could they tolerate a
socialist regime of Awo? The annulment of the June 12, 1993 elections was just a continuation
of the rigging election tactics of the first and second republics of Nigeria.
Mahmud Tukur, who shared common perspectives with Ola Oni described the situation
more aptly (at Bala Mohammeds anniversary) when he said:
the struggle to establish true and meaningful democracy in Nigeria is not going to
be easy. This struggle is going to demand very great sacrifices on the part of those
participating in it, sacrifices including the supreme one. It means also that those who
enjoyed privileges in the past are not going to give up easily those privileges just because
of arguments, however, strong and cogent those arguments may be. They are going to
fight and employ all dubious and fascist means to sustain their power and privileges
including eliminations . . . All the talk about religion and God coming from these people,
who are enjoying privileges, is a smoke-screen put up to fool the masses, the downtrodden. These dubious people believe in no God, they believe in no life thereafter, they
believe in no life apart from this one and if you try to intervene between them and their
privileges, they will eliminate you unless you are prepared to face them . . . (Therefore),
we should not fool ourselves that Nigeria is different from those other countries like
Britain, the United States, France and the Soviet Union where very bitter civil wars had to
be fought before democracy could be established, including democracy of the bourgeois
variety. And it also means that all this talk about history not repeating itself, that since
Nigeria had already fought a civil war, it is not likely to fight another is sheer nonsense. It
is bunkum.
Tukur concluded by stating that: there is every indication that history is about to repeat
itself in Nigeria and that unless those who truly believe in the peace, tranquillity and stability of
Nigeria, those who believe in progress and peace, try very hard, there is also no avoiding
another civil war.
A decade after this prophetic statement, Nigeria is fast moving towards the brink of civil
war. A lot of things have happened to-date. A popular election that was believed to be the most
free and fair in the annals of Nigerian history was annulled by Babangidas military junta; only to
be replaced by another Military junta personified by Sanni Abacha. Abacha started from where
Babangida stopped. He detained the winner of the June 12 1993 Presidential election MKO
Abiola for four years before he finally died in detention. Many opposition leaders especially
labour and human rights activists were incarcerated in detention while some others, were driven
into exile; still others, including journalists, were framed for plotting a coup. Mrs. Kudirat Abiola,
Rewane Alfred, Ken Saro-Wiwa and others were killed by the Abacha led government.
Another way of looking at the shortcoming of reformism, as represented by Awolowo, is
the fact that with his contribution of free education in the old Western region, the succeeding
regimes have crippled this achievement and it remains a thing of the past only to be
remembered as a historical fact from the archives. For a lasting solution to the problem of
humanity, poor-people must be carried along, properly mobilized to implement the changes

Page 95

themselves. By so doing it will become difficult, if not impossible, for such changes to be
overturned by any succeeding reactionary forces. Hence the relevance of socialist ideology as
canvassed by Ola Oni, as an instrument of achieving societal change. Democracy and morality
in government as experienced today in the Western world is as a result of the bourgeois
revolution which they passed through during their political development. Even this remains
limited and the real power still remains in the hands of the rich.
Furthermore, even if state capitalism, mistakenly referred to as state socialism, was to
be achieved through democratic means: such success could not be guaranteed, on a
permanent basis, without putting the economic and political power in the hands of the working
masses and linking the struggle with that of the international working class. Oni pointed out that
Awos programme is therefore likely to lead us to state socialism which in the face of
imperialist aggression will be very difficult to sustain.
Oni must have been cautious in his choice of the words state socialism to describe
state capitalism as the ultimate goal of Awos ideology. This is because there is a big gulf
between state capitalism and scientific socialism. While state capitalism describes a system in
which party leaders exercise bureaucratic control to manage state economy as well as political
institutions; which made it possible to dish out welfare programme. On the other hand, scientific
socialism tends towards removing bureaucratization of control in both political and economic
institutions. It provides for working class control of the economy and their participation in the
administration of the entire society at different levels of governance. It is only by this means that
enough resources can be generated and made available with nationalization. This can be
equitably shared among the working people themselves, by their own decisions.
Many meetings were called with the aim of developing a united revolutionary party but
these failed. Comrade Ola Oni and his group, after having sacrificed and made compassionate
efforts in this manner, finally concluded that unity will come in the course of practice and is not
something that can be achieved mechanically by wishful thinking. There are many factors both
objective and subjective that accounted for this failure. It was the opinion of Oni that most
comrades lacked knowledge of how a socialist revolution would come about and that they
largely depended on theoretical formula; instead of taking into consideration concrete, historical
and practical experiences. He identified three trends among revolutionary organizations on the
issue of how to organize and advance the struggle of the working class. These he categorized
as the:

National Democratic Revolutionary (social democrats)

Revolutionary Romantics

Peoples Democratic Revolution.

National Democratic Revolutionary

The first one was personified in Nigerian history by Sam (S.G.) Ikoku who together with
his Lagos group believed Nigeria was not ripe for a proletarian revolution because of the
numerical weakness of the working class. All that could be done was to support the
progressive bourgeoisie in the struggle against feudalism and imperialism. They should
therefore help to consolidate the unity of the bourgeois state. Other members of this Lagos
group include Ebenezer Babatope, Kanmi Ishola Oshobu, Jubril Martins Kuye, Kayode Aluko
Olokun.

Page 96

The problem of this idea is that it does not realize that the bourgeoisie of this era is
incapable of an independent position from imperialism. It is in essence a dependent,
unrevolutionary and agent-like capitalist that derives its resources and privileges from
corruption, embezzlement, 10 percent commission, from the (mis) rule of the state apparatus on
behalf of world capitalism. There is no doubt that Awo, Zik, Aminu Kano and others fell within
this category despite their populism.
This was the reason they let down many Marxists who looked up to them as being
capable of providing leadership to confront imperialism. Ola Oni traced the origin of this trend in
historical perspectives. According to him, the regimes of Nkrumah in Ghana, Nasser in Egypt,
Surkano in Indonesia etc, that were often referred to as socialist-oriented, were the outstanding
examples of what the National Revolutionary Democrats aspired to achieve. And in Nigeria, he
stated further:
During the colonial period, it was this perspective that made Nigerian
revolutionary cadres prefer to join the National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons
(NCNC) instead of organizing a separate proletarian vanguard party as advocated by
Biodun Coker who formed the first Nigeria Labour Party (NLP) as far back as 1950, but
other labour leaders including the so-called socialists did not see the need for this
formation, they preferred the NCNC. The programme of the Socialist Workers and
Farmers Party (SWAFP) and the NLP immediately after independence also reflected the
national democratic revolutionary approach. The Peoples Redemption Party (PRP)
represents the latest example of the national revolutionary democrats.
The PRP could not advance the revolutionary changes necessary in society beyond
what was achieved in Kaduna and Kano States when under its control because of the limitations
inherent in the mode of struggle it adopted. It is for this reason that the party under-rated the
violent character of the struggle against their enemy; whereby too much trust was placed on
bourgeois processes of fair play and justice. It relied on bourgeois political manipulations of the
present judicial and administrative processes and on manoeuvres among the bourgeois parties.
The party under-rated the fascistic nature of the counter-revolutionary forces and refused to pay
attention to mass mobilisation for mass action.
Ola Oni recalled that there is no place in history where people have liberated themselves
from feudalism and imperialism by gradual peaceful processes. And that social democratic
approach to revolution has always brought disaster to the revolutionary movement. He cited the
experiences of revolutionary movements in Indonesia, Sudan and Chile to buttress this position.
He then warned the Peoples Redemption Party (PRP) that the imperialists and their
domestic agents would not tolerate any process of gradual steering of neocolonialism towards a
revolutionary path however peaceful. He then persuaded the party from going into alliance with
the bourgeois parties because they cannot depend on such alliance for the necessary
revolutionary struggle. Alternatively, he pointed out that the party had the responsibility of forging
alliances with the working class and the peasantry to advance the revolution. The demise of the
PRP is a clear justification of the shortcomings of the national democratic revolutionary
approach (social democratic reformism).
Revolutionary Romantics
The second trend Ola Oni identified is what he tagged Revolutionary Romantics. This is
the trend of some comrades who so much believe in armed struggle or guerrilla warfare. Their
thesis drew heavily from the former deputy to Chairman Mao, Lin Biao who stressed using the
countryside to encircle and finally capture the cities. This trend was not known in Nigeria before

Page 97

the mid-seventies when it was championed by the Anti-Poverty Movement. There is no doubt
that they were able to attract people because of the popularity of countries like Cuba, Vietnam,
North Korea, Algeria etc where the approach was relatively successful. The shortcomings of this
idea can be located in peasantry as a social group that is dispersed, therefore unorganized and
such an uprising could easily be squashed, or at best it would resort to acts of terrorism that
would not be beneficial to anybody.
Oni stated that:
An extreme manifestation of this tendency is that it is the quickest short-cut to
revolution. They look forward towards revolutionary military coups. They are disposed to
individualist heroic destructive anarchism. They see the systematic mobilization of the
working people through the organization of the vanguard party as time wasting. They
ridicule and condemn comrades who participate in electoral struggle or those that
engaged in open day to day class struggles against the bourgeoisie.
On their position on arms, Oni stated that:
No genuine and serious Marxist-Leninist organization will reject armed
insurrection, (but) what the carrier of this tendency, the Anti-Poverty Movement did not
know is that the masses do not automatically take to armed struggle. People can only be
made aware of armed struggle as a solution after they have seen that other modes of
struggles cannot achieve the end results.
So, armed struggle has to be part and parcel of poor peoples popular mass action. This
tendency could more easily be dismissed now than in the 1970s (when it was the fashion)
because all the regimes put into place by this approach with the support of former USSR have
collapsed. This is a justification for a permanent revolution perspective, that it is not coming to
power that really matters, but how this power can be made permanent. Prominent members of
this APMON were: Biodun Jeyifo, Edwin Madunagu, Charles Akinde, Anthony Egurube, Gbola
Akintunde. They had the support of Nigerian Dockworkers Union.
Peoples Democratic Revolution
The third, which is the last category of trends identified by Ola Oni, is the Peoples
Democratic Revolution. Oni associated his group with this trend which sees revolution as a
continuous process of struggle to transform Nigeria into a proletarian society. They believe the
revolution has no room for stages in the way the advocates of the national democratic revolution
sees it. In this approach, according to Oni, the socialist programme is played up as an
immediate urgent goal and direct attention is focussed on the mobilization of the exploited
masses.
We therefore rule out the immediate stage in which the bourgeoisie have to lead
an antifeudal and anti-imperialist revolution (because we are convinced that) no
section of Nigerian bourgeoisie can be relied on to take an anti-feudal and anti-imperialist
position in a revolutionary way ... Hence the struggle against feudalism and imperialism
cannot be divorced from socialist struggle, for only the proletarian forces can be relied
upon for the successful overthrow of these exploiting interests.
One of the other tactical issur that has always generated controversy, when organising a
united left or socialist platform, is the issue of the vanguard party. What Madunagu termed Elite
Vanguardism. Not a few comrades share this belief with Madunagu that what is needed is a
national, mass based and revolutionary socialist organisation rather than a localised, esoteric
and academic tagged Vanguard Revolutionary Party. But the knotty problem has always been

Page 98

how to constitute this ideal Vanguard Party, that is, which of the social groups? While some
believe that it is the historical responsibility of the working class to proclaim or put it in place,
others disagree.
Oni falls within the category of comrades that believe that it is not enough for people to
answer comrades like a title as the basis of being member of a Vanguard Party. A vanguard
party cannot be a party of Dick and Harry. If it is to follow the footsteps of V.I. Lenin, a
revolutionary party is expected to be a party of entirely professional revolutionaries. So, it is not
a party that can be brought into place after a meeting or a seminar like a front party. This reason
informs Onis position that a vanguard party will evolve over time after the coming together of
the various groups in a front movement. And that it is in the process of doing this that the
serious and committed cadres can be sought and crystallized into what is called a vanguard
party.
The essence of a revolutionary vanguard is to be felt more in a tyrannical situation where
freedom and liberty of citizens cannot be taken for granted. Oni felt that if people know what
revolutionary cadres have passed through in terms of arrest and detention, while some have
paid the capital price of death; that the issue of vanguard party would have been taken more
seriously rather than equating it to a front organization. There are even some Comrades that
have exhibited their opportunism in the past or who were already a spent force in the struggle
who were still being invited to participate in regular meetings called by the Socialist Movement.
Ola Oni must have had in mind the case of Dr. Victor Allen while insisting on why
revolutionaries could not afford to be lackadaisical as revolutionary activities are matters of life
and death. Dr. Victor Allen was a trade unionist from Leeds in UK who was in Nigeria hosted by
the organisation that Ola Oni was a leading member. His activities caught the attention of the
security agents and he was arrested and detained along with other Nigerian socialists, Sidi
Khayan and Olu Adebayo on June 16 1964 on charges of sedition that they meant to overthrow
the Tafawa Balewa led Federal Government, a charge that was regarded as a serious offence in
many of the law books of the commonwealth countries, After the end of the protracted trial that
ensued the visiting comrade was convicted and sentenced to 12 months imprisonment on
November 10, 1964. He served his term in Jos Prison. This caused a steer in the British
Parliament where the Secretary of State of the Commonwealth Relations was invited and faced
serious interrogation by members of the parliament.
One of the fears of the Parliament was that Dr. Allen would have completed his jail term
before considering his appeal that he had tabled before the authorities concerned. They also
wanted to know efforts made so far by the British Government on his case and how he had
been treated in detention. The first hearing of his appeal was fixed for April 1, 1965 and this was
not done until pressure from both domestic and external forces and the victim himself who
embarked on hunger strike that ended in March 25, 1965 after formally informed of the
commencement date of appeal. Before retiring the case at the Court of Appeal, it became
glaring to Ola Oni and others that both Nigerian Government and British Government were
interested parties that would not let Victor Allen go, it was for this foresight that the organisation
had to plan to save Victor Allen by making him to escape from the detention by disguising as
Islamic prophet (Alpha) with big head tie. Ola Oni confirmed as much that he was responsible
for the purchase of the materials used for this purpose.
How Socialist are those that have been found wanting in practice? This made Eskor
Toyo lash out at Nigerian Socialists when he stated that:
It is only in the socialist movement in Nigeria that people are called upon to
behave like harlots whose bed is free to all callers, no matter their past or present who
come along with a silly seductive smile.

Page 99

Oni argued against those that believed that the source of a vanguard revolutionary party
can only come from the proletarian workers and claimed that such a position was not historically
correct. This is because Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, and other leading Marxists of past
generations were not of proletarian origins.
He argued that what mattered was the orientation and focus of the party programme.
That it should have a working class orientation and strive to be rooted in the working class with
the intent of making the party that of the workers without necessarily reducing itself to the level
of an amateur. According to Ola Oni, a vanguard party should be composed of the advanced
layers of manual workers, intellectual workers, peasants and other oppressed peoples. But
workers, especially industrial workers, were a premium because of their revolutionary role in this
epoch when history has reposed on it as the only group that has the power and vision to
challenge and replace capitalism in its imperialist stage.
So, a vanguard party of a revolutionary type is not the same as a workers party. A
workers party can be a reformist or a socialist (front) party without necessarily being a
revolutionary vanguard party. But on the other hand a revolutionary vanguard party can emerge
from such a mass workers party depending on how revolutionaries actively work in it and how
the balance of forces shifts to their side at a particular point in time.
On comparing Ola Onis group with others before and after independence; Ola Onis
group distinguished itself as a real revolutionary organization of the poor people that made its
mark and paid the price for its total commitment to the struggle for the emancipation of the mass
of poor people. It has had no equal in the history of revolutionary organizations in Nigeria.
The best way to analyse such organizations is to review the way they handled the crises
that erupted in the areas where they were active.
Ola Onis group were a significant part of the leadership of revolutionary politics
throughout the 1970s and 1980s. The crisis of students and education at the time were well
publicised. Members of Ola Onis group were either part of the leadership of the students union
or the political movement, or both. Where the organization did not actually control the students
union, they were able to use the movement to influence the actions of the union.
The Police, as the coercive arm of the state, are always willing to serve as willing tools to
carry out the anti-poor people orders of the government and to disrupt gatherings of the masses
when they organise to discuss vital issues and how their lives can change for the better. On one
of these occasions, speakers were drawn from different parts of the old Oyo state to discuss,
The State of the Nation at Mapo Hall, Ibadan. But this was prevented by the police who would
not allow the officials to open the hall for the meeting. Among the expected speakers were
Professor Toye Olorode, Dr. Idowu Awopetu from University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo
University) and Comrades Ola Oni and Laoye Sanda from Ibadan. Dr. Idowu
Awopetu was visibly furious and agitated. He behaved as if he had not experienced such misuse
of power by the powers that be before. He approached Ola Oni who had just arrived at the
venue only to find confusion instead of meeting people. Awopetu told Oni that: we should resist
this injustice. He asked whether it is illegal to meet in our country? Ola Oni was calm, reserved
and speechless at first. Then he told the people that surrounded him, in a very low voice (that
could only be heard if one listened very carefully), that, this is the type of country we have, it
lacks freedom. This is the very reason there is no alternative to the socialist mode of
development and the bourgeoisie are only afraid because they fear the people. They do not want
the poor people to learn the way out of their predicament.
People started leaving one after another after this informal discussion.

Page100

This obstruction came after earlier successful lectures and symposia at the venue. One
of these lectures was given by G.G. Darah (from Unife) where he traced the origin of Nigerias
problems to colonialism and the history of Nigeria as a nation. The state must have felt
threatened by the success of this series of meetings that had been dominated by progressive
forces. So, in order to check mate this mobilisation of the working people for progressive
change, they exercised their power to protect their pro-rich class interests by using the police to
stop further mobilization of the poor people.
Ola Oni never shied away from a fight. He engaged in many of these in the course of his
revolutionary life both against the state, the ruling class, but also with other comrades to agree
the correct perspectives on issues of the day. Differences on perspectives and the fight against
opportunism were the two main sources of division in revolutionary organizations. These were
responsible for the break-up of organizations that were still small in terms of numerical strength.
The issue of division between small organizations does not actually matter to socialists. What
matters is a sound analysis and clear understanding of events that can stand the test of time. A
numerically weak organization with correct perspectives and suitable revolutionary confidence
can blossom with a large membership explosion when a favourable revolutionary situation
arises.
This tradition is not new in the history of revolutionary activities across the world; it is
common and explains why there are several different socialist organizations. It is also a pointer
to good things to come from a fighting revolutionary organization. That is to say an organization
that has engaged in different forms of internal debate and struggle, will not shy away from acting
on truth at all times if it finds itself in power. This is because in such an organization, the fighting
spirit would have become contagious. In battles among comrades, theoretical issues are
thrashed out and polemics flow from all directions. When conflicts within revolutionary
organizations lead to their break-up, this is sometimes not palatable either party, as they may
have been very close with personal friendships.
The various organizations in which Ola Oni was active during his political career were a
product of conflicts within the Socialist Workers and Farmers Party (SWAFP) and the Nigeria
Labour Party (NLP) in 1963 and 1964 respectively. The Marxist Revolutionary League, named
Labour Militant, led by Femi Aborisade broke away from Ola Onis Socialist Workers Party in
l986. Not long after this another youth organization, the Patriotic Labour Front Group led by
Femi Ahmed Israel, D.D. Adodo, Lanre, Femi Obayori and Yakub gravitated to Ola Oni and they
later merged to form the Socialist Revolutionary Vanguard (SRV).
Ola Oni explained the conflicts within the SWAFP and NLP, by saying:
Many young revolutionary Marxist-Leninists within the two parties violently
disagreed with the leadership of the parties for directing the proletarian movement into an
alliance with the bourgeois movement. They asserted that such an alliance amounted to
selling the United Progressive Grand Alliance (UPGA) to the working masses. They
argued that the alliance would make it difficult to liberate the working people from the
politics of ethnic divisions which was the main sustaining base of the bourgeois
dictatorship. The revolutionaries in these parties regarded both the Nigerian National
alliance (NNA) and the UPGA as the same as they were both bourgeois oppressors of
the masses and that the so-called progressive nature of the UPGA was due to its
oppositional position. When in power, the revolutionaries explained, UPGA would just be
as oppressive to the proletarian forces as NNA. Honest comrades in these parties fought
against the bureaucratization of the parties and the diversion of the resources of the
movement by the leaders for private use. The resources were monopolized by the
leadership and not properly used for advancing the revolutionary mobilization of the

Page101

masses in a serious way. Lip-service was paid to grassroots organization. For example,
the newspaper, Advance, would not have seen the light of the day but for the resolute
pressure from the more revolutionary comrades within SWAFP. Even then, the
newspaper was not properly managed, to make the paper fulfil its revolutionary purpose.
The leadership of the Nigerian Labour Party used the resources of the party to run private
businesses to enrich themselves. In response to the growing criticism of the leadership of
these parties, the leaders resorted to bureaucratic control of the organs of decision
making to prevent the revolutionary comrades from knowing what was really going on.
The leaders used their control of the resources of the movement to employ some
opportunist young comrades as party thugs to suppress revolutionary comrades who
criticized them at meetings or violently throw them out of such meetings.
This is why Ola Onis group ultimately pulled out of both the Socialist Workers and
Farmers party (SWFP) and the Nigerian Labour Party (NLP) and created their own independent
platform. This option was timely and paid off. The group dominated the political revolutionary
scene in the following decades 1970s and 1980s.
The disagreement among members of the Ola Oni-led organization that later led to the
breakaway of the faction known as Labour Militant was more over practise than theoretical
differences. Although some of the leadership of Labour Militant may not accept this. The first
organizational and political contact the Ife student leaders, who later formed part of Labour
Militant, had with Ola Oni was in l986. They attended an Alliance for Democratic Rights (ADR)
meeting, at Onis house. Other organizations expected to come to the meeting did not attend,
only three groups were in attendance. The Socialist Workers Party (SWP) (Onis group) was
represented by Ola Oni, Laoye Sanda, Bayo Owolabi and Biodun Olamosu, while the Ife
students were represented by Segun Sango, Muyiwa Osunkoya and Lanre Arogundede. The
latter, Lanre Arogundade, then the president of NANS was not physically present at the meeting
on health grounds. He was being attended to by Mrs. Kehinde Ola Oni in a room adjacent to the
sitting room where the meeting took place.
The Ife students stayed the night at 6, Odeku Close, the home of Ola Oni, after the
meeting. They had useful discussions with Ola Oni. The organizational leadership of Femi
Aborisade came to the limelight when building and consolidating the Lagos branch of the party
that was referred to as the Lagos Section and later the Labour Militant Tendency by its
members. In a matter of months, this branch became the strongest branch in terms of activities,
but could still not be compared with Ibadan in terms of experience and its financial contribution.
The Polytechnic, Ibadan branch (students) of the organization had no equal among
other such students organizations. The basis had been laid by Rauf Aregbesola, Olaniyan,
Femi Aborisade, Kunle Bakare and Bayo Owolabi, before they graduated from The Polytechnic.
The school also produced Remi Ogunlana as the Senate President of the National Association
of Nigerian Students (NANS) n l983 and Johnson Fayemi as Public Relations Officer of NANS in
1985 that were also members of the Ola Onis organisation.
The strength of Lagos section could best be appreciated with the way they actively made
use of the paper or organ of the party, Workers Vanguard. They broke new ground and opened
up many contacts among workers in factories, shops and communities and students in their
schools. Thousands of copies of Workers Vanguard were sold. Femi Aborisade, as the
education officer of Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) at the time, did not hide his ideological
disposition as a Marxist nor his relations with the SWP, a budding revolutionary organization. He
used his position in the best interest of workers. Educational programmes were held regularly
with rank and file workers across the country. Radical scholars and Marxists were involved as
leading lecturers and facilitators in such workshops, Public lectures and symposia were

Page102

organized and were a veritable avenue for sales of workers Vanguard. Aborisade was later
sacked from the central labour body, Nigeria Labour Congress due to his ideological tendency
that becomes too radical for the leadership of the Congress. This happened without prior
warning or trial.
Two important reasons could be given for this flagrant abuse of democratic values by an
organization that should be expected to promote and care for democratic principles and praxis.
First, the leadership of the Congress and other industrial unions were still under the control or
influence of the Socialist Working Peoples Party (SWP), the new organization formed around
1980 by erstwhile leaders of NLP. So, this group would have been irritated that Ola Onis group
were brazen enough to penetrate their territorial jurisdiction, the organised working class. So
they took all necessary steps and all possible bureaucratic means to prevent further penetration
by the group.
The second reason was the fact that the organization that Femi Aborisade was
associated with was ideologically critical of the NLCs bureaucratic leadership that held
allegiance to Soviet bureaucracy in Russia. Femi and other comrades in the Lagos Section of
SWP were in the fore front of advocating workers control of a nationalized economy rather than
the bureaucratic control of the economy as was the practice in the Stalinist countries of Russia
and Eastern European. The NLC and other political supporters of the Soviet Union must have
stuck to this bureaucratic apparatus due to the financial benefits derivable from such a
relationship and because of the reason Trotsky gave, that it is always difficult to detach oneself
from the organization where you developed political consciousness. This may also be due to
their ignorance of the state of degeneration that had turned to be the way of life of Soviet
bureaucracy.
The progress made by the October l917 Russian revolution that overthrew capitalism
and landlordism had been tremendous and intimidating. The revolution changed the history of
the world and marked an entire new stage in the development of mankind. However, that was
not to last.
Russia rose from this as a developing country to one of the developed countries of the
world within a quarter of a century. Though the revolution did not achieve the objective set out
from inception for the bureaucratic degeneration that crippled in. So the success recorded could
be traced to the upper hand that state capitalist society still had over capitalist regimes because
of the advantage of central planning and state intervention. For example as at 1980s, the
country was second industrial and worlds leading producer of oil (25 per cent of world
production), gas (35 per cent) and steel (24 per cent). Its electricity output was equivalent to that
of the whole EEC, and accounts for 17 per cent of the world production. Its achievements with
the nationalised means of production, distribution and exchange are gigantic and imperishable.
State capitalism has demonstrated its right to superiority over capitalism, just for a period. So if
state capitalism could achieve such feat, one can best imagine what would be the result of all
out socialist policy by genuine Marxist in power.
These achievements were the result of state ownership of the economy and central
planning; but as Trotsky rightly predicted this could not last with the attending bureaucratic
jeremiadry that would soon stultify whatever progress or achievements were recorded. This
turned out to be the case from the l970s when the effects of the Stalinist bureaucracy started to
be felt. In the years between l918 and l963 for instance, industrial output (in Russia) rocketed by
52 times while in USA it increased six times and in Britain only doubled. In the l950s the
economy in Russia grew by an average of 12 per cent a year, a rate easily out stripping almost
every capitalist power even at the peak of the boom. But a dramatic change came with the
record going down the hill in the last twenty years before the country finally collapsed in l989. At

Page103

this time, Russia had developed only at a tortoise pace . The rate of development of the
economy had been lower than that of capitalism in the period of the economic upswing or even
in some years of economic decline. In l979 (for instance) the Gross National Product grew by
0.9 per cent, in l980 l.5 per cent, and about 2.5 per cent in l98l and l982.
The friends of Soviet Union therefore glorified only the above-recorded achievements of
the country and kept quiet about the reactionary force that the bureaucracy had become and
which had a devastating effect on her economy.
Thus, the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) bureaucracy and their patrons outside could
not stomach such an ideological challenge; especially when it was coming from vibrant youths
with the backing of Ola Oni and the will to carry their perspective to the doorsteps of the
workers. The NLC preferred for them to be kept down, made docile, apathetic and apolitical and
so did not realize the revolutionary potential they possessed. The efforts of Femi and his
comrades to awaken the consciousness of the working class and the countrys youth were
geared towards registering the presence and relevance of the working class.
Before long, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) became the first socialist group of its
kind to be rooted in rank and file workers. It was able to substantially influence some unions at
national and local levels. Many other members of the organization held positions at the unit or
state levels. Among these were Peter Asamba and Akerele who both at different times occupied
the positions of President of the National Union of Footwear, Leather and Rubber Workers;
Adeyemo, unit Chairman and NEC member of NUSDE); Textile Workers Union; Kunle
Bakare, an Engineer of Lagos State Ministry of Works also had influence with workers in the
ministry and the Lagos State branch of Civil Service Technical Workers Union, where he
worked. They also penetrated University of Lagos where they were able to make contacts with
Rotimi Ewebiyi, Rasheed Ojikuti (Rasky) and Aiyelabola, students of physics and accountancy
respectively.
The growth of the organization within such a short period of time was enormous. At a
later period, when the organization stood on her own under the platform of Labour Militant (the
name of the organisations paper), efforts were made to broaden her activities across the
country among the working class and the student-youths. Some of their members were
employed on a full time basis to work for the organization, at different times these included:
Comrades Femi Aborisade, Rotimi Ewebiyi and Biodun Olamosu. A certain chains of events led
to the Lagos Section of the Ola Oni led SWP to transform itself to an independent organization,
officially named the Marxist Revolutionary League (MRL), but only known publically and referred
to by the name of her organ, Labour Militant (LM).
The genesis of the disagreement for this split was in the characterization of the Soviet
Union and other Stalinist countries. Among the leading comrades of the SWP (as at l986) only
Comrade Laoye Sanda was ready to defend the Stalinist countries as being genuinely socialist.
Comrade Ola Oni argued for revolutionary patience among the comrades that polemicised
against the Soviet Union. He said that their knowledge of Soviet Union, should be put into use
in our country so that we shall not make such mistakes that the revolutionaries before us made.
When arguments on such issue became tense and hot, Ola Oni would charge the militant
tendency that their British section cannot fight Thatcher with their theory. His argument was
basically that he recognized the undemocratic nature of the Soviet Union, as identified by
Trotsky and Trotskyites across the world, but that it was not enough for us to think that this
problem could be automatically resolved at once. He stressed further that we should realize that
struggles are going on at various levels including in the Soviet Union. He wanted members to
know that the practice of factions that frequently lead to break up of Trotskyites organizations
cannot be the alternative to the problem. He would then ask whether it was Stalinism that was

Page104

responsible for such frequent break-ups of Trotskyite groups.

At the end of the day, Ola Oni wanted the organization (SWP) to be neutral in the
ideological battle being waged among various socialist tendencies across the world, especially
in Europe. Ola Oni would say that the conditions that poor people in third world countries (like
Nigeria) were suffering were not the same as the situation in Europe. He said further that
European socialists could afford the luxury of debating their differences without taking practice
seriously because the issue of basic needs had been resolved in their society. In Europe if one
does not work he/she would not starve. He therefore wanted members to concentrate on how to
improve the situation of the poor masses. He also wanted members to be pragmatic on the
issue of the Soviet Union and other Eastern European Stalinist countries because he believed
they still served as a check on the imperialist countries of the world. And for this reason, he
believed that hardly any country could achieve a socialist revolution (at the time) without the
support of Soviet Union against the danger posed by imperialism.
On the business side, he also wanted the organization to realize the implication of our
taking the line of anti-Sovietism on our economic project, the bookshop of the organization that
was stocked mainly by Soviet published books. This was the main means through which the
organisations newspaper, Workers Vanguard was financed.
This position of Ola Oni represented the general position of the mainstream members of
the organization. Some of the future Labour Militant members had just been exposed to the new
idea of anti-Stalinism. Darah and Aborisade in the course of their travels abroad separately
came across the Militant Tendency, a British socialist organisation led by a 70 year old South
African emigrant, Ted Grant. The group was militant like their name indicates and represented
the Marxist tendency within British Labour Party. They had two members in parliament and they
wielded more influence at the local council level of British politics. The group became more
visible during the regime of Margaret Thatcher. The anti-poor neoliberal policy of Thatchers
government was strongly opposed by this group and they were responsible for leading the
agitation of workers against the government. The governments popular rating dropped
drastically with the anti-poll tax movement which was led by the Militant. This was responsible
for bringing down Margaret Thatcher. Nevertheless, the Tories were able to retain power
because the Labour Party shirked its responsibility to mobilize along with the Militant Tendency.
This period was the climax of the revolutionary activities of the group (Militant). The group was
later defeated and expelled from Labour Party before and when the right wing leader, Tony Blair,
formed a government.
The Militant Tendencys representative, Bob, used to come to Nigeria and stayed in Ola
Onis house for days with the mission of sorting out the issue of perspectives and how the two
organizations could work together under the platform of the International later known as the
Committee for a Workers International (CWI). Bob had a great influence on the section in
Nigeria.
Ola Onis clear headedness on Trotskyism was not in doubt even though the same could
not be said for his other leading comrades. His library contained classical books by Trotsky. He
also sold Trotskyites books in his bookshop. In line with Ola Onis persuasion, a revolutionary
cannot afford to act dogmatically on the matter of theory. This was the very reason Karl Marx
said that one practical step is better than a dozen of theories. It is also a historical fact that Marx
and Engels worked together under the same political platform with people of different trends like
anarchism, religionist and syndicalist believing that things will sort themselves out in the course
of struggle, theory and practice. If a socialist organization was to be built on the basis of pure
revolutionary ideas, Marx would have had nothing to do with Lassalle of Germany or Bakunin of
Russia. Despite their theoretical differences, they still worked together to advance the interests

Page105

of the working class internationally.

Ola Onis position was in fact the position of Lenin before the 1917 revolution in Russia.
Lenin did not follow the dictates of the second international on a lot of issues. He and his
comrades looked at issues as compassionately as possible on the basis both of general theory
and the particular circumstances. This is how physical science differs from social (behavioural)
science. In the former, everything about it is universal whereas in the later there is a mixture of
universalism and particularism. Lenin also understood along with Marx that he was out to
resolve the problem of humanity practically and he also saw Marxism as science of
revolutionary struggle as a guide to such practical struggles rather than just theory for theory
sake.
This was the reason why it was possible for the various socialist trends to come together
in practice despite their theoretical divergences on the platform of the Russian SocialDemocratic Labour Party. The division of the organisation came about in the course of practice
and this exposed the opportunistic tendency within the organisation; that was to be later
expressed in theory. If we realize that the source of theory is practice; we can then agree that
the fundamental way of resolving any problem should be through practice. Marxism is both
science and art as medicine is also science and art; ditto engineering science. On looking
closely at the opportunists in history, it will be realized that this manifested itself in their tiredness
of pursuing struggle for social change before backing this up with a suitable theoretical
formulation.
On the other hand, in a situation where a comrade is found to be practically upright and
their theoretical errors cannot be related to their practical commitment, this can best be
described as a mistake which can be corrected because such comrades can always come to a
realization of the need for practical correction. Lenin also buttressed this position better, when
he said that it is only those that are not practically relevant that will not make mistakes. As the
Russian Revolutionaries movement was embraced by the masses and became a mass
revolutionary organization, so the party also shed her load of opportunists who could have been
a cog in the path of the organizations progress in the future. This was one reason that the
socialist revolution was ultimately successful in l9l7.
Furthermore, it will also be realized that the failure to develop socialism in Russia after
the death of Lenin was due to the absence of workers democratic control of the economy under
the leadership of Joseph Stalin. This was the reason Russia remained at the level of State
Capitalism. From the point of theory and practice, the Soviet Union was never a workers state
because it was never under the control of the working class.
Lenin did not have time to provide the correct leadership necessary to develop the
socialist state before he died in l924. After the revolution of October l9l7, the white Guard (army)
backed by world imperialism launched a war against Russia. This was what the newly emergent
socialist country confronted until l9l8 when they defeated the old capitalist order in the war.
During the war, Lenin was shot which led to complications with his health and a stroke. He was
able to survive the stroke and was doing everything he could to lay a solid foundation, in both
theory and practice, for both a workers state in Russia and World Revolution. He was able to
identify the salient problems that the young socialist country confronted. One of these was the
issue of the bureaucracy, especially because of the weakness of the economy of Russia and the
cultural level of the working class that was low at the time when compared to the capitalist
countries of the west: France, Britain, USA, Germany etc. It was for this reason that Lenin made
the following recommendations to tackle the bureaucracy that official positions should be by
rotation; no officials should earn a salary more than a skilled worker; no standing army, but an
armed people; and that the working places factories, schools, hospitals etc should be

Page106

controlled (directly) by the workers themselves.

The leadership of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, personified by Joseph
Stalin, managed to take control from Lenin while he was on his sick bed, before he died in 1924.
This can best be described as a counter revolution against the ideas of the 1917 socialist
revolution. Trotsky described it as a Thermidorean regime. This Stalinist regime did a great deal
to erode the revolutionary legacy of Lenin. Trotsky had been the leader of the 1905 Soviet in St
Petersburg, Minister for Foreign Affairs in Lenins government and the organiser and head of
Red Army during the war of intervention. However, he and others were defeated in the struggle
that ensued between the forces of revolution and Stalinism.
The argument of Stalinists, that they were defending the established bureaucracy in the
Soviet Union, stems from the fact that the many companies and businesses had been
nationalised. As a result, the country had no large-scale private property nor monopoly capitalist
multinational corporations as we know them in Western capitalist economies. For this reason,
they believed that since state property predominated, the Soviet economy and the state
apparatus, comprising the leadership of the Communist Party of Soviet Union (CPSU) and the
Political Bureau, were presumed to be the true representatives of the working class. They were
defending state structures that had emerged from the l9l7 socialist revolution in Russia.
One of the practical problems after the revolution was the issue of experts, intellectuals
with the necessary knowledge of science and technology. This was the reason for hiring some
classified workers who were handsomely compensated with privileges that were commensurate
with those received by their contemporaries in the west. This was one of the roots of the
bureaucracy. Instead of resolving this issue with practical measures proposed by Lenin, Stalin
justified it as being historically necessary without doing anything to curb its corrupting influence.
These privileges were then extended to state officials, including political and public officials.
This was at the cost of industrial development and the welfare programme of health,
education, housing etc. What took place was intensive, primitive exploitation of the workers and
poor peasants, backed up by a highly repressive state that led to the death of almost all the
Bolshevik leaders of the 1917 revolution with many others and a huge system of concentration
camps which came to be known as the Gulag.
The only difference between the privileged state bureaucrats of the Soviet Union and the
capitalist leaders of the West was not in the amount of public resources that they controlled, but
the source of their wealth. The Soviet bureaucrats relied directly on the state treasury for their
resources, while the bosses got theirs from the profits of their companies. Above all, they all
depended on the working class as the source of their wealth. In both the USSR and the
capitalist West, the working class were relatively poor and did not benefit from the wealth that
they helped to create.
This was made clear in the late l980s when the Stalinist countries were collapsing one
after another. Billions of Rubles, the Russian currency, were found in the private custody of the
leaders of the so-called socialist countries. This showed the extent of the degeneration of the
state capitalist economies of these Stalinist states.
Mikhail Gorbachev, Secretary-General of the Soviet Communist Party confirmed the
atrocities that had been exposed earlier by Trotsky in the 1930s. Such actions had led to
Trotskys expulsion from the Soviet Union and his subsequent exile and eventual assassination
in 1940, on the instructions of Stalin. In the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union (CPSU) in February l986, Gorbachev pointed out the following state of
degeneration of party leaders:
disregard for laws, report-padding, bribe-taking and encouragement of a

Page107

toadyism and adulation had a deleterious influence on the moral atmosphere in society.
The principle of equality between communists was often violated. Many party members in
senior executive positions were outside control of criticism, which resulted in failures of
work and serious breaches of party ethics. Naturally, party organizations and the party as
a whole were fighting these phenomena and expelled from the CPSU a considerable
number of renegades. Among them were people guilty of embezzlement, bribe-taking and
report-padding, people who violated state and party.
Ola Onis theoretical work as an economist indicated his Marxist understanding of how to
embark on socialist construction as part of a move to world socialism with workers democratic
control of the nationalized economies. Typical of the classical work that Ola Oni bequeathed to
African revolutionaries is the: Economic Development of Nigeria: The Socialist Alternative
(1975). The book is extensively reviewed in other chapters of this book. The book places
emphasis on workers control as the engine room of achieving socialist development through a
workers state. Since Ola Oni started his revolutionary activities in the early 1960s, and stood
out as a substantive leader of socialist cause in both his academic and political works, he had
always emphasized the issue of workers control. This is confirmation that Ola Oni understood
the set back and the problems posed by Stalinists.
Lanre Arogundades claim that Comrade Ola Oni was a Stalinist of the Mao Zedong line
of revolutionary struggle is not correct. This is a misinterpretation of issues by people that
substitute appearance for content. This category of people sees Ola Oni as more of a peasant
from his appearance. They interpret this to mean that he was a peasant through and through in
theory and in practice. There is nothing to justify this perceived assumption in the works or views
that Ola Oni expressed.
One issue of importance in the perspective of Maos line of revolution is the peasant
strategy as a road to achieve socialist revolution. It is in advancing this idea that his theoretical
formulation on guerrillaism came about. This was largely adopted and practiced by many Latin
American revolutionaries without lasting success.
Guerrillaism is a strategy of struggle that seeks a short cut to achieve our common goal
of socialism is similar to other approaches like a coup-detat, anarchism, terrorism etc. The
justification of its advocates is to put pressure on the ruling class so that substantial concessions
will be made. Sometimes, this may lead to a section of the army taking power. But wide
experience clearly shows the inherent problems, with this form of struggle and why it is not
recommended. This is why almost all the governments that came to power through guerrilla
method of struggle in Latin America, except Cuba, lost out and did not in any way benefit the
poor people for which they claimed to be fighting. The method or the approach is individualistic.
Capitalists can adopt the same methods to get rid of any opponents coming to power by this
means. This contrasts with socialism, which Marx defined as the self emancipation of the
working class, and can only be achieved by collective action of the working class themselves
supported by the other poor people including the peasantry.
A more fundamental shortcoming of guerrillaism is that it involves less mobilization,
therefore, relegating to the background the necessity for political mobilization of the working
class, peasants and the youths. This is a way of keeping the masses down and less conscious
about what the whole struggle is about. The masses by this means may not see the need for
their participation and the advocates of this method do not expect mass support beyond
sympathy. With this approach, they hope the masses will not give them problems when they
have seized power or are involved in a state of war. In this case they will be forced to operate
under-ground as the ruling class will not accept the excuse that the organization does not
support guerrilla action. This will make political work in a democratic setting almost impossible.

Page108

Ola Oni was in the forefront of propounding a theoretical justification for a workers
movement path to socialist revolution. Such a guerrillaist did not exist in Nigeria during Ola Onis
time. There was a group in the 1970s known for advocating this political line and their base was
at Ife, but they soon disintegrated. Ola Oni was very critical of the methods of this organization,
but was not public about this to avoid the risk of being accused of working for the state. The
guerrilla system of struggle is also inimical to the development or growth of other forms of
struggle like the workers collective action because the state will lump all revolutionaries together
as one, mobilize against them by propaganda and could kill them since armed struggle is
involved. In such instances, advocates of other methods of struggle, like Ola Onis support for
collective working class action supported by other poor people will be forced to abandon active
struggle.
While the other groups and trade unions were looking up to USSR, China and other
Stalinist countries in Eastern Europe for financial and other supports, Ola Oni was the toes of
C.L.R. James in UK for the annual book fair exhibition that he organised. C.L.R. James pioneered
Trotskyism in Britain in the 1930s when the struggle between revolutionary Marxists and
opportunism was fresh.

Page109

CHAPTER NINE: ONIS INVOLVEMENT IN PARTISAN POLITICS

Ola Oni put everything into preparation for participation in the politics of the second republic
(1979-1983). Although he and his group did not trust the Murtala and Obasanjo regime; some
radicals, erroneously believed that the regime was radical due to certain reforms it introduced,
especially in the area of anti-corruption and progressive foreign policy. But Ola Oni saw little
likelihood of the regime handing over power to civilians as they had promised.
Oni wanted the left to use this opportunity to properly organize themselves to struggle for
power. It was his belief that revolutionary organizations should not perpetually remain as
pressure groups. His opinion was informed by the role the various left organizations, socialist
groups and progressive individuals played in chasing the military away from power (1966-79), at
a time when many bourgeois politicians with content to serve under the military as
commissioners, ministers or board members of parastatals.
The Nigerian Socialist Movement (NSM) was organized by the group led by Ola Oni.
The movement was a socialist Marxist political movement which came into existence with the
aim of attracting the support of the working masses and poor farmers, beyond the existing
support which Onis group enjoyed from the ranks of intellectuals and student youths. The
organization was initially called the New Left before the name was later changed to the
Nigerian Socialist Movement (NSM).
All revolutionary organizations and individuals, before the formation of this organization,
had been looking forward to the formation of such an umbrella organization that would cater for
the larger interests of all oppressed people, including workers, poor farmers, artisans, women,
professionals and the student youths. The formation of such a political movement became
necessary since the Nigerian Academy initiated at the University of Ibadan which comprised of
revolutionary scholars could not serve this purpose.
The meeting to mark the death of Dr Kwame Nkrumah (former President of Ghana)
provided the opportunity to launch the new organisation. That occasion attracted and brought
together many Marxists, radicals and Pan-Africanist groups. At the end of the programme, the
Committee for Patriotic Front (CPF) was set up to intensify the struggle against military rule in
the country. However the deficiency of the organization immediately came to the fore; it was
loose and was filled with all shades of characters, including old time opportunists.
The coming into an existence of an organization like Nigerian Socialist Movement (NSM)
had been long overdue, taking into cognisance the level of degeneration of the Gowon regime.
Ola Onis writings succinctly captured the political and socioeconomic situation of the period.
This was how he described the period:
The time was marked by military governors, commissioners, bureaucrats and leading
domestic capitalists swimming and enriching themselves with oil money . . .
Indigenisation offered members of Gowons administration and business interests
opportunity to accumulate their private wealth. . . These beneficiaries of Gowons
administration became advocates for the continuation of the military dictatorship under
Gowon. They began to encourage the regime to assume more and more dictatorial
power. Steps were taken to erode the autonomy of the University. All the Chancellors
were told to take firm measures to curb the student militancy. The judiciary was brought
under Gowons centralized control . . . Serious steps were not taken to implement the
(earlier Gowons) 9-point programme for return to civil rule successfully. No attempt to
end the state of emergency. Anti-strike labour decrees continued to be maintained.
There was high expectation by Nigerians for Gowon to announce when the hand over to

Page110

civil rule would take place, but instead, he said the people were not ready.
These were the circumstances which led to the emergence of various groups formed to
put a check on the growing dictatorial tendency of Gowons regime. Moreover, Chief Obafemi
Awolowo, who was Gowons Minister for Finance and Vice Chairman of the cabinet resigned his
appointment from the government. Since then, things were never the same again. There was
strong opposition, cutting across different political trends including Gowons old collaborators.
NSM directed the Nigerian Academy to publish the peoples manifesto in l973 to make it
clear to the Nigerian people what concrete changes they must struggle for and the ultimate
goals before them. The manifesto was published to serve the cause of peoples revolution to
end capitalism and ultimately establish a proletarian socialist society.
The NSM came out with its own newspaper, the Nigerian Socialist to expose the military
regime and to educate the masses on the goals of the revolution. It went further to set up the
Patriotic Youth Movement (PYM) among the students to regulate the students militancy along a
revolutionary line. Also it established a close relationship with the most revolutionary peasant
group at the time, the Agbekoya.
It was the activities generated by these organizations that drove various aggrieved
sections of Nigerian masses to oppose the continuous rule of Gowon. In l973 and 1974 students
and their lecturers separately engaged the Gowon military junta in a frontal battle. At last the
coup against Gowons regime came and brought Murtala and Obasanjo in to power in l975.
One shortcoming of the struggle in the 1970s was the absence of organized labour.
Various reasons had been advanced for this. Some associated this with the repression against
the radical wing of labour leadership that was first attacked in l966 by the military ruler.
Nevertheless, there were spontaneous unorganized sit down strikes by Nigerian workers
against the unjust anomalies of the Udoji salaries and wages awards.
The Movement for Peoples Democracy (MPD) was another attempt by Onis group to
get other progressive organizations to come together, especially to utilize the opportunity of
military disengagement in l979. This initiative for a broad left organization came about in one of
the series of symposia being organized at the time by Comrade Baba Omojola, who himself was
a member of Nigerian Academy and NSM. The organization, MPD was born at a Benin meeting
in January l976. This was followed by another meeting in March at Kano where the guidelines
governing the organization were agreed upon.
The MPD had hardly taken off when some groups, including a Lagos group led by S.G.
Ikoku and Kolagbodi; the Eskor Toyo group (Calabar); Nsukka and Goodluck groups left the
organisation. S.G. Ikoku and his Lagos group left because of the MPDs Critique of the l978
draft Constitution. This had been. produced by the Rotimi Williams led Constitution Drafting
Committee (CDC). They were also against MPDs move to form an independent political party of
its own. But the NSM faction of MPD went ahead to implement MPDs earlier resolution to form
a socialist party in the forthcoming Second Republic. Comrade Ola Oni was made the Chair of
the organization. Eskor Toyos own grouse with MPD was the choice of Ola Oni as the Chair!
The idea of forming an all encompassing single party crumbled like a pack of cards.
Many comrades and left organizations scattered into different groups, surfacing
occasionally more or less as pressure groups. Ola Oni led the MPD to form the Socialist Party
of Workers, Farmers and Youth in preparation for Second Republic politics. S.G.Ikoku went with
Aminu Kano to the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) before they came back to join the Peoples
Redemption Party (PRP). Comrades Wahab Goodluck and Dapo Fatogun formed the Socialist
Workers Peoples Party. Others who did not believe that the left was ripe enough to form a party
of its own remained outside the Second Republic Politics or later joined one the five registered

Page111

bourgeois parties.
The Socialists Party of Workers, Farmers and Youth (SPWFY) became popular across
the country. It saw a socialist programme as the only way of emancipating the poor workers,
farmers, artisans and other oppressed people from the hands of their oppressors the
imperialists and their Nigerian local collaborators. The party called on the working people not to
rely on the bourgeois politicians who always collaborated with the imperialists to exploit the
resources of the country at the expense of the poor.
The programme pointed out:
We must recognize the enemy of progress in Nigeria. These are imperialist forces that
control our economy and their domestic agents who cooperate with them to enslave the
broad masses under satellite capitalism. These forces have always constituted the
obstacle in the way of Nigerias advance towards peoples democracy . . . The colonial
revolutionary struggle came to nothing because that revolution was led by leaders who
were not prepared to abolish the colonial system. These leaders merely replaced
colonial rulers and left untouched the capitalist system that made possible imperialist
economic domination of the country . . . After independence, the bourgeois leaders
realizing that the people were entirely opposed to the satellite neocolonial capitalist
system into which the nation has been led (they) had to deceive the people that they
subscribed to some form of socialism. Their socialism was qualified by all sorts of
adjectives, Pragmatic Feudal, Democratic. Their intention was to dangle the hope
of a better Nigeria before the people in order to hold the people down and secure their
votes . . . In practice, the government formed by these parties resorted to all sorts of
measures to suppress the agitation of workers, students and progressives who stood for
a truly independent Nigeria, free from imperialist manipulations. After independence, the
antisocialist repression continued against progressives and youths who sought to
organize the masses for freedom.
On military rule, the party maintained:
The intervention of military rule in 1966 brought the Nigerian people under a state of
emergency which deprived them of the basic rights of democratic political participation in
the direction of their lives. The military rule did not aim at leading the masses towards
the path of revolutionary development. It was in the service of the exploiter class. All
military regimes since 1966 had one objective: to reconstitute the satellite neocolonial
capitalism so that the dictatorship of the exploiters could be more stable.
These past experiences, according to SPWFY:
show that the capitalist exploiters and their political parties, motivated by selfish
propertied interests, cannot be relied upon to pursue measures which shall bring
progress to everyone. How do we expect that the parties of the exploiters backed up by
heavy finance from foreign monopoly companies and domestic wealthy capitalists shall
be actively committed to abolish conditions for cementing national unity and abolish
mass poverty?...
Therefore, the tasks of developing Nigeria for the benefit of the common people is not
what any of the old political parties appearing under new cover for the 1979 elections
shall be in a position to carry out. All (the) capitalist oriented parties (were) out to enrich
only a small group among them. The interests of the common people cannot be
regarded as their primary concern The task of transforming our country, of carrying
out the peoples domestic revolution, falls squarely on nobody else except the exploited
masses (themselves).

Page112

The programme pointed out to workers that it is they that,

bear directly the exploitative impact of neocolonial capitalism since there cannot be
capital without the worker (and) capitalism cannot grow in Nigeria if the workers are
determined to oppose it. Workers must therefore lead the broad masses to abolish it.
It called on workers to shun the anti-worker campaign that wants them to set their back
against politics. Ola stated:
Progressive workers should know that the reason why the Nigerian workers in recent
years have not been able to assume a leadership role in the political life of our country is
because of the reactionary activities of some opportunist leaders of the trade unions who
preach to the workers to keep away from political struggle. These opportunists chorus
the views of the exploiters that trade unions have nothing to do with workers struggle for
political power. Workers should be ready to rid themselves of these reactionary elements
who want workers to be permanent slaves to their exploiters.
At a period when the ruling class felt the National Question had been resolved with the
Nigerian Civil War of 1967-70, the party programme spoke against bourgeois federalism, which
according to it, encourages competitive ethnic rivalry and disunity. It promised to put in place a
socialist federalism with new democratic principles. It believed this was the only way of bringing
an end to competitive bourgeois ethnic politics. The programme chastised the bourgeoisie
claiming that they were not genuinely interested in the unity of the people, but in the sharing of
national resources and all posts among themselves.
The bourgeois ruling class deliberately fan tribal disunity in order to prevent the
united struggle among the masses against them.
To address this problem created by the capitalists, the partys socialist federal structure,
according to the party, would make it impossible for undue competitive rivalry among the various
ethnic groups over their share of the federal revenue. This is because the wealth and the means
of production will belong to all. The socialist principle of development and sharing of the
resulting social product will ensure equal amenities and opportunities for all communities. And
that socialist planning by the poor people will ensure that there is not going to be an uneven rate
of development between different communities. The programme concluded that National unity,
which eludes the reformist bourgeoisie, would be achieved by SPWFY through socialist
economic engagement.
Ola Oni, the leader of SPWFY never tired of taking up bourgeois leaders. He once
stated:
The question which the ordinary people continue to ask is: why is this high
achievement (the high growth rate of 12%p.a.) not being reflected in their living and
working conditions? Why is it that a peasant farmer finds it difficult to secure one meal a
day or many like them have to desert farming for urban exploitation? Why is it that the
majority of the petty traders and artisans languish in underemployment? Why is it that
the majority of office and factory workers herd in urban slums?
Ola Oni provided the answers to these questions, starting with our planning which he
described as exploitative, oppressive and unjust. He was of the opinion that since the strategy
of our development planning efforts was the promotion and advancement of capitalism, it could
not under any circumstances claim to produce a peoples plan. For capitalism to grow, the
availability of capital funds to the capitalists must take precedence over the welfare of labour
The masses who are the real creators and main sources of capital funds are treated as if they
were commodities to be bought and discarded at will. How then can planning that is capitalistic

Page113

harness the productive energy of the masses? The process of building private wealth is also
the very process of creating mass poverty.
The impact of SPWFY was felt across the country, especially among the youths and
intellectuals. Branches could be found in most university towns and other places including
Lagos, Ibadan, Benin, Ife, Kano, Zaria, Nsukka etc. To buttress this assertion, (Father) Rev.
Murumba who was in the northern part of Nigeria in the early 1970s confirmed the impact of
this socialist group in the north. When he got admission at the University of Ibadan, he
eulogized the cadres of the organization and embraced them for their good work. Ditto a famous
Professor of Political Science now based in USA, Professor Nzongola Ntalaja from Zaire who
eulogized Professor F. O. Onoge at a public function in Jos. He stated that he felt elated to
have met the man who had inspired his political work when he was at the University of
Maiduguri.
Bayo Owolabi, a former Secretary General of the Marxist Socialist Youth Movement
(MSYM), a branch of the Party at the Polytechnic, Ibadan disclosed how he was well received at
Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Zaria in the 1980s by both students and lecturers of the
University. He stated that within a few hours the message had gone round that a comrade from
Ola Oni was around, many of the students trooped to the residence of Mallam Sokoto
Mohammed where the materials he brought were quickly and immediately shared and
distributed to various parts of the town. Mallam Sokoto was then a Senior Lecturer in the
Sociology Department at ABU, Zaria.
The occasion was the time Balarabe, Ibrahim, Rufai, Babatope and other radicals and
politicians were detained by the Buhari and Idiagbon military government. The leaflet was
captioned Free Balarabe Musa, Rufai Ibrahim and others now. The enthusiasm displayed by
the members of the SPWFY was the same in many parts of the north, (Kano, Jos, Kaduna and
Maiduguri), east and west especially among the Youths. Many supporters of the party used to
come from all over the country to discuss issues with the party leader Comrade Ola Oni.
Dr. William D. Graf of department of Political Science, University of Benin (then)
confirmed the popularity of SPWFY in his popular book: Election l979, Nigerian Citizens Guide
to Parties, Politics, Leaders and Issues. The FEDECO registered only relatively wealthy
parties whose leaders were all prominent politicians in the First Republic. Notably excluded
were the younger generation of aspiring politicians, possibly best exemplified by Tunji
Braithwaites Nigerian Advance Party (NAP) and the left wing alternative, the Socialist Party of
Workers, Farmers and Youth (SPWFY) led by Comrade Ola Oni. It was generally felt that these
parties also had sufficient support and organization to qualify for registration.
In Onis response to the disqualification of his party, he stated that the FEDECOs
announcement of 23rd December l978 was not surprising because all along the electoral body
was being teleguided by the old brigade since the ambition of most of our leaders was to
continue existing exploitative social system at the expense of the masses. One OmoIkirodah
supported this position when he stated in a newspaper (Sunday Observer 31 December, l978)
that: I cannot really understand what is happening. The army seized power from a people that
they adjudged corrupt, inefficient and tribally oriented and we all sang in approval of the armys
intervention; the same army will be handing the same power to the same people. Are we not
free to ask why the takeover was considered necessary in the first instance?
Debate ensued in the popular press, even the government newspapers, like the: Daily Times
and New Nigeria were forced to carry editorials on the issue. But the debate was not properly
focused as it was not sharply posed ideologically, but rather raised along generational lines. But
the importance of the debate was that the injustice did not pass unnoticed and unchallenged.

Page114

Professor Omafume Onoge, who was a leading figure in Ola Onis organisation, confirmed the
widespread contact made across the country in preparation for the party formation. Apart from
the students, workers, trade unionists, youths, and intellectuals that were the core supporters of
the party, he elaborated on their relationship with Mallam Aminu Kano who was a respected
political figure in the North. Onis group and Aminu Kano had agreed to work together to form a
political party that would be socialist and against imperialism. In furtherance of achieving this
goal, Mallam Aminu Kano gave Onis group a list of its members in the north that could be
contacted for discussions.
Ola Oni himself, and others including Dr. Omafume Onoge, visited Mallam Aminu Kanos
supporters in various parts of northern Nigeria. They were able to visit political bigwigs like:
Mallam Tanko Yakasai in Kano, Ali Mongunu in Maiduguri among others. Onoge was fascinated
by the reception he received from Ali Mongunu and his high level of humanism, in the real sense
of the word. He did not expect the support they received from Ali Mongunus family household.
Unlike the practice in many Muslim families, where women are kept away from outsiders,
Monguru invited his wives and introduced them to us and they cooked for us
Mongunu was so impressed by our visit that after the meeting with him, he still escorted
and discussed with us until we bore a vehicle that was to transport us out of the town This
was how we criss-crossed all parts of northern Nigeria at the time. The collaboration with
Aminu Kanos group did not achieve the desired result because of Sam. G. Ikokus intervention
of hijacking Aminu Kano from the group when he withdrew from the Movement for Peoples
Democracy (MPD).
At the end of the registration process when Onis party, SPWFP was refused registration to
participate in the election of the period, Ola Oni joined the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN). This action was
based on the decision of his party, while members in the North were to join PRP. While he was a
member of the campaign team of Chief Obafemi Awolowo in Kano State and due to his close
relationship with Aminu Kano and other leftist members of PRP in the north, Chief Awolowo wanted
Comrade Oni to use his influence to prevail on Aminu Kano to step down from the election in his favour.
The request did not go well with Comrade Oni, who gave him his conditions before he could do that.
The condition was that: only if the Chief would accept to implement the programme of NSM that Aminu
Kano was a party to. Awo would not succumb to this. This was one of the reasons that Chief Awolowo
failure in the presidential election of 1979. Had he agreed, the combination of Awos UPN and Aminu
Kanos PRP would have been too much for NPN to match.
The disagreement ultimately led to Comrade Ola Oni leaving the UPN, even as he made it
known to Chief Awolowo that PRP was more progressive than his party, theUPN, and that if any of the
two was to step down for another, it should be UPN. This disagreement alienated Ola Oni from the Awo
camp. He expressed his disappointment. Something like this was strange to Awos camp because Chief
Obafemi Awolowo had been highly respected, regarded and revered with awe. Ebenezer Babatope, its
National Director of Organization was very close to both personalities who he usually referred to as his
political leaders. But he had to rush to Comrade Ola Oni after the incident, having heard the story from
a third party, to know what could have happened and advice that Comrade Oni should not take it too
far. All attempts to persuade Comrade Oni not to leave the party fell on deaf ears. Ola Oni was already
packing his private possessions from the hotel where he was staying to immediately leave for Ibadan.
He left and never returned to the party. The party was proscribed in l983 along with another five political
parties, the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), People's Redemption Party (PRP), Greater Nigerian People's
Party (GNPP), Nigerian People's Party (NPP) and Nigerian Advance Party (NAP).
Twenty years after Comrade Ola Oni left Awos UPN, he found himself back in the same Awoist
camp this time it was the Alliance For Democracy (AD) party without Awo. AD comprised of Awoists in
Yorubaland and other progressives in other parts of Nigeria. The AD of which Comrade Ola Oni was a

Page115

chieftain came into place after a long drawn out wasteful transition programme of
Babangida/Abacha/Abubakar which started in l985. The seemingly endless transition which gulped
over N40 billion over a period of ten years made the pro-democracy movement resolve not to give
Abubakar the chance to prolong his stay in power again. A Government of National Unity (GNU) to see
the transition through a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) was proposed; though the proposal did
not go well with the politicians who were already warming up for political offices.
Ola Oni was in the forefront of those canvassing for a Sovereign National Conference (SNC) as
against those calling for another round of elections which would not achieve the desired result. On this,
he said:
We must know that the pro-democracy organizations in this country have a programme
aimed at restructuring Nigeria as a result of the June 12 annulment. We all felt that we could no
longer continue as before, a situation in which a section of this country has been in control of
the military wielding so much power as to annul an election. We (therefore) felt that the entire
federal structure would have to be reviewed. It was generally agreed by the majority of people in
western Nigeria that this was the major agenda before us.
Commenting on Abubakars transition programme, he polemically and rhetorically questioned
Bola Ige and Olu Falae:
Why are you going into elections when you do not know the rules and regulations? Is it
not opportunistic? . . . People who brought them up [Awoists] politically will never accept that . . .
We always have the constitution before we go for elections, why is it that they are afraid to tell
the people in the ruling oligarchy that we wont have this? People know that the l998 constitution
is not the constitution of the people, it is an Abacha men chosen constitution and we dont even
know the correctness of that constitution today, what they really agreed on, so if they are honest
politicians, these are the things they should be fighting for and that you cannot have a
constitution unless you call a Sovereign National Conference. Why are they running away from
this? The crisis of this country is not yet over.
Ola Oni was not alone against the position of political jobbers called politicians whose interest in
political affairs was how to fill their purses. Other members of the pro-democracy movement organized
under the platform of the Joint Action Committee of Nigeria (JACON) who shared Onis position at the
time included Chief Gani Fawehinmi, Dr. Beko Ransome-Kuti, Dr. Frederick Faseun, Femi Falana, Femi
Aborisade, Chief Anthony Enahoro, Maj. Gen. Alani Akinrinade, Laoye Sanda, Moshood Erubami,
Cornelous Adebayo, Ayodele Akele, Segun Sango, MOSOP, Prof. Toye Olorode etc. In his usual
polemical nature, Ola Oni critized the politicians that wanted to opportunistically participate in
Abubakars transition, especially the Awoists (later in 1994, grouped under the National Democratic
Coalition (NADECO). He challenged them to a public debate. According to Ola Oni:
politicians are only committed to their own interests. It is we in the pro-democracy who
fight for the interests of the people . . . Dont you know that the June 12 struggle is prodemocracy agenda and not politicians agenda . . . I cannot be here and watch what we have
invested so much in to be eroded. People lost their lives (Abiola and Kudirat), while others ran
away and you are expecting me to accept an easy agenda of election which we know is a
diversion from the main issue.
Comrade Ola Oni himself was also a victim in this struggle and was arrested and detained many
times.
What might have surprised political watchers was the change of camp by Ola Oni to the Alliance
for Democracy (AD) despite his earlier frontline position against its leading members. His reason for
this shift has been defended on the basis of tactics when the remaining tendency still opposed to the
transition had become atomised and isolated.

Page116

It should be remembered that Ola Oni had also been criticized in the past for his participation in
Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) by some leftist groups. Such criticism came from The Movement for the
Advancement of African Society [MAAS], based in Jos, in l980. The organizations ground of criticism
against Ola Oni was his call on socialists to support Progressive Governors against ultra-reactionaries
[NPN]. He was also alleged by MAAS of abandoning the decision of his partys (SPWFY) National
Executive Committee which:
decided at the time SPWFY was refused registration by FEDECO that he [Oni] as the
Secretary General of the party should not join any [other] party, but should concentrate his
energies on organizing the party . . . no sooner had the Excos meeting ended, than Oni left
unilaterally, to become the Coordinator of electioneering activities for the Unity Party of Nigeria
[UPN] for Kano state.
The organization also drew a parallel with the period when Oni solicited for students and
workers to support the regime of Murtala/Obasanjo resting his argument on the fact that it could create
more favourable conditions for socialists. This MASS saw as a contradiction.
The question that arises from these criticisms is what should be the role of Marxists in politics
when the ruling class refuse to register a working class oriented political party? It will be recalled that
after the early attempts of the working class participation in bourgeois politics in the first republic, efforts
towards participation in the second republic were aborted by the ruling class through the imposition of
certain conditions. This invariably led to the isolation of many Marxists from bourgeois electoral politics.
Ola Oni differed from this. In both theory and practice, he maintained the mass line approach on
politics. At all times during the first, second, third and fourth republics, his position were very consistent.
Oni was never an arm-chair Marxist. As a revolutionary, you would always find him anywhere he could
reach the masses.
He recognised bourgeois electoral politics as a form of struggle that could attract the
participation of the masses and Marxists. He thought that it was when people participated in politics
rather than being on the fringes that they could best appreciate the contradictions inherent in the
system. Oni opined that it was by such participation that all the niceties as could be found in the
pretentious pro-poor programme of the bourgeois parties could be made clear to the conscious
masses. They could then draw the necessary conclusion: that such programmes were not worth the
paper on which they were printed and that it was nothing but camouflage to deceive the masses.
Exposure to bourgeois politics, Ola Oni believed, would help the masses to gravitate towards
revolutionary politics.
He said that participation in bourgeois politics without compromising principles should be the
concern of revolutionaries and Marxists. He said they could not afford to be isolated if they are really
out to have mass followership in the revolutionary transformation of the country for good. On the mode
of participation, he said that the working class and other oppressed working people, poor farmers,
artisans and small traders should participate under the political platform of their own party armed with a
socialist programme and independently of the bourgeois political parties. He was of the opinion that it
was by so doing that they could gather the necessary experience in the art of bourgeois politics which
would be very useful for them in the greater revolutionary politics ahead. Lenin, the greatest
revolutionary of his time, advised Marxists not to neglect the bourgeois experience in its entirety; not for
the sake of being bourgeois but to learn how to take the best out of it that could be useful for them.
Oni said:
We cannot jump this stage and the experiences that accompanies our involvement in
electoral activities . . . In Nigeria we are still at the stage of winning the masses to the side of
proletarian revolution. We cannot do this by isolating ourselves from the bourgeois political
process. The masses do not take to arms just by us preaching to them. They reach

Page117

revolutionary conclusions through experiences in their struggle politically in bourgeois electoral

activities. We cannot by-pass the bourgeois political process. It is through involvement in
bourgeois political activities that we can forge ahead a proletarian political movement, making a
secure mass base and strengthening its combative capability. . . . It is an infantile illusion to
think that one can build a proletarian revolutionary political movement outside the on-going
political activities which the bourgeoisie has imposed on the people.
Oni was, therefore, of the opinion that the participation of revolutionary Marxists should not
involve dissolving and capitulating to bourgeois politics. It should be seen as an open market where
people of different divergent interests go to carry out their business transactions. Bourgeois politics, in
like manner, is an opportunity for the working class to come into electoral politics and offer alternative
programmes on a class line. This is in contrast to the ethnic and capitalist oriented programmes offered
by the bourgeoisie. In Ola Onis words:
What we need is a revolutionary mode of involvement in bourgeois electoral politics and
this should be our aim. That means we must enter it from a class line. It means we must create
an alternative proletarian political party that has a programme that is informed by scientific
socialism. The party must not compromise on the issue of advocating for socialization and for
working peoples management of society. The programme must be tailored to win the
proletarian masses. It must clearly be distinguished from the programme of the bourgeois
parties. So our involvement in the bourgeois electoral struggle is to popularize the proletarian
position and intensify class struggle. Our mission is to battle for class politics. Only when we are
able to transform the politics in our country towards a class line can we create the favourable
conditions for the advancement of proletarian revolution. This should be the immediate goal
before all Marxist organizations in the country. It should be the basis for formulating tactics of
our current struggle.
Comrade Ola Oni also took care to tutor his critics on the tactical method in organizational
struggle. In his reply to the MAAS allegation of l980 (as he counselled the Joint Action Committee
(JACON) in l988) he wrote:
Our party is opposed to tactics of sectarianism. The left forces are not strong enough to
be able to fight for definite change alone. They must build allies, build popular democratic
forces, work within this front and provide the necessary ideological leadership. What we must do
is to deepen and exploit contradictions in our situation the polarization of the bourgeois forces
to our interest. Calling everybody bourgeois or saying that our situation is neo-colonial is not
enough. Practical action demands careful assessment of forces at work so as to know what
sides to be. For example, the stand of our party in the present situation since election is this:
What the left-wing forces need more than ever before is the existence of a democratic
atmosphere to be able to intensify their work among the masses. The greatest danger facing us
is the emergence of fascist repression. We must therefore support and promote the build-up of
a broad front of anti-fascist and democratic movements.
It is in our interest to see that progressive opposition movement exist. We must exist as
a separate organization with our own programme of work, our party has to work within such
broad movements. It is tactless for us at this stage to antagonize all the bourgeois forces at
once. As of now, while we are building up, our party has taken the position that we must operate
to win broader sections of the people, whether they are petty-bourgeois or not, in promoting
same definite changes that will enhance the fighting power of the masses.
Eighteen years after this, again in his response to JACON, he advised that:
struggle was a continuous process that required flexibility . . . mass action against
Abacha is different from that of Abubakar, you adopt a position as you progress in struggle and

Page118

election is a means of struggle . . . some of us have come to the conclusion that we cannot
accept Abubakars programme wholesale, but we should look at his regime in terms of what
concessions we can achieve and we should not expect that the regime would concede
everything, even though the regime is still rooted in the past. So, we think we should back the
politicians who have decided to participate instead of allowing the discussion between us and
JACON.
But we want to reason with them [AD] that our participation should have one objective:
how to restructure the country. This should be the campaign slogan among the people . . . It
might be premature to start taking them up on whether they have actually achieved this minimal
objective in governance that they have set up for themselves. History can be left to do that, but
without pre-empting history, one would have expected the AD, as an opposition party in power,
leading other pro-democracy organizations including other minority ethnic groups in the country
agitating for self determination to convoke [or plan for] a Sovereign National Conference [SNC]
without waiting for the uninterested Federal Government to do it for them; just like Zamfara
State Government, under Governor Ahmed Sanni did by proclaiming Sharia law in its state.
This way of thought is, inspired by the fact that the actualization of a Sovereign National
Conference [SNC] can only come about through revolutionary action or means. It will amount
to kidding oneself to think that unrevolutionary hands can concede to this on coming to power.
Then if all hands have embraced Abubakars transition, a situation whereby the rise in the
revolutionary temperament that accompanied the June 12 crisis (1993) must have been
reduced to zero point and before this can be reversed to such high level, another big event will
be required. A revolutionary situation like we had with the June 12 movement does not happen
so regularly; it is always a rare occasion. Definitely, a revolutionary situation is not like tap water
that can be switched on and off as circumstances demand.
The journey leading to June 12, 1993 can be said to have started with the inauguration of the
Babangida governments Political Bureau in l986. This was charged with the task of collating views and
opinions of Nigerians on the best political structure that would guarantee stability. The Bureau in the
course of its work was to go round the country and collate these views. But before constituting the
bureau, the regime that had come to power based on the IMF/World Bank agenda surprised many
Nigerians with its populist steps. It started by releasing from detention all the political detainees of the
previous government of Buhari and Idiagbon, a situation that attracted a lot of support for the
government, especially among traditional politicians. Babangidas government moved a step further by
throwing open a debate on the IMF loan. Most Nigerians did not realise at the time his true character
and how tricky he was.
But an experienced Comrade like Ola Oni who had had course to analyse many policies of past
regimes could not be deceived by a person like Babangida; even when he accepted the majority
opinion by rejecting the IMF loan and replacing it with what he named a Structural Adjustment
Programme [SAP] (which actually had a lot in common with IMF conditions ).
Ola Oni dissected the intricacies of the SAP hand showed that it was not in any way
fundamentally different from the IMF trick. Ola Oni reasoned that the countrys debt problem arose
when foreign exchange earnings were not enough to match the outflow of capital for debt repayment,
dividend and interest. For this reason the imperialist governments refused to open up the usual credit
lines for the importation of their products to the local market. At the time of Buhari, in l984, Ola Oni
revealed, how the bourgeois regime in Nigeria cannot have a precise figure of the amount of the
countrys external debt. The regime [Buhari-Idiagbon) put it at around $23 billion dollars. This had
increased to $33billion by 1995.
Ola Oni refused to accept Babangidas reason for the introduction of SAP as the only alternative
to th3 IMF and described it as a loan bobby because the essence of the two options are the same in

Page119

terms of meeting the best interests of Imperialist capital. According to Oni, there is no way a capitalist
regime can deal with its external debt crisis outside the prescriptions that the imperialist powers and
their finance capital have worked out. So, in reality the propaganda on the independence of SAP did
not exist.
The logic of IMF debt management is to expand liquidity in developed capitalist economies and
to contract this in an underdeveloped [debtor] capitalist economy. Developed countries according to
Oni:
do not always submit to this measure of devaluing their exchange rates, but work
towards the expansion of their liquidity because of the option at their disposal to use the
advantage of their surplus foreign exchange earnings to expand their areas of economic
domination in the world.
But the debtor countries are at a disadvantage. They have nowhere to run, but have to accept
the conditionalities imposed on them. They are expected to reduce their spending especially on
infrastructure. They are also expected to raise interest rates so that investors profits can be secured;
hold down wages and salaries and devalue their exchange rates. Devaluation of (debtors) currency are
mandatory for the simple reason that the imperialist investment in the country benefits from the high
exchange value and other factors of production, like labour, raw materials and land, are cheap for the
investor.
Governments of the recipient countries are made to believe that by so doing, the investors will
be encouraged to invest in their countries. Ola Oni put it like this:
it will make the very rich wealthy capitalists of the imperialist nations continue their
smooth exploitation of the working masses, workers and peasants of the world.
In other to achieve this goal, the conditionalities compel the receiving countries to accept the
imperialist direction. The conditionalities among others include the opening of the market under the
guise of liberalization so that foreign investors can penetrate, for example, when Babangida closed
down the Marketing Board. Foreign investors (trading company representatives) were to be found in the
remotest villages where cocoa was being cultivated. Physical control measures like quota or import
taxes which in the main are out to protect the domestic industries against competition with monopoly
capital, were to be abolished as such policies are not in the interests of imperialism. Also, the state
sector is expected to shelve welfarist programmes and give a premium to private capitalists in the
running of the economy. This warped logic underlies the introduction of the contraption called SAP in
l986. This caused unbearable losses in human and natural resources.
However, because of the ill feelings and state of poverty resulting from Babangidas Structural
Adjustment Programme (SAP), the masses rose up many times to fight back against the regime and its
free market policies. Despite this, the regime refused to change. An example of resistance was the l989
anti-SAP protest of students.
Since the introduction SAP more than 80% of Nigerians fell below poverty line. Many workers
have been retrenched. Graduates in their thousands remain unemployed. Manufacturing industries
have been operating below 30 per cent capacity. All essential services like electric power, tap water,
roads, hospitals, and transport have collapsed. Until recently, fuel had become a scarce commodity. Its
price has increased by over 70%. The social implication is that people are dying daily and the rate of
crime increasing geometrically. The only people gaining from this misfortune are the dictators in power
and their cronies who are stashing billions of dollars every day. The way state officials are directly
looting the treasury by dispossessing the economy of billions of Naira is not wild tales, but stark reality.
Not less than 30% of Nigerian resources are being committed to service debts in our annual budgetary
allocation and so are being paid to rich bankers rather than being used to provide services for the poor
masses.

Page120

During the discussion generated by the governments Political Bureau on ways out of the
incessant political crises since the colonial period, Oni made his views known that it was impossible for
the government to have an independent political system when the economy was tied to the aprons of
World imperialism. This fear of Oni was confirmed when the Political Bureau set up by Babangida
submitted the report to the government. Babangidas government rejected the socialist ideology that
the Bureau recommended on the pretext that the government did not believe in imposing any ideology
on the people.
Oni, like other critics, lambasted the government for rubbishing the views of the people and
forcing the wishes of the Armed Forces Ruling Council (AFRC) [the ruling clique] on the people when
they had made their decisions. As if Ola Oni was prophesying what would happen later in the course of
the transition, he stated:
unless the strategy for transition to civil rule is based on switching Nigeria from the path
of capitalism, ethnic balancing to prop up the system, such exercises as the creation of more
states and the search for new revenue formula will only be awakening competitive ethnic
struggles, when the aim should be to eliminate them. Such is the reformist approach argued
against the socialist alternative . . . Political parties will be monopolised by the monied class . . .
this cannot lead us to a democratic system that will serve the interest of the masses. Once
again the working masses will continue to remain as manipulated on-lookers.
The path to democracy should therefore, in Onis opinion, embrace the labouring masses. He
believed the role of the military junta was expected only to create the democratic atmosphere for the
will of the working masses to prevail in all areas of major decisions. He therefore, canvassed for the
following position:
The Nigerian people must be given the freedom to work out the system they want by
themselves. Therefore the interests of the labouring masses should dominate such bodies as
the Constitutional Drafting Committee, the Constituent Assembly, the Electoral Commission and
such other bodies as the Directorate of Social Mobilisation. Unless this freedom is given to the
people, the transitional programme will only be creating another arrangement for serving the
capitalists and the imperialists. Since colonial times the working people have never been
allowed to make a constitution for themselves. That is why all previous political experiments
have remained unworkable.
Though the report of Babangidas Political Bureau could be said to be independent, only to a
level, its recommendations were not that socialistic. The report said that a socialist socio-economic
system should be adopted. The state should be committed to the nationalization and socialization of the
commanding heights of the economy which fell under the following categories:
i.

Public utilities

ii.

Enterprises which requires heavy capital expenditure

iii.

Enterprises and property which are tied up with the political integrity and security of the
nation

iv.

Other monopoly-type enterprises, which generate imperfection in the market and prevent
resources from being put to their most efficient use as the distribution of essential
commodities.

This recommendation, to all intents and purposes does not measure up to a socialist
programme. Some countries like India are known capitalist states with the commanding heights of the
economy nationalized and socialized. So, a socialist economy goes beyond nationalization and
socialization. The Political Bureaus recommendation must have been tagged a socialist ideology
because during the era of the Stalinist regime in Russia, the socialist ideology was popular. For real

Page121

socialism, however, the economy must be under the democratic control and management of the
working masses themselves, so they can fully realize the benefits of socialism by workers rule. Such
democratic control in the hands of the working people is a vital core ingredient of a socialist society.
There is no doubt that the Political Bureau, just like the Sunday Concord Newspaper opinion
poll of the time, was correct to interpret the collective opinions of the people as a call for socialism,
since peoples demands were collated as calling for:
education for all at all levels, health services for all, safety of lives and property for all,
shelter for all, employment for all, provision of roads, water and electricity, cheap and effective
transportation in all parts of the country, provision of facilities for modernizing agricultural
production, protection of citizens in the rural areas against alienation from their agricultural lands
through acquisition by governments and monopolists, elimination of middlemen or whatever has
tended to raise the prices of essential commodities unreasonably; reduction in the number and
level of taxes and levies. A restructuring of the economic system to ensure that the wealth of the
nation is no longer concentrated in the hands of only few people, but equitably distributed and
political rights to participate in the political processes without being subjected to discrimination,
violence or victimization of any kind; the right to political education and equal access to political
opportunities.
The problem of the Bureau was its misconception of what true socialism means. This problem of
definition became glaring in its report when it states:
It is argued in socialist theory that the means of production and distribution must be
vested in the state, thus ensuring a situation of collective ownership. The distribution of the
goods produced in the society is central to socialist planning. Neither self-interest nor the profit
motive is predominant. The basic motivation to effort is the desire to help, assure social justice
for all and the pride of a worker for having performed efficiently on a job. While the emphasis of
socialist planning is on collective ownership, socialist economic procedures allow the existence
of private ownership in such area as agriculture, retail trade and small and non-sensitive middlesized industries.
Onis socialist position was very clear. The demands he put forward to the Political Bureau were:
The establishment of a socialist Labour Party as one of the major political
parties in the country . . . The transfer of the ownership and management of the key
economic projects to be democratically controlled by the working people, to be run by
the (poor)people and not for building up a few private millionaires.. . stop to SAP and
FEM right now [in l988] . . . Our external economic relations should be recognized to
wrest the looting of our resources and our exploitation by the imperialists and their
Nigerian agents. . .
End the concentration of land in the hands of a few capitalists and their multinational companies. Land must be returned to the collective ownership of the poor
peasants under the system of cooperative peasant farming. . .
The democratic representatives of the working people and progressive
intelligentsia should dominate the new Constitutional Drafting Committee, the
Constituent Assembly and the Commission for Social Mobilisation. . . The creation of an
electoral system in which people that offer themselves for elections are based on a
commitment to service and on merit, not on possession of money power. Workers must
be allowed to stand for elections without losing their jobs or being forced to resign or
retire. Labour unions must be allowed to back up their socialist labour party with union
funds. . .

Page122

A Human Rights Commission which must be under the control of labour unions,
student unions, and other organization of democratic lawyers and oppressed interests.
All violation of human rights must be made justiciable. . . A commission for the Army and
the Police must be put under the control of the working masses to ensure that these
forces serve the people and are not the instrument for oppressing the masses . . . An
Independent Judiciary Commission under the control of the people and not under the
control of government.
Religious practice to be purely private affairs of individuals. The State must have
nothing to do with religion. All state owned educational institutions must not become
tools in the hands of religious bodies. There can only be true religious freedom when
there is freedom of conscience for the citizens.
The argument of socialists, therefore, is that motivation could not be guaranteed
without having the destiny of the poor in their own hands because the oppressor class
was not capable of doing this on behalf of the working people, because they were being
propelled by their class interest.
Nevertheless, despite the inherent problems of the report, it was an encouraging document, but
how far the government could be made to implement it and other genuine socialist programmes would
largely depend on the balance of forces; that is, the organized force of the working class and how much
it was prepared to take action to support its demands.
Substantial efforts were made by the labour movement on entering the arena of electoral
politics. the third republic. Out of the thirteen newly formed political parties at the time (1989), the
emergence of the Nigerian Labour Party (NLP) was distinct. It became clear that this was a party with a
mass base.
The partys proclamation was colourful. It was attended, according to the popular press, by over
ten thousand people. Frontline socialists, Marxist and labour veterans were there. Among important
labour and socialists in attendance were Ola Oni, A. Gwarzo, Eskor Toyo, Wahab Goodluck, Segun
Osoba, Dapo Fatogun, Baba Omojola, Eddie Madunagu, Toye Olorode, A. Ekpo, J. U. Akpan, Adewale
Bashir, Ayodele Akele and others. Frederick Faseun chaired the occasion, supported by Pascal Bafyau
[NLC president], Femi Kola, M. O. Funmilayo and P. B. Okoro. The proclamation was made by Hajia A.
N. Beseji [a workers leader] from Kano and the occasion was utilized to remind the working masses in
attendance of their historical role in political transformation and development.
An earlier workshop in preparation for the partys proclamation took place in Calabar. This was
attended by the best labour and socialist activists including student leaders from across the country.
Papers were presented at the three-day conference to chart the way forward for labour. The occasion,
the first opportunity since l977 All Nigerian Socialist Conference that leftists and workers could meet
together like that. All political persuasions at the occasion were united on the need for a labour political
party. Though fears were raised and expressed by some on the issues of registration and qualification
of workers to contest elections. Further clarifications were made to participants that though the party
would be having workers as its nucleus, it would be open to all its allies like professionals, artisans,
small/poor farmers, intellectual workers, student-youths and peasants.
This argument was buttressed with historical facts. The labour movement together with youths
played a key role in the agitation and struggle for independence under the platform of the NCNC which
they formed with other political elites. Attempts were made in 1951 and 1952, to form the Freedom
Movements and Peoples Revolutionary. Later the Convention Peoples Party and Nigerian Peoples
Party in 1960 did not yield the desired result until 1963 and 1964 when Socialist Workers and Farmers
Party (SWFP) and Nigerian Labour Party (NLP) were respectively formed.
The workshop was also used for the purpose of clarifying issues among friends and comrades

Page123

under a relaxed atmosphere. But comrades disagreed with Bola Iges view that trade union members
were not sufficiently educated and experienced in Nigerian politics. Dapo Fatogun spontaneously
responded when he said that workers had much more experience than the so-called professional
politicians. According to Dapo Fatogun, trade unionism teaches basic social engineering lessons. He
referred Ige, who was also his bosom friend, to the history of Nigerian nationalism:
you will see that the workers were the militants and the intellectuals were the leaders. A
good example was the National Council of Nigeria and Cameroons (NCNC), which drew its
support from the working class and that if not for the intrigue of the British, which reduced the
nationalist outlook of the NCNC, it would have captured the majority in parliament through
workers support.
He also cited the struggle of Kings College students [l944], general strike [l945] and Iva Valley
protest [l949] to buttress his point. Ola Oni believed and explained that it was because of numerical
weakness of the communists with ideological clarity at the time that they had to unite with antiimperialist organisations in order to have a broad front to fight the capitalists forcefully. He compared
China with Nigeria where the Communist Party emerged early in its anti-colonial struggle in alliance
with the progressive bourgeois forces but maintained that such tactics was not properly implemented in
Nigeria where the socialists were marginalised on gaining independence despite their central role in the
course of the struggle for independence.
In Gani Fawehinmis response to the issue of legality and registration of the Party, he opined:
whether the workers party is registered or not, a platform for confrontation against
political misgovernance would have been established and all those outside labour who share
the same ideological standpoint can then find fulfilment . . . what the ordinary man desires is a
strong, dynamic, positively purposeful, honest, well-programmed and visionary corps of political
leaders to transform the lives of everyone. And this can only be done in the content of our
present crises through a socialist programme.
In the paper presented by Comrade Ola Oni at the workshop, his object of attack was the union
leaders who had not been alive to their revolutionary responsibilities. He said:
since l978, the practice of the Marxist unionists that have so far controlled the labour
unions has not conformed to their ideological claim. Labour unionism has not gone beyond
wage struggle in response to inflation. Since colonial times this has been the practice. It has not
been able to rise to the level of struggle that the present debt crisis demands. Instead of
formulating an alternative programme of development to challenge the neocolonial solutions of
the rulers, labour leaders have not done more than offering criticism of individual measures of
government policy. Right from Sunmonu to Chiroma, labour leadership was not able to come
out firmly to mobilize the masses behind a socialist alternative programme.
Up till last year [l988], there was no evidence that it was opposed to SAP, which the
majority of Nigerians are opposed to. For example, in its memorandum to the government on
the l988 April strike against the hike in petroleum price, it took a very compromising position.
The strike was treated as a mere protest against inflation. The memo did not even reject the
increase in petroleum price outright.
The objection of labour was the mode of implementing SAP, requesting the government
to be more tactful in imposing its measures. A revolutionary labour leadership would have taken
the opportunity of the strike to confront the government with a workers socialist alternative to
SAP and stop the governments repression against the working people.
Such a conciliatory and sympathetic response to government policy only encourages

Page124

reformist attitude among the masses. It cannot encourage mass struggle for power.
Ola Oni concluded by demanding from the labour leadership that they:
should know that the situation in the country today demands revolutionary mass
struggle. This requires that the labour leadership breaks away from its reformist unionism and
disassociates itself from any collaboration with neo-colonial capitalist reformists. This means
that the labour leadership must now come out during this transition with a revolutionary
programme of change. It must urge the masses to struggle for power. It should call for
democratic changes to guarantee independent unionism for mass organizations. It must actively
give support to other mass organizations in their struggles against the regime. It should take a
lead in the promotion of a workers party with a proletarian socialist programme.
It was as if Comrade Ola Oni was reading the mind of Pascal Bafyau in the course of this
workshop. Pascal was not committed to the formation of Nigeria Labour Party (NLP) and he was only
working along with the scheme of Babangida, his alter ego, who was responsible for the sponsoring of
most of the political parties of the period. Later he dissolved them after having procured a lot of
expenses with the aim of exhausting the energy of the people. Babangida shifted the transition terminal
date three times before the Presidential election of June 12 1993. Even then he annulled the results.
With this, his government lost all credibility. The people rose in anger to express their
discontentment and called for his exit. He eventually left power on 28 August, l993 by announcing that
he was stepping aside. But instead of righting the wrongs he had committed, he put in place stooges
under the cover of an Interim National Government (ING) led by Chief Ernest Shonekan (former Chair
and Chief Executive of the United African Company (UAC). The ING was to conclude the transition to
civilian democratic rule.
The political crisis and struggle against Babangida did not end with his exit. The agitation
continued under the ING. In November 1993, another palace coup took place with Sanni Abacha, the
second man in the ING taking power from Ernest Shonekan. Another round of struggle started. Most of
the political leaders and organisations like the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), Gani
Fawehinmi, Beko Ransome Kuti, Bolaji Akinyemi and others called on the military to take power from
ING to normalise the situation on the ground.
And so, Babangidas transition after eight years of military rule was not concluded. This was
transition that has produced Governors, House of Assembly members, Chairs and councillors at the
state and local government levels, Senators and House of Representatives at the National Assembly. A
transition which only remained to have the elected President sworn in was bungled by Babangida. This
action was a confirmation of the alleged hidden agenda of the government, which the human rights
community had been warning about ever since the beginning of the transition.
Ola Oni at the time was an active member of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and one of the
partys leaders. He did a lot to settle the bickering that existed within the party. He was at a time, the
sole administrator of the party in Benue State. Ola Oni and others believed that the differences within
the party must be resolved for the sake of democracy so that Babangidas plan to thwart the transition
on this basis would not succeed.
Ola Oni got to the SDP under the platform of Nigeria Labour Party (NLP), one of the five political
associations that sought for registration before Babangidas regime disbanded all the parties formed by
the people, only to impose two parties formed by the government (Social Democratic Party (SDP) and
National Republican Convention (NRC) on the people. One thing was common to the two parties; it was
the government that paid for their administrative staff across the country. Subventions were provided by
the government. Vehicles were also provided to the parties from local government levels to the national.

Page125

The government even went to the extent of providing the parties with their constitutions and
political manifestoes. The parties were not in any way different from government parastatals. Decisions
of the parties that did not go well with the government at any time could be overruled. So, all decisions
were subject to government confirmation. Ola Oni found himself in this party based on the decision of
the political commission of the NLP that its members should go to the SDP. This decision did not go
well with some other members of NLP. Many others did not accept this position, which informed their
withdrawal from the transition at that stage.
Comrade Ola Oni had through his political activism distinguished himself as a selfless political
activist whose reason for involvement in partisan politics, unlike other popular Nigerian politicians, was
his social commitment. This is why he always carved out a role for himself in all the parties he belonged
to. He had always reserved for himself the role of critical ideologue with the purpose of pushing the socalled mainstream politicians to serve the poor people.
Due to the way the SDP came about, as an amalgam of different political associations with
different ideological orientations and persuasions, Oni did not share the idea of the chief mover of this
political experiment, the Babandigas government. But he had to make the best use of the
circumstances imposed on them. Leading politicians in the party like Chief Adekunle Ajasin were
already reaching out to Awoists within and outside the party for the purpose of consolidating
themselves into a leading position within the party, especially in the west. The purpose was to achieve
electoral victory over the opposing party.
While Ajasin might have succeeded in achieving this task, the people of Oyo State were
confronted with an entirely different situation. The political landscape of the state was such that known
political conservatives like Adedibu and others were in the forefront of the leadership position of the
SDP in the state. This was the period politics had turned to cash and carry where the highest bidder
carried the day. Alhaji Adedibu rose to prominence in the period as a political contractor through Alhaji
Shehu Yaradua who was his chief financier. When Yaradua was out of the race, Abiola MKO served the
same purpose to Adedibu. Then Adedibu was able to get enough money to throw around to gain
support.
The conservatives were able to outsmart the Awoists, like Chief Bola Ige, Alhaji Lam Adesina
and others in the state. This made the struggle difficult for Ola Oni. Adedibu reached out to Ola Oni and
promised him heaven and earth. But this could not assuage Ola Oni. How many comrades could
overcome such temptation?
Ola Oni, in his characteristic manner formed the Progressive Current in the SDP. This was
aimed at mobilising a progressive tendency within the party that could come together to challenge the
conservatives and provide the necessary leadership for the party in the state.
One of the invitation letters sent to members of this group, expressed lucidly the aims and
objectives of the group. The letter explained:
unless we have a strong well organized party led by a leadership that is committed to
the progressive and democratic development of the country for the interests of the masses, the
present crisis facing the country cannot be overcome. That is why you must fight to see that
SDP comes under the control of progressive leadership . . . You must therefore join forces with
other progressive members in SDP by being a member of The Progressive Current in SDP. This
is a movement that calls on you to fight for the following:

Ensure that only progressive committed members are elected to the leading positions of the
party.

See that the party operates democratically. Insist that your ward meets regularly, at least
once in a month. Demand also that all the organs of the party at all levels meet regularly.

Page126

A progressive must oppose the introduction of tribalism and religious division in the party.

Fight to see that SDP puts out candidates for elections who will always fight for
emancipation of the masses from exploitation, social injustice, from foreign domination and
who will fight for the democratic control of power, political and economic by the masses.

Your task is to work with other progressives in your ward to oppose all unprogressive
moves. Make it a duty to attend party meetings and educate the rank and file to support the
progressive line.
Ola Onis influence in the Social Democratic Party (SDP) helped the recognition accorded to the
Nigeria Labour Party (NLP) as a stakeholder in the party. In Oyo State, Ola Onis strong supporter and
lieutenant, Comrade Laoye Sanda, was made chair of the Environmental Board. His political associate
of many years, Dr. Jonathan Zwingina, was the Campaign Director of Abiolas campaign team. Apart
from the fact that his associates occupied many influential positions in the party across the country,
Baba Gana Kingibe - with his commanding influence in the party the was the partys National Chair and
later became the vice-presidential candidate of the party) = recognized the organizational acumen of
Comrade Ola Oni.
This helped the partys growth, especially at its formational stage, when groups like Popular
Front, NLP and others came together to embrace the SDP. There was a lot of political bickering and
schism going on at the time between the different groups. The SDP was like many parties in one. So,
there was the need to regularise the situation so that the party could be in a better position to win
elections in a contest with a relatively monolithic National Republican Convention (NRC) composed of
a majorly of conservatives. In other to achieve this, all the groups in the party had to be assured that
none of the other groups would be allowed to monopolise positions. Every group should have been
given the same opportunity to contest elections to any position. The statesmanship role played by
Comrade Ola Oni in resolving these problems in the SDP brought Kingibe closer to him. Ola Onis
political carrier brightened, unlike in the past when his association with the Awoist party (UPN) earned
him nothing. In Awos camp he was often a suspect due to his revolutionary antecedents.
The opportunism of Bafyau came into the open sooner than later and his relationship with
Babangida as his sponsor on the political scene later became an open secrete. Babangida did a lot to
lobby Abiola so that he would pick Bafyau as his running mate instead of Baba Gana Kingibe.
Abiola rejected this offer. Moreso in the SDP, Bafyau was not relevant in the scheme of things.
Nor were the NLP members in the SDP organised nationally as other groups in the party. The
unorganised nature of the NLP before its dissolution was however not without reason. At that time
Bafyaus opportunism had become exposed to rank and file members and the leadership of the
organization alike. This gave rise to suspicions of Bafyau.
Bafyau and Comrade Ola Oni were not the best of friends at the time (though not personal). The
Oyo State chapter of the Nigerian Labour Party (NLP) was under the firm grip of Comrade Ola Oni. His
associate and one of his ideological comrades for many years, Gbenga Awosode (an Ibadan based
lawyer), was the chair of the Oyo State chapter of the Party. If not for the dissolution of the party at the
state level, Bafyau was already having quarrels with the party leadership at the state level, because he
could not control them as he wanted. And this was also the situation in virtually all the places where the
party was strong like Lagos, Ondo, Plateau and Kano States. There was an instance in Lagos, that
Comrade Ola Oni was denied access to a national meeting of the party.
While being a leading member of the NLP, he did not stop criticizing the trade union leaders in
the party, especially those who wanted to steer the party towards the path of bureaucracy (which,
anyway had been the lots of trade unions in the country). At one point, Comrade Ola Oni released a
statement to the public to compel the new party on what is to be done? The leaflet was entitled, We
must fight for a truly socialist labour party! The statement went as follows:

Page127

Fellow workers, farmers, students, patriots and oppressed!

We are today at the dawn of a great and historic event in the history of our dear
motherland, Nigeria. A labour party has been proclaimed! A party of the masses, by the masses,
for the masses! A party which stands for the poor, who are daily being brutalised by SAP,
hunger, poverty, police violence, retrenchment and all other capitalistic oppressive policies . . .

For the above claims to be made germane, we demand that the partys programme
should include the following:

free education at all levels for all Nigerians

immediate creation of mass literacy programme

nationalization of the commanding heights of the economy banks, oil companies, big
manufacturing and distributing firms, airlines, sea lines, as well as firms recently privatized

institution of workers control of production (i.e. workers management) in the nationalized

firms through their elected representatives

institution of a socialist central planning

repeal of all anti-people decrees (e.g. decrees 2, 18, 20 etc)

freedom of association and assembly (lifting of ban on NANS, ASUU etc)

the right of all to free speech and hold opinions.

immediate release of all political prisoners and detainees (the eleven NEPA men and
Femi Aborisade etc)

massive and urgent public housing programme to provide houses for all

free medical services

organization of a genuine mass transition programme ran by peoples committee

land to all dispossessed peasants.

State procurement of basic agricultural inputs and their immediate distribution to farmers
through their cooperatives.

encouragement of agricultural collective to aid mechanisation and large scale

production.

immediate suspension of foreign debt servicing.

Expression of solidarity with popular struggles, against the oppression of peoples of

South Africa, Namibia, Palestine, Western Sahara etc. in political, moral, diplomatic and other
forms.

The establishment of peoples defence committees to defend the gains of the masses.

At Owo, it took the intervention of Comrades Remi Ogunlana (Mandela), E. Okijiola, Dan,
Biodun Olamosu and Chima Ubani to thwart all attempts to impose Bafyaus surrogates on the party at
Owo local government level of the party. Owo was the strongest branch of the Nigeria Labour Party
(NLP) in Ondo state. Not only this, Frederick Faseun who had been a close friend of Paschal Bafyau
was always in the press attacking the socialist groups and individuals in the party. Faseuns argument
was that the NLP was not a socialist party, but a Social Democratic party. As such, NLP did not deem it

Page128

fit to fight against its dissolution when it came. According to him, the NLP belonged to the Social
Democratic Party (SDP) while National Republican Convention (NRC) belonged to the conservatives.
So, while Bafyau was in SDP, instead of solidifying the NLP caucus within the party, he was
collecting money for himself from the various factions on behalf of the workers. He himself testified to
the fact that he collected money from MKO Abiola to campaign for him among the workers. Did workers
actually need Bafyau as a middleman to campaign for Abiola? Not at all! Even when the SDP needed
Bafyau most, when the result of the presidential election won by Chief MKO Abiola was annulled, he
vanished out of circulation, despite all the money he had collected. All efforts made by other members
of labour to force Babangida to reconsider his action were to be thwarted by Bafyau. For example, two
meetings held at Enugu and Port Harcourt by National Executive Council and Central Working
Committee organs of Nigeria Labour Congress (where Bafyau was conspicuously absent), decided to
give Babangida an ultimatum, after which if he did not reconsider his decision; the organization would
embark on industrial action to force the government out. Bafyau opportunistically surfaced after the
decisions had been reached to lead the delegates that would present the decision of the Congress
(NLC) to Babangida. At the meeting, he chose to be apologetic and unable to state clearly and
unambiguously the position of workers.
In the course of the series of actions that later formed the struggle, Bafyau was very often
evasive; working behind the scene for Babangida to thwart all attempts on the part of labour to
intervene in the June 12 crisis. This corroborated the position of Leon Trotsky when he pointed out that:
the proletariat may tolerate for a long time a leadership that has already suffered a
complete inner degeneration but has not as yet had the opportunity to express this degeneration
amid great events. A great historic shock is necessary to reveal sharply the contradiction
between the leadership and the class.
This was exactly what happened in the case of the Bafyau leadership of labour in Nigeria.
Bafyaus betrayal of Nigerian labour is unprecedented in our history. The June 12 movement of which
he was to play a leading role was derided by him.
This treachery on the part of Bafyau was what led Kokori and Dabibi to take up the challenge to
lead their unions (in l994) for the June 12 movement. These unions of workers in the oil sector,
NUPENG and PENGASSAN, among other things called for the official release of the June 12 election
results. Chief MKO Abiola, who won the June 12 1993 presidential election, was detained by the
military junta of Abacha for claiming his mandate. The unions also demanded for adequate financing of
the petroleum sector whose infrastructures were in a bad shape and had been poorly neglected. This
action was to take place after due consultation with other (so-called) progressive unions including
NUBIFIE, Civil Service Technical Workers Union, Textile Workers Union and National Union of Food,
Beverages and Tobacco Employees and a few others.
NUPENG did not subject its own action to the proposed action by the Nigeria Labour Congress
(NLC) which was to take place around the same time. Labour pundits believed that the NLC action was
still part of the schemings on the part of Bafyau to ward off and nip in the bud the proposed NUPENG
industrial action. Going by Bafyaus antecedents that was a safe thing to do. For example, in 1993 a
general strike called by NLC was aborted by the Bafyau leadership. Apart from this, NUPENG was privy
to Bafyaus opportunistic principles of management by ambush.
This was a tradition of negotiating away what he himself had previously agreed with other union
leaders. Unfortunately, Sylvester Ejiofor, Adams Oshiomhole and his other Comrades in the so-called
progressive unions did not raise a finger after the arrest and detention of Kokori and Dabibi - the two
leaders that spearheaded the NUPENG and PENGASSAN strike. Though, they claimed that they were
being haunted by the governments security agents. The strike no doubt changed the political equation
of the country. It went a long way to renew interest and support for the June 12 struggle after the

Page129

incarceration of Chief MKO Abiola which had brought the struggle into a state of coma. Frank Kokori
remained in detention for four years without the Bafyau led NLC doing anything to work for his release.
Abacha could not trust the NLC again, based on the revolutionary tension building up among
workers who had been putting pressure on the NLC leadership (as it could no longer manipulate the
organization as before). The government of Abacha went on to dissolve the structures of NLC and
appointed a sole administrator to take charge. As expected nothing happened after the NLC was
dissolved unlike in the case in respect of NUPENG and PENGASSAN where the rank and file members
still held their allegiance to their leaders who were in detention.
From the beginning, many people believed that the transition programme of Babangidas
government was planned to fail. Notable among them was the chair of the preceding National Electoral
Commission (NEC), Professor Eme Awa, who was relieved of his position when it became clear to the
government that he could not compromise his principles. He was alleged of trying to register the Labour
Party as against governments position to the contrary. Probably Babangida did not know him before he
was appointed or he must have mistakenly considered him as one of the conservative professors in the
universities. Eme Awa captured the true picture of Babangida when he commented:
Babangida stood for everything that was against democracy . . . He had no intention of
installing democracy . . . IBB never meant any of the things he said publicly. He always meant
the exact opposite of whatever he said.
Babangida not only relieved Awa of his position as NEC Chairman, he went further to see that
he ruined all his businesses including that of his family.
As the chameleonic character of Babangida was becoming common knowledge, more
politicians, especially from left circles were becoming convinced that Babaginda did not want to leave
power. All his attempts to prevent the election from taking place as planned were frustrated by the prodemocracy movement. Hence, the elections of June 12, l993 went through peacefully throughout the
length and breadth of the country devoid of the animosity, bickering and thuggery which had
characterized Nigerian elections in the past.
On the eve of the Presidential election on 11th June l993, there was a judicial pronouncement to
truncate the transition. This was a signal for the coming period. On that particular day, Professor Henry
Nwosu, Chair of the National Elections Commission (NEC), went on air to announce that the election
scheduled for June 12 would still be held as planned. The announcement was in response to a court
injunction that the election should be withheld. This was granted to an anti-democratic organization
called the Association for Better Nigeria (ABN) being led by Arthur Nzeribe and Abimbola Davies.
In the announcement, Nwosu called on Nigerian voters to disregard this court restriction or
injunction. Nwosus case was that the electoral decree that granted the Commission certain powers and
immunity against such court orders. The Decree (Section 1(1)) 13 of l993 stated inter alia that:
Notwithstanding, the provisions of Federal Republic of Nigeria Constitution l979, as amended or any
other law, no interim or interlocutory order or ruling, judgement or decision made by any court or
tribunal before or after the commencement of this decree, in respect of any intra-party or inter party
disputes or any other matters before it shall affect the date or time of the holding of the election or the
performance of the commission of any of its functions under this decree or any guidelines issued by it in
pursuance of the election.
With the assurance from Nwosu, Nigerian voters believed that the transition was on course. So,
over fourteen million voters trooped out to vote for candidates of their choice between the two
bourgeois politicians - Chief MKO Abiola and Alhaji Bashir Tofa. But the electoral decree in itself
showed arrogance and disdain for the rule of law. How can a decree bar a court of law from doing its
work? Anyway, this is part of the anomalies which are usually associated with military rule.

Page130

At the time, nobody in their senses would ever have thought that the announcement of the
election results could be stopped, but that is exactly what happened. Although the formal election
results were not released, the results were available in the collating centres across the country. All that
remained was for Chief Electoral Officer to announce the results officially. This was finally stalled by
Babangidas directive to the NEC. A reliable source at the NEC confirmed to this writer that the military
attach at the NEC office:
who later became the Governor of Kano State before his death, identified as an
informant to Babangida, was the one that ordered the stoppage of further announcement of the
election result which Nwosu had commenced. The court order granted ABN, by Justice
Mohammed Saleh of Abuja High Court, stopping the announcement of the election result was a
hoax. Nwosu was held hostage and his whereabouts after leaving the premises of NEC
headquarters was unknown.
Babangida never wished the election well. According to MKO Abiola, Babangida would not have
allowed the election to take place as scheduled on June 12 if he knew that he was going to win the
election. Abiola recognized this and chose to be smart with Babangida. In Abiolas words:
the campaign was monitored by the government. A certain young man was following us
(during the campaign) and I knew all along he was monitoring for the government. About four
days to the election, he came to ask me what chances I thought I had. I gave him a very
pessimistic view, how I would lose Osun and Ondo because of Muslim-Muslim issue, how I
would never be able to win the Southern states because they are Christians, how the middlebelt was no go area. I knew he had a recorder on him all the time. He flew to Abuja and played it
to them. They were very happy.
Babangida, despite the huge amount of money (in the range of N40 billion wasted on the
transition) did not make any contingent plans for polling booths, aware that rain may disrupt the whole
exercise as it took place during the raining season. He cared less about such disruptions. But
unfortunately for the government, the whole sky was clear and devoid of rain on polling day.
The suspension of the declaration of the results inevitably led to a long chain of events. The
Government later annulled the election, on June 23 1993, in an unsigned statement issued by the Chief
Press Secretary to the military Vice-President, Mr. Nduka Irabo. Most people doubted the authenticity of
the statement, but it was later confirmed as truly coming from the government and representing their
position. The statement suspended the NEC and the Transition to Civil Rule (Political Programme)
(Amendment) (No. 3) Decree No. 52 of l992 and the Presidential Election (Basic Constitutional and
Transition Provision) Decree No. 13 of l993 were also repealed. The statement also pointed out that:
all acts or omissions done or purported to have been done or to be done by any person,
authority etc. under the decrees are hereby invalid.
After persistent pressures from both the local and international communities, Babangida gave
the reasons for the annulment in a broadcast to the nation; he said that the two candidates violated
certain electoral laws relating to corrupt practices during the election. He also accused the aspirants of
spending too much money during the elections. Apart from this, he said they had business interests that
might run counter to the interests of the nation. And finally he concluded: Abiola was not disposed to
by the military class. That was the same Babangida who telephoned Abiola immediately after the
election on June 12 to implore him to accept the wishes of the people as expressed in the poll.
Ola Oni at this point knew that a crisis had erupted, the future of which nobody could predict.
But he shared with other comrades the view that pressure had to be put on the government so that it
would not plunge the country into another civil war. Of course, it was the government that started
sponsoring campaigns. Its propaganda war was led by Comrade Uche Chukwumerije, Minister for
Information who was also a propagandist during the Nigerian Civil War for Biafra. In fact, war was not

Page131

far from breaking out, taking into consideration the situation in Burma and Algeria, the two countries
where such annulments had just taken place.
Ola Oni together with other activists launched themselves into the mainstream of resistance
against the annulment. Mobilization of Nigerian people started in earnest across the country. The role of
the press was particularly commendable. Press statements were issued and conferences held by the
emergent human rights groups. These were covered frequently in the daily and weekly press and
journals. More newspapers were coming onto the market. Talented musicians and poets came in handy
to express opinions through their records. Activists went into towns and market places armed with
leaflets to express their position on the annulment and to mobilize the masses for rallies and protest
marches.
The Campaign for Democracy (CD) had already been mobilizing and complaining against the
hidden agenda of Babangida. So, when the annulment of the most peaceful, free and fair election in
history took place, CD did not waste time in setting their campaign in motion. It was generally agreed by
activists that the election was by no means perfect, but it was the best that could be obtained in such
circumstance. Ola Onis organisation Peoples Labour Front was part of the alliance that made up CD
and they played a key role in CD activities especially in Ibadan and Oyo State. Ola Oni shuttled
between Ibadan and Lagos to attend CD weekly secretariat meetings where vital decisions of the
movement were reached. The condemnation of the annulment cut across party affiliation including
conservative politicians, traditional rulers and religious leaders.
But situation changed later when ING was installed and anti-democratic forces switched to
manipulate people for another round of electioneering process. Many politicians from both parties gave
in to this plan. More worrisome was the role played by people like Chief Tony Anenih, who was the
Chair of the winning party the Social Democratic Party (SDP). It was on record that instead of Anenih
fighting for the actualization of his partys mandate, he gave in to the governments gimmicks, to
conduct another election by ING. Other members of the party executives and leaders like Sule Lamido
(National Secretary), Amos Idakwa (National Publicity Secretary), Okechukwu Odunze, Daddy West,
Bele Hadith Alah, Joseph Toba, Haliru Aliyu Mariwa and Albert Legogie (Senate Deputy President),
Senator Chuba Okadigbo gave in to the government rapprochement and traded away the partys
mandate won on June 12, l993. Sheu Yaradua played no little role in influencing the people to support
Babangidas (ING) programme. Indeed, it was another season of betrayal and opportunism for
politicians.
Despite this, the June 12 movement also consumed the ING government after Babangida. But
with the advent of Abachas military rule in November 1993, the politicians again showed how
opportunistic they were. The most pathetic situation was that even the most credible, and most
outspoken ones among them who were known to be closely associated with the pro-democracy
movement later succumbed to Abachas intrigues and joined its government under the pretext that they
would prevail on government to actualize the June 12 mandate of MKO Abiola. At the time, Chief
Ebenezer Babatope, Alhaji Lateef Jakande, Dr. Olu Onagorua, Dr. Iyorcha Ayu, Alhaji Baba Gana
Kingibe, Alhaji Abubakar Rimi, Mrs. Osomo, Professor Jerry Gana, Dr. Sam Ogbemudia, who were all
SDP members with progressive antecedents were called upon to resign from Abachas government,
the road to the actualization of June 12 mandate having been blocked. This call went unheeded.
Events have proved that the politicians were not reliable. Were it not for the human rights prodemocracy activists the struggle would not have gone far. Most struggles to the barricades were led by
CD. Many human rights leaders were former student leaders are largely Ola Onis students and
supporters. The July 5 and 6 l993 street protests were landmarks in the history of political struggle.
Hundreds of thousands of people trooped out in Lagos to kick against the annulment and called for the
actualization of the mandate given to MKO Abiola on June 12. The demands also included: Sovereign
National Conference, multi-party system and to put an end to military rule and calls for genuine

Page132

democracy. Stay at home protests were also called at various times. A successful two-day national
strike of workers organized by NLC was achieved, not to talk of months of such strikes in Western part
of Nigeria (including old Kwara and Bendel States). The petroleum workers strike in l994, for about two
months, was also a landmark. Universities and colleges were closed down around this time (so as to
prevent the intervention of radical youths). Nonetheless, when they were re-opened, after Abacha came
to power, students across the country did not fail to express their discontent with the undemocratic
misrule by the military junta.
Positions taken on June 12 were as varied as the organizations that participated in the struggle.
Onis position was that since the direct beneficiary of the June 12 and SDP mandate (i.e. the
politicians), except MKO Abiola and a few individuals in the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO),
had betrayed the struggle and were nowhere to be found. So it would be childish to continue to demand
the actualization of June 12 mandate in its original form. So he wanted United Action for Democracy
(UAD) to adopt the following main objectives:

Institutional democratization of all aspects of Nigeria society, by mass empowerment.

The democratic restructuring of the Federal system to end national oppression which
June 12 has accentuated

to free the people from the prevailing economic repression of the Structural Adjustment
Programme (SAP) to be replaced by the peoples oriented economic policy.

For Oni, the June 12 crisis was created by the northern ruling oligarchy (not the northern
masses) who had monopolized power and used it to exact their control and domination over other
ethnic groups. This oligarchy were not interested in how to resolve the problem they had created, but
were only concerned with how to maintain perpetually their power. So, the June 12 was a crisis of the
national question; the problem of bringing multi-ethnic people, of diverse cultures together under one
political environment. June 12 was only a reflection of the ethnic contradictions and an evidence of a
system that had totally broken down.
Comrade Ola Oni expected activists to be able to identify such causes of our problems and to
view the June 12 struggle as a struggle for democratic revolutionary transformation, rather than a
struggle to fight for the SDP mandate which was brought about in an undemocratic manner.
June 12 was also viewed as a national phenomenon since it was the product of the nation and
not of one ethnic group. Although these forces happened to be entrenched in the military and coming
from the northern part of the country, their supporters and cronies, both among the military and
civilians, spread across the country.
The June 12 movement eventually degenerated and became ethnicised. The fact that the
struggle was most entrenched in Lagos and Western Nigeria (including former Kwara and Bendel
States) where human rights organizations were concentrated did not undermine the national orientation
and outlook of the struggle. It was necessary to carry other parts of the country along, if only at the level
of ideological and theoretical support. In the future, they would be able to muster an appreciable force
to intervene practically in the struggle as the South-West had done so. There is no doubt that the
Campaign for Democracy (CD) was embraced across the country at inception. Its particular success in
the South-West was not due to the CDs own handiwork, but rather the result of the various
organizations that composed it and the radical tradition that had been entrenched in the South-West
among the youths, professionals, students, artisans, workers, poor farmers and market woman.
The only way success by the CD could have been recognized was by putting in place an
durable structure of radical tradition in other parts of the country where practical intervention did not
take place. Babangidas plan to build a durable undemocratic structure started with the uprooting of all
the democratic structures and radical traditions that existed across the country. While he did not

Page133

succeed in achieving this in the South-West, he was partially successful in the South-East and he
recorded overwhelming success in the north.
The former radical tradition in the north among students, peasant farmers and radical politicians
was no more when Babangida launched his undemocratic plan on the country. Babangida expelled or
rusticated radical students and banned student unions and revolutionary organizations in the campuses
of the South West. However, the activists were able to incorporate them into the existing organizations
(outside the campus). By so doing, the repression of students was seen as an attack on the entire
democratic forces across the region. So the fight back was therefore the combined efforts of these
forces.
In the North, the reverse was the case. There was a lack of democratic traditions outside the
campuses to embrace students leaving schools or while in schools. Even most of the student leaders
became an island to themselves when they left schools. The only exception was the radical lecturers in
the universities, but their union had been stifled. The only social structures that remained were
established Islamic religious groupings which had taken over from the revolutionary traditions of
students in the 1970s and 1980s especially at Ahmadu Bello University (ABU), Therein laid the
problem confronting the youths and organizations in northern Nigeria when the June 12 crisis broke
out. As V.I. Lenin used to remark who has the youths has the future. The entire role of youths in
radical transformation of society cannot be underestimated. Their role as a catalyst in revolutionary
struggle is well recognized in history. In Nigeria, an organization like the Campaign for Democracy (CD)
ought to have recognized this background. It was a mistake to take the success of the June 12
movement in Lagos and the South-West to mean that the movement was not supported in other parts
of the country.
The classical revolutionary experience of Russia in 1917 confirms this assertion. In practical
terms, the revolution, which shook the whole world, largely took place in Petersburg, but according to
one of its leaders, Trotsky, it had the support of people from many other parts of Russia. This made it
impossible for the counter-revolutionary forces to gain a foothold in such places.
United Action for Democracy (UAD) arrived in 1998 already weakened in perspective. The
organization saw itself as a child of necessity that wanted to be seen to be doing something like CD but
at different levels. The organizations position in its first leaflet that listed its objectives, did not call for
the actualization of June 12 mandate of Abiola. It instead called for the release of Abiola from detention
and that he should head a new provisional government. So the struggle of UAD was to be anchored
around an end to military rule. The organizations stand on June 12 failed to carry the day at its first
inaugural meeting and other subsequent ones. The dominant groups, like Democratic Alternative (DA),
Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), that initiated the organization found themselves overwhelmed by
other forces like Campaign for the Independent Unionism (CIU), Campaign for Democracy (CD).
Later Militant and others that insisted on the relevance of the demand for the actualization of
June 12 mandate to be headed by Abiola. They included pro-democracy forces such as the press,
professionals, workers, students, poor farmers, women, human right organizations etc. The earlier antiJune 12 stand of UAD at its inception was the reason the National Conscience Party (NCP) of Gani
Fawehinmi did not deem it fit to participate in the organization. Only Labour Militant kicked against
UADs position on a provisional government, which also arose in the Joint Action Committee of Nigeria
(JACON) as a Government of National Unity (GNU). The kernel of Labour Militants position was that
such an amorphous coalition of groups in government had never been beneficial to the working people
because the government could also be used to repel workers in struggle, justifying this as workers not
being patriotic to the peoples government. This was the reason Labour Militant canvassed for a full
restoration of June 12 mandate under a capitalist leadership of Abiola so that he could be held
responsible and accountable for his action and inaction rather than a situation with a Government of
National Unity where no individual or specific group could be held responsible for the failure or

Page134

atrocities committed by such government.

It has been asked what would happen to other opportunist politicians at other levels of
government. Labour Militant responded that they should be restored to their positions. This looked
ridiculous, but what is the position thereafter when the pro-Abacha-politicians held sway everywhere.
What was expected of UAD was not only to see the struggle for June 12 as beyond June 12 election
mandate, but to see itself as an arrow head of the democratic struggle in the country. The persistence
of leading UAD figures to truncate the majority position on the actualization of the June 12 mandate and
their background as a breakaway faction of the original CD was the reason Joint Action Committee of
Nigeria (JACON) emerged as a new coalition. This comprised of organizations such as National
Democratic Coalition (NADECO), Eastern Mandate Union (EMU), National Conscience Party (NCP),
Civil Defence for Human Rights (CDHR), Campaign for Democracy (CD), United Action for Democracy
(UAD), Democratic Socialist Movement (DSM), Campaign for Democracy (CD), Oduduwa Peoples
Congress (OPC), Campaign for Independent Unionism (CIU), National Association of Nigerian Students
(NANS), etc. and such figures as Pa Abraham Adesanya, Lanihun Ajayi, Adebanjo, Gani Fawehinmi,
Femi Falana, Professor Toye Olorode, Dr. Dipo Fasina, Professor Idowu Awopetu, Femi Aborisade,
Ayodele Akele, Segun Sango, Adeola Soetan, Dr. Abayomi, Arthur Nwankwo, Ezekhomeh, A.
Ogunlana, Dr. Frederick Faseun, etc.
UAD was able to establish its foothold in the political struggle with the popular 5 million antiAbacha March of March 3rd l998 in Yaba, Lagos and the follow up marches in April and May 1 st in
Ibadan.
Comrade Ola Oni was an active participant and leading figure in these rallies and
demonstrations against military rule. Ola Oni became the coordinator of UAD in the Western zone and
he used his office to mobilize people against Abachas usurpation of power and his attempts to
perpetuate his power.
The double standard of Abachas government were exposed by UAD. This was a government
that propped up rented crowds to support his transition as a civilian President, at the same time
clamping down on opposition forces campaigning and agitating against the government. The case of
March 3rd was an eye-opener to many Nigerians. Abachas surrogates coordinated by Daniel Kanu, the
leader of Youth Earnestly Ask for Abacha (YEAA), organized a rally of a million people at Abuja. The
federal government under Abacha used the state machinery to support and finance this rally. All local
governments and state governments provided logistics for this rally and they also made arrangements
for people that attended the rally from all parts of the country. The rally was also meant to actuate the
intensive loyalists of Abacha. All known and unknown surrogates of Abacha like: Jim Nwobodo, Sam
Mbakwe, Godwin Daboh, Lamidi Adedibu, Arisekola Alao, Wada Nas, Enwerem, etc, were expected at
the rally to take oath and swear their allegiance and faithfulness to the maximum military ruler.
In a matter of two days UAD got wind of the Abacha plan. It decided to counter the move, not by
disrupting the rally, but by holding a counter-rally of five million people in Lagos. They insisted despite
the police Commissioners efforts to abort it. UAD and other pro-democracy organizations stood their
ground to embark on the action. The whole of Yaba was filled with thousands of Nigerians in such a
revolutionary mood that all the operation sweep vehicles and troopers could not dissuade the march
from progressing. Comrade Ola Oni, Mrs. Ayo Obe and Femi Aborisade were among those that
addressed the rally at Yaba.
Others who attended the rally included: Chima Ubani, Dr. Tunji Braithwaite, Chris Oroh, Ibrahim
Zik,, Pa Abraham Adesanya, Biodun Olamosu, Remi Ogunlana, A.J. Dangatollar. The pro-democracy
leaders arrested at the rally included Mr. Olisa Agbakoba, the convener of UAD who was inhumanly
brutalized by the police. The terrain of the struggle shifted (though not formally) to Ibadan after the
March 3rd demonstration. This was due to the fact that Arisekola Alao, Adedibu Lamidi, Olumilua,
Kolapo Ishola, and other Abacha campaigners in Western Nigeria wanted to hold a pro-Abacha rally in

Page135

Ibadan (the geographical nerve center of Yoruba land). This was to impress Abacha that he had the
support of the Yoruba people despite the fact that the bulk of the opposition to his government were
drawn from Yorubas.
Ola Oni, Moshood Erubami, Sanda Laoye, Gbenga Awosode, Alhaji Abisoye, Balogun and
others came around to Ola Onis residence to discuss a way out of how to neutralize this undemocratic
move. All preparations for the match against Adedibus rally were made at Onis residence. On the day
of the pro-Abacha rally, only providence saved Adedibu and Kolapo Ishola from being lynched by the
people while Arisekola took the back door of Adamasingba stadium to escape with the military
Governor of the State Colonel Ahmed. The police that came to protect Adedibu and others were
responsible for the brutal murder of about ten pro-democracy activists. This unfortunate result of the
incident compounded the bad image of Abacha and the activists were warming up for another protest
on May Day.
May 1st is known all over the world as a day for the oppressed working people to express their
opinions and misgivings against the capitalist exploitative system, military dictatorships and all forms of
oppression. On the eve of this May Day, leaflets were printed and distributed all over the city and
messages were passed through the mass media that there would be neighbourhood marches on 1 st of
May to protest against the maximum military ruler, Sanni Abacha. He wanted to turn himself into the
next civilian President in a new civilian dispensation. The demands of the people as stated in the leaflet
included: the actualization of June 12; end to military rule; convocation of a Sovereign National
Conference (SNC) that would comprise of workers, professionals, small farmers, students, artisans,
community representatives in accordance to their numericalmulti-party system; end to SAP
Nationalisation of the economy under the working peoples democratic control and management etc. As
if the people had been waiting for the day to come, the aggrieved and the victimized poor people of
Ibadan joined and supported the struggle fully. An attempt by government apologists such as Arisekola
Alao, Lamidi Adedibu and others to frustrate the struggle by intimidating people with their private armed
security made the people react forcefully and fight back. Arisekolas body-guards for instance, shot
many innocent people in a nearby hospital including patients receiving treatment. Over ten people died
in these events.
On the same day, Comrade Ola Oni, Bola Ige, Lam Adesina and some others associated with
the social movement in Ibadan were arrested. Others such as Femi Adeoti (Sunday Tribune Editor), Pa
Alhaji Buliaminu Akanji, Teju Jaiyeola, Tajudeen Lawal, Akeem Adisa, Musibau Adebayo, Akeem Lamila
and others were arrested and detained later in the week.
Ola Oni was to spend 42 days altogether in detention in both Iyaganku Police Station
and Agodi Prison, along with the other detained activists.

Page136

CHAPTER TEN: OLA ONI AS A FAMILY MAN

There was a pattern in the way Comrade Ola Oni spent his days. His associates could easily predict his
movements and what he was likely to be doing at any particular time. The man, in his typical
revolutionary manner, was a workaholic. He was so hard-working that one would wonder how a man of
his age could exert himself so much.
Onis days started as early as 5am when he would try to complete any unfinished work from the
previous night. By seven in the morning, he would come down to the ground floor and engaged himself
in making the house clean and tidy. He involved others, especially his children in this work. Other
members of the family, including his wife, had their own different allotted work to do everyday. This
compartmentalization and specialization of work was perfect. For instance, sometimes if his wife was
working at the Iva-Valley computer-graphic workshop in the morning, she might start as early as five in
the morning. On such days the housework and the breakfast would be coordinated and organized by
Ola Oni. Sometimes he awaked in the night but mostly worked at the workshop. But when it was the
turn of Madam to do night shifts, Comrade had to do early morning work at the workshop and the
housework and breakfast coordination became the responsibility of Madam. Sometimes, both of them
were together in the kitchen to chart and discuss personal issues while the cooking was going on.
When there was printing work at the workshop, Comrade was always found busy in the
workshop. He may spend the whole day there: engaged in filming, planning the pages, thinking of the
aesthetics of the work and getting it prepared for final printing. Because of the volume of work at the
Iva-Valley printing workshop, they engaged the services of two computer workers. They worked on a
shift basis - morning and afternoon. The workers were reduced to one at a later period. This was the
reason that Madam and Comrade worked on the computer at night and early in the morning. Even
though they needed the press to subsidise their living, it was not entirely commercialized. Most of the
works undertaken by the press were political. If it was not Comrade Onis personal work, it might be for
the organization where he had political interests. In this case, the printing charges were minimal - what
Comrade Oni referred to as the subsidized rate.
When printing work was not at hand, Comrade Ola Oni was in his study by 8.00am, after having
taken his bath, engaged in reading and studying. His breakfast used to get to him there in most cases;
sometimes, he went to the dining table to eat only to come back immediately to his study table
thereafter. Sometimes, at least once in a week, about 12 noon or 1pm, Comrade Ola Oni would drive to
the Post Office to check his mail and that of his organization. The man was always economical with
time. He did not know how to waste time at all. Most time after leaving the Post Office he would branch
to the vendors at the University of Ibadan. Here he checked on the vendors who he supplied materials
such as magazines and the theoretical journals he sold in his bookshop. After this, nothing could stop
him immediately going home. His wife had known him for this. Many visitors found his wifes
expectation of when he would come back very reliable. He would return to his study almost
immediately, having checked through the mail and take action on the urgent isses.
Mostly, his launch usually found him in his study. Comrade Oni relaxed by sleeping off in his
study room, only, to turn to work after full relaxation. He slept on a plank bed in his study at the back of
his house. He told people that he preferred using this type of a bed to straighten his back.
His engagements political or revolutionary meetings usually took place in the evenings, he
attended promptly. There was no doubt that Oni was a great debater, orator and agitator. At such public
symposia or lectures, he would have his audience spellbound by dishing out scientific facts to
corroborate his argument and carry the audience along with him. Bourgeois intellectuals used to find it
difficult to share a platform with him because they were going to be disgraced for supporting the
exploiters. Oni did not moralise when it came to politics. He approached each topic very seriously as if
Page137

his life depended on the programme and he did not compromise on principles.
On Sundays, Ola Oni was either at a meeting of his group, the Marxist Socialist Youth
Movement (MSYM) at The Polytechnic Ibadan or the Marxist Socialist Movement of University of
Ibadan or at the Socialist Workers Party, Ibadan branch. These ideological education meetings
produced a lot of cadres that are themselves leaders in the struggles today. This was the way
revolutionaries spent most of his entire life, on a daily basis. Most people closer to his household,
especially his neighbours who regularly saw him at his study table, were always surprised to hear
stories of the state taking action, such as arrests and detention against Comrade Oni. They found it
very difficult to believe the governments stories because they could not imagine when Oni could do all
the things alleged against him. These people did not know that the state was aware of all the moves of
its critics. Although Oni was regularly at his study post, he also attended meetings where he spoke
against the government and regularly issued public statements against the government, on behalf of
various organizations. These activities were enough to bring fear into the minds of the authorities and
their agencies. These were the grounds for which all governments, from Gowon to Abacha, viewed him
as a most dangerous critic who should be incarcerated, so that they could be free to implement their
unpopular policies.
A good example was in l986 when one of Ola Onis junior sisters was in his compound for a visit
to the family for few days. The woman witnessed the way her brother was abducted by the State
Security Service, for what they claimed was a security matter. The woman started wondering aloud
what her brother could have done. She expressed her feelings so openly and condemned the security
forces for maltreating her brother for no just cause. The event led her to sympathize with her brother
and so conclude that his arrests and detentions over the years were not justified. This innocent woman
knew Comrade Ola Oni, her brother, did not often leave home. He was always in his study from
morning to late at night, except for short breaks when he went to the University for his lectures.
Unknown to this woman, Comrade Ola Oni did not have to convey his press statements to the press
houses himself. His assistants did this on a regular basis or students were readily available to help with
such tasks. His children also later assisted with such messages in the course of the struggle.
The arrest, alluded to above, and Onis subsequent detention, were in connection with the
Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) strike in 1986. Mobilization and publicity had commenced
and all forms of struggle were adopted. Dr. G.G. Darah was the ASUU Chair of University of Ife (now
Obafemi Awolowo University) branch. Ife turned out to be a vibrant branch and the engine room of
ASUU activities at the time even when the National Secretariat was permanently situated at the
University of Ibadan. Darah had been arrested earlier, but was released after some time. The
government must have realized that after Darahs arrest nothing stopped. The struggle became even
more intensified.
At the time, ASUU was still a vibrant affiliate of the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC). The union
informally served as its ideological wing and was readily available to give the NLC ideological guidance
and direction. So, ASUU influence went beyond university teachers. ASUU members were in close
contact with their students and all politically progressive and ideologically oriented student groups on
the campuses and the labour movement, both on the campuses and outside it. Their propaganda work
was at a very high level that the government could not match it. Apart from regular press statements
issued by the National Secretariat, various branches issued their own statements. ASUU also published
its own monthly paper called Clarion. It also sometimes published in the Tribune. This newspaper was
in opposition to the Federal Government and was then ASUUs favourite paper. The radical tradition of
ASUU made the government jittery. Babangidas government, like the repressive government before it
of Buhari, believed repression of ASUU and its key members would do the magic.
The government also had every reason to suspect Comrade Ola Onis relationship with ASUU,
especially with the Ife collectives. He had been involved with the struggles of students and lecturers as

Page138

an active participant since the l960s. He was also a key figure in establishing what is now called ASUU
when it was known as the Association of University Teachers (AUT). Comrade Ola Oni was not like the
type of radicals that publicised their worth before he was identified as a threat to the power that be.
Dr. G.G. Darah was a committed member of his organization. Ola Onis Iva-Valley Publishing
Company was responsible for publishing ASUUs monthly paper, the Clarion. All this added together
must have been responsible for the State Security Service (SSS), and the National Security
Organisation (NSO) before it, to trace any actual or potential crisis to Comrade Ola Onis door step.
This caused his arrest and detention so often in order to try to nip such struggles in the bud before it
engulfed the entire system. Comrade Ola Onis popularity and his frequent visits to detention were
unequalled at the time.
Comrade Ola Onis house at New Bodija, like his former one at old Bodija, was like a Mecca for
revolutionaries. Comrades, youths, workers and their leaders from various parts of the country, near
and far paid regular visits to the man who many simply referred to as Comrade. So, the house was
never a private place, rather it was like a public institution where visitors were welcome at any time of
the day. Ola Oni did not believe he had anything to hide. He could easily detect genuine comrades in
the course of discussion and since he knew all the notable left figures, he would expect to know
Comrades visiting from any area. Sometimes SSS and NSO disguised themselves as visitors coming to
discuss with Comrade Ola Oni, but it took little effort to detect such characters.
Ola Onis wife, Kehinde Ola Oni, made such an exposure during the ASUU strike. In the
morning of that particular day, the sun had just risen, with the hope of a brighter day. Dr. Biodun Jeyifo
(known as BJ) briskly dropped in to Ola Onis house, but unfortunately he did not meet him at home. He
was said to have gone out to buy materials for his publishing enterprise. All efforts on the part of
Kehinde Ola Oni to advise BJ to wait did not yield results. He only left a message about the situation at
Ife and that everybody had gone underground including Dr. G.G. Darah. The Ife collectives must have
realised the level of viciousness of the state, hence their tactics to combine legal with illegal work and
so not to cheapen themselves by allowing the state to arrest their key figures. This was the message.
It was a few hours later that an SSS officer came to the house pretending to be a Comrade who
wanted to buy books, but turned round to ask for Comrade Oni, when he must have realized that the
Comrade was not around. But Kehinde Ola Oni having suspected him as SSS, was certain of her
conviction that he must have been one of the Babangidas security agents pestering their lives. She
challenged him not to pretend and that he should come out to state clearly his mission. While the young
man was pleading that he meant well and that Madam should just take him at his word. Madam asked
him: which University are you from? He was shocked by this simple question. He was destabilized to
the extent that he could not gather himself before finding any response. He left in shame.
On the eve of this day, the whole household, including the surrounding neighbourhood, were
disturbed by the crying and barking of Ola Onis two dogs. Comrade Ola Oni and his wife thought the
struggle was between the dogs and the night marauders who were trying to force themselves into their
premises. The following morning, to their consternation, their toughest dog, called Billy, was nowhere to
be found. They thought that the thieves must have been responsible for the plight of the dog. The dog
was a no nonsense one. It was a real detective dog that barked at people with a shady character,
people who had a hidden motive. The events of the following days, when Comrade Ola Oni was finally
arrested, made the circumstances of the kidnapped dog clearer.
The ultimate arrest and detention of Ola Oni during the week by the SSS people came after
many unfruitful efforts to ambush and kidnap the dog which they feared would expose their secret
operation. They had Kehinde Ola Oni to battle with. Madam understood the psyche of these security
men very well as she had always been in battle with them. Sometimes, she would treat them like a
child, plead with them and explain what the struggle was all about and that it would also benefit people
like themselves and their families. She realized that most of the officials engaged in this SSS work were

Page139

doing so for the simple reason that they had no other alternative employment.
At other times, she would be aggressive; unlike Comrade Ola Oni who would never bother to
exchange words with them. At a particular point in the week during this search and ambush laid for
Comrade Oni, they came in the afternoon with boldness to ask Kehinde Ola Oni of her husbands
whereabouts. The woman asked them in return who they were. They confessed that they were SSS
operatives. Madam replied that she could not believe them. She therefore demanded their ID cards to
show they really came from the SSS. One of them, the head of the team, put his hand in his pocket to
remove his ID card. Kehinde Ola Oni grabbed his hand and seized the ID card from him. The earlier
dialogue between them and the mood dramatically changed to one of hostility.
Kehinde Ola Oni, who in temperament was aggressive when she chose to be furious, cried at
the top of her voice to lambaste them for their dirty jobs. She asked them to go to their villages to
cultivate farm land if it was unemployment that pushed them to this dirty work. The security officers on
the other hand did not find it funny. They started pleading, wavering like kids. Madam released the ID
card to them only after much pleading.
It was the evening of the following day that Comrade Ola Oni was picked up on entering the
premises of his house while coming from the University College Teaching Hospital (UCTH) where he
had gone to visit a family friend in the hospital. They followed him and drove after him to his house that
evening and arrested him at gunpoint.
They refused to let him enter his house, he only managed to alert his wife and his children
before he was driven away in the SSS vehicle. Comrade Oni, who before this period had been arrested
and detained many times, said this occasion was the first time he was ever treated so animalistically by
the security men who pointed a gun at him to surrender himself for arrest.
Comrade Ola Oni was detained for a week before he was released. He came out to tell the story
of the night he was arrested. He said he had lost hope that he would come out alive because of the way
his capture was dramatized in the night. He said that, so people would not be able to trace them that
night, they drove him aimlessly around Ibadan before they finally dropping him off at one underground
security house. Here he met other comrades like Professor Toye Olorode from University of Ife.
Comrade Oni said there was no way he could trace neither the house where he was dumped that night
nor the route they took to get there.
Characteristically of Ola Oni, immediately he was released, he issued a press statement to
thank all the individuals and organizations that fought for his release and used the opportunity also to
press for the release of those that were still in detention. A few days after his release, a policeman, who
claimed to come from the Criminal Investigation Department walked into the house and brought a
search warrant. Comrade Ola Oni was not moved by this new development.
But many people around were baffled by what he could have done to warrant this incessant
harassment. On that occasion he was neither arrested nor taken to the station, but he was asked to
report at Iyaganku for a routine investigation. This he did and returned back to his house without delay.
Comrade Ola Oni himself was not disturbed by these occasional visits of the security, which were
common at the time. He usually saw it as one of the tactics of the state to frighten him from his
revolutionary duty, but this threat was not without its hindrance.
At this time (1986), Babangidas Political Bureau was organising meetings across the country to
gauge the opinions of the people. The meeting for Ibadan was held at the University of Ibadan. Ola Oni
attended the morning session only for members to hear that he could not attend the afternoon session
because of this police search. Other notable Nigerians at the occasion included: Professor Eskor
Tokyo, Chief Olawoyin, Chief Arifayan, Laoye Sanda, etc.
The Military Governor of Western State, Brigadier Oluwole Rotimi, appointed Comrade Ola Oni

Page140

as a director of the newly established Western Nigeria Industrial Investment and Credit Corporation.
This was charged with the task of achieving economic advancement of the state and running the
corporation as a profitable venture. Ola Oni vindicated himself as a true man of integrity and ideas in
this role.
Comrade Ola Oni accepted this offer because it was in line with the position of his organization
that had earlier issued a manifesto of the Peoples Organization to the new military governor. This
stated that the government should make the poor the focus of both its political and economic policies
and called for the transition from military to civilian rule. This would allow the working people to take
power from the military; rather than the military government surrendering power to the very people they
seized power from. After the successful completion of Ola Onis term in office as a director, the position
was renewed to show gratitude to him for the work well done.
It is also remarkable that Brigadier C.O. Rotimi was the only military governor that was found
not guilty of corruption and his record was found impeccable. Ola Oni also showed a good example and
proved that it is possible to hold public office and yet remain one self, humble, principled, honest,
selfless and impeccable.
Kehinde Ola Oni had been well known in the 1950s as Grace Kehinde Olotu. She became
popular and a household name after entering a beauty queen contest in Western Region Nigeria in
1957. She and her twin sister jointly contested together on the same platform and they won. This
justified the gift of nature in these twin-sisters. 1957 could not be compared with what we have now. It
was a period when there was decorum, decency and transparency in public life.
Grace Kehinde Olotu was a civil servant at the Secretariat, Agodi, Ibadan; the seat of
government of the Western Region where she worked as a secretary. The Mid-Western region
comprising the present Edo and Delta was first carved out of the region in 1963 and later in 1967 under
a military regime; Lagos State was carved out of the hitherto Western region and renamed Western
State. This was in the course of the 1967-70 civil war when the entire country was divided into 12
states. She married Comrade Ola Oni in the 1960s. Since then their lives were never the same again.
The family became a role model to revolutionaries across the country. Their marriage produced four
children. The entire family of Ola Oni was committed to revolutionary struggle as much as Comrade Ola
Oni himself.
Comrade Ola Oni usually referred to Kehinde Ola Oni as my dear. She worked at all times to
support her husband. She was always readily available to attend to her husbands guest or visitors who
were usually comrades coming from any part of the country or foreigners coming from outside the
country. She was known for her prompt attendance and hospitality to such comrades, as if she had
known them well before. She would happily take care of their feeding, bedding and other needs.
After her retirement these responsibilities continued at their new residence at 6, Odeku Close,
New Bodija. This could best be described as the headquarters of the revolutionary movement in the
country. It served as a place where Comrades could best gather information on current contemporary
political issues. Part of the building was used for a bookshop and printing/publishing workshop another
part was also used by Ola Oni Kehinde for her fashion and design business. She was a fantastic
designer and model. She used to have many trainees under her learning the art of fashion and design.
The fact that she was more business enterprising and commercially oriented than her husband was not
in doubt. But her husband would not allow her to move as she wanted. For instance, she was very
enthusiastic in her husband business of printing and publishing in the 1970s and 1980s and she was
very much involved in this.
She realized that the business was limited as a small-scale enterprise without much scope for
expansion. For this reason, she decided on her own to go out to seek a job. This she did successfully

Page141

expecting accolades from her husband for this successful venture. Her husband patted her on her back
for a job well done, but he did not encourage her in this act. The reason was that Comrade Ola Oni had
set out in the first place to establish a small-scale venture. He did not plan for a big venture. Doing this,
he knew his orientation would not change as his life was devoted entirely for the struggle. Many people
known to Ola Oni became bourgeoisified in an attempt to solve the problems of survival. For this
reason, Ola Oni told Madam not to worry about seeking a job as work would come on its own as he
preferred using the enterprise to carry out the work directly linked with the struggle rather than for solely
for commercial purpose.
Kehinde also ventured into politics and non-governmental organizations. Before the westerninspired NGOs and human rights organizations flooded the country in the 1990s, Kehinde Ola Oni has
been a member of the popular, famous, political and ideologically oriented womens organization known
as Women In Nigeria (WIN). In the 1980s, she was actively involved in the activities of the organization
in the Oyo State chapter. WIN was the foremost radical feminist organization among hundreds of
womens organizations. Its functions among others included: fighting for the rights of women from all
walks of life, fighting to have a society where both men and women would have effective access to
education, health, transport, shelter, pipe borne water, electricity and other basic needs; encouraging
and protecting the human rights of Nigerian women and frontally addressing the issue of political and
economic marginalisation of women in society. The organization in the course of its political education
came to the conclusion that the social structure was the major determinant of power and
powerlessness. The organization therefore posited that the best way to empower women was to alter
the class position of the majority of Nigerian women who were limited by poverty and deprivation.
In the 1990s when human rights organizations became common in various areas of social,
political and economic affairs, Kehinde Ola Oni formed The Action Women of Nigeria. She ran this
organization to raise the political consciousness women so that they could be actively involved in the
leadership question that is presently a large unresolved problem. Comrade Ola Oni participated in
some of the educational programmes organized by this organization.
In the transitional programme of Babangida, in the late 1980s to 1990s, before it met its
Waterloo in the l993 Presidential election, Comrade Kehinde Ola Oni participated in the grass roots
politics of the period. In fact her husband did not want her to take such a frontal or active part in
partisan politics at any level, but he had no choice than to support her on realizing the ground the
woman had covered within their ward with much support from the local people. This type of grass root
politics had never been part of Comrade Ola Onis politics.
His partisan politics used to be ideological even when he joined bourgeois formations. Kehinde
Ola Oni was successful in the course of her political career in their ward. This was composed mostly of
the elite because New Bodija Estate generally was a residential area of the top public officials (serving
or retired), successful business people and politicians. So, one would not expect such a category of
social groups to be receptive to the ideas that Comrade Ola Oni and his wife stood for. But the political
interaction of Ola Oni proved this hypothesis wrong. Mrs. Ola Oni was well received and accepted by
this elite group, especially the youth and women in the area.
The first test of her acceptability was that she won the election as a delegate to the Electoral
College to elect people at different levels of governmental structures. The system in vogue at the time
was what the government of Babangida called Option A4. After achieving this success, she also
contested against a lawyer of the Social Democratic Party for the position of councillor. She again won
the election, but the lawyer did not take it kindly. He approached Comrade Ola Oni to prevail on his wife
to step down for him. This, Comrade Ola Oni did, for the simple reason that he did not want both of
them to be exposed to the risks of being involved in politics. He wanted her to be in reserve. Madam
accepted her husbands directive. This is against the background that the bourgeois politics is short of

Page142

his desired politics and his involvement in this is more of tactics than strategy. Madam was therefore
convinced for the need to step down along this direction by his husband. She held him in high esteem
and correspondingly accorded him the respect due to a loving husband like Ola Oni that was also a
lover of the poor for whose interest he committed his entire life.
Comrade Ola Oni was a very caring father to his children just as he was with poor Nigerians.
His children were: Wale, Ronke, Kunle and Dapo. He already had twins - Taiwo and Kehinde Ola Oni
before he came back to Nigeria from London in 1963. Comrade Ola Oni made sure that he monitored
their academic development and moral upbringing including any deficiency. This informed the therapy
to adopt in moulding and guiding them individually so that they could achieve their full potential. This
was the reason Comrade hired the services of a part time teacher to complement the school work of
Ronke while she was at secondary school. This was to improve her achievements in certain subjects
that he identified as deficient. This went a long way to justify his idea of laying a strong and good
education for his children. He was therefore not desperate like other elite in our society that are
concerned about giving sound education to their children only at the time of reaching higher institutions,
not minding to achieve this even fraudulently.
At the time of their youth, when Ronke for instance, who was fond of referring to her father as
Daddy while Ola Oni would retort back and say Ronkis. She always liked to suggest to her father the
courses she wanted to study at university. But Ola recognized this as the fantasy of a school girl who
was not yet clear on the dreams of her future. Ola Onis response to such aspirations was that: you
should face your study very well so as to be able to achieve this and that the area of your study will
largely be determined by your performance.
Ronke later studied accountancy at The Polytechnic, Ibadan before she travelled abroad to
Germany. Ronke would have preferred to go to university for this course just like many of the youth of
her age who discriminated between university and polytechnic education. Such discrimination could be
said to emanate from the societal values dictated by the ruling class that was uncreative, indolent and
none developmentally oriented. In an under developed country like Nigeria, emphasize ought to have
been placed on polytechnic education as the country was in a hurry to catch up with other countries in
scientific and technological development. But this is not the case, university education was only
conceived as a status symbol by both the policy makers and the students.
Ronke Ola Oni fell within this orientation, but she could not achieve her aim because the
University of Ibadan do not offer accountancy. She was offered admission at the University of Jos, but
her father did not want her to study far away. Comrade Ola Onis argument for not allowing any of his
children to go to school outside Ibadan was predicated on finance. He said he could not afford to
finance their education if they were far away from home. But with their presence at Ibadan, the family
could plan its budget to accommodate every member of the family. Even when a friend of his offered to
finance the education of Ronke in Jos, Comrade did not accept. He wanted to be fully responsible for
the needs of his children despite his limited resources. Hence, as a practical economist, he embarked
on doing this by stringent planning on the limited resources at his disposal. This was the reason that his
children were limited in their choice of tertiary institution. They had to choose between The Polytechnic
Ibadan and the University of Ibadan.
Wale and Ronke went to The Polytechnic, Ibadan while Dapo went to University of Ibadan. They
study statistics, accountancy and psychology respectively. While the senior girls of the family, Taiwo
and Kehinde, graduated in pharmacy from the University of Lagos and they both presently reside in
U.S.A.
While Ola Oni was not interested in forcing his political interests on his children, he recognised
their interest in what he was doing and encouraged them in this. Dapo for instance, Comrade Oni would
tell his wife will have to be taken care of especially for his inquisitiveness. At primary school, Dapo had
already cultivated reading. He would sit down after returning from school to peruse the newspapers for

Page143

the day, especially the sport columns. One other thing that was common among Onis children is that
they were all lovers of sport.
The struggle against womens oppression is an important struggle that is taken up by Marxists.
Since the nineteenth century, women have been active in the socialist struggle that, for example,
brought about the Russian revolution of 1917. Notable among the women revolutionaries of this
generation were: Clara Zetkin (German), Eleanor Marx (English and one of Karl Marxs daughters),
Rosa Luxemburg (Polish), Alexandra Kollontai (Russian) and Nadezhda Krupskaya (Russian and also
Lenins wife). They played key role in the revolutionary activities of the period. Many other women have
since played important roles in other radical movements that least as important as their male
counterparts. In Nigeria for instance, we can readily mention Funmilayo Ramsome Kuti, Magret Ekpo,
Alhaja Sawamba Gambo and more recently Professor Leslie-Ogundipe and Dr. B. Madunagu.
Orthodox Marxists see the struggle for womens liberation and against the oppression of women
as part of the working class struggle for socialism, whilst feminist activists tend to view the two
struggles as being separate. Despite some progress in recent years, women and especially working
class and poor women still face discrimination both at work and in the home. Frederick Engels
underscored the historical basis for the patriarchal system of discrimination against women, as we
know it today across the world. He pointed out that historically there were matriarchal systems in at
least some cultures.
The Ashanti in Ghana were a typical example; this explains why today inheritance is still in
accordance with mother lineage in this culture. This also still influences the political culture of the
country as a whole. Jerry Rawlings, the past Military ruler and President of Ghana, could claim
citizenship of Ghana as his mother was citizen of Ghana whereas his father was not from Ghana. This
could hardly happen in Nigeria. Even if the constitution does not discriminate against women, the
barrier of the various cultures that make up the country would be enough to overcome the constitutional
provision and mean that it was not practicable.
Nigeria can also lay claim to such glorious women in our history. Typical of this was the famous
Queen Amina of Zaria. She ruled the Hausa Empire, probably in the first half of the 17 th century, and
her military campaigns extended its power and influence further than at anytime before or since. For
her exploits, she earned the epithet of Amina, Yar Bakwata san rana (Amina, daughter of Nikatau, a
woman as capable as a man). This shows clearly that male domination in our culture was historically
and socially determined. It could have been and has been very different.
Discrimination against women originates from domestic work that was almost totally undertaken
by women without been adequately compensated. In contrast, most women now also do other work
outside the home which earns them a livelihood. Even in the distant past when women worked for male
farmers as subordinates, their work was not less valuable, but was not properly recognised. This was
possibly because the women were being taken care of by her husband as if the women made no
contribution to the accumulated wealth of their husband. In the recent economic crisis of Nigeria
starting from the 1980s, male breadwinners were retrenched from work and so many families now
depend on the work undertaken by women, like trading. This means that women now make the most
important economic contribution to many families.
Men that make adequate cognizance of womens oppression, and act on it, are rare even
among known activists in the struggle with female counterparts. The reason for these lapses can be
traced to our cultures that are found to be very domineering and made it almost impossible to achieve
this. But Ola Oni was an exception.

Page144

Ola Oni behaviour at home on domestic work can be reduced in algebraic equation: in the
family there was no room for discrimination. Each person had his or her own task to perform without
posing a hindrance to the others. Ola Oni sometimes cooked the food for the family, just as other
members of the family did. He also used to wash his own clothes.
All facet of Ola Onis life demonstrated that he was not just a Marxist on the basis of ideas
alone, but also in practice. The struggle was his life. This he exemplified in his relationship with his
household. This is an area where many comrades failed. It is nothing but hypocrisy for someone that is
fighting against womens oppression not to partake in house work (however minimal). It is like a
workers leaders fighting the employers of labour especially the private corporations while he/herself is
an exploitative employer of labour who does not allow unions.
Ola Oni never grew a beard which could be said to be the trademark among Marxists across the
world. His reason for not following this pattern might be that it is just a way of dressing which
fundamentally has nothing to do with the struggle. Many of the first and second generations of
international revolutionaries grew beards basically for two reasons. Firstly, comrades working
underground were used to the life of disguises from the security agents. So, to prevent being
recognized by the gendarmes, they grew beards and those that grew beard before could remove them
to serve the same purpose. The second reason was that at that time, growing a beard was not only the
past time of the revolutionaries. It was a common phenomenon especially among intellectuals and
scholars.
Ola Onis generation of Marxists, especially in Europe, where Ola Oni studied, adopted the
mode of dress of the middle class elites. So they did not see anything fundamentally strange about
growing beards. Ola Oni used to leave his hear uncut when he was younger as it was the fashion
among the young at the time. Then, when he was ageing he used to shave all the hair on his head, as
was the pattern with older Yoruba people. He also used to wear a cap at all times. The cap matched
the type of clothes he wore. Comrade either wore English dress or native dress. His English dress was
usually the army-like uniform, the type being worn by Fidel Castro, the President of Cuba. He also
cared less about completing the dress with the particular trouser of the top. He would wear anything as
the trousers. Sandals were his preference; nevertheless he used to put shoes on sometimes.
For native dress, his preference was the Ankara type textile. Even though he used to own an
Agbada (the equivalent of a coat in the Yoruba tradition), he hardly ever wore this, usually only wearing
a buba. It was also essential for him to sow a cap from the same material as the dress when he wore
native clothes.
Generally speaking, Ola Oni cared less about dressing well, in the fashion of the middle class
of his generation. If personality is to be measured by this standard, he could hardly be rated as one with
personality. This disproves the bourgeois idea that puts a premium on dressing well as an indication of
personality. Despite Ola Onis trenchant habit for dressing, he remained one of the great personalities
of the late 20th century.
The humility and humbleness of Ola Oni is unparalleled. This was exhibited by his response to
the various titles the general public and press conferred on him. He issued press statements to
denounce this practice indicating that:
It was the tradition of fighters for freedom the world over to refer to themselves as

Page145

Comrade. For this reason, I wish to be known as Oladipo Owolabi-Oni hence forth and wish to
be known and addressed as Comrade Owolabi Oladipo Oni (Comrade Ola Oni). All references
to me officially and unofficially as Mr/Dr/Chief or other such marks of superior distinction should
not apply to me . . . Any other designation will be very embarrassing for me in my place of work
where I am officially known as Comrade Ola Oni already.
This act on the part of Ola Oni is almost unique, because this is a country where the average
successful person wants titles to show that s/he has arrived. Nevertheless, the attachment of such
superlative titles on him was a clear indication of how he was cherished and recognized by the poor
people, as someone who had made his mark in championing the course of the poor. The reason behind
the poor people distinguishing their own hero by such titles was therefore to be able to compare their
own chosen people to the official leaders in society, in government, religious institutions, educational
bodies, business, etc.
It must also be realized that it was not fortuitous for the university authorities to recognize Ola
Oni by officially addressing him as Comrade; it was borne out of struggle. Ola Oni insisted on this. He
openly displayed his name as Comrade Ola Oni on the door of his office and insisted that that was his
name. This action on its own at the time was courageous enough taking into consideration the political
antecedent of the period that the government and its agencies were officially anti-socialist. Socialist
books were banned. It was an offence to import such books into the country. Ola Onis position, at the
time, was that a university in the modern world will not worth the name if it cannot tolerate progressive
scholarship and Marxism as was being taken for granted all over the world.

Page146

CHAPTER ELEVEN: THE REVOLUTIONARY PRESS

The importance of newspapers cannot be overemphasized. The influence of the press
on the public goes a long way to mould public opinion. Newspapers either inform the public of
important issues or canvass opinion through feature articles or opinion pages. They influence
culture, economics, business, finance and politics.
In relation to politics, it is hardly possible to be successful in politics without the support
of the press. This is largely because newspapers reach out to citizens that cannot be reached
through direct campaigns. Therefore through the press, candidates programmes and
manifestoes can be read by the electorate without them physically meeting the candidates in
person.
Ola Oni understood the importance of the press well and he made use of the various
newspapers in the country to propagate socialist ideas. His writings in newspapers were in
different forms. He would often write press statements to newspapers on important
contemporary issue. These were adequately published. While other notable Nigerians might
comment on such burning issues, one thing that distinguished Ola Oni was the socialist
conclusion to all his comments. These provided a socialist perspective on all contemporary
issues. He also used to write articles for some of the papers. He was a regular columnist for the
weekly paper, Labour Punch. In the 1970s, it was like the socialists had taken over the Daily
Times. Ola Oni was one of the comrades that utilized this opportunity to canvass socialist
positions to current challenges.
The well known Ibadan Press, Tribune and Daily Sketch regularly covered Ola Onis
political activities. Apart from publishing his press statements and articles, because of his
closeness to them, Ibadan being his base, they also used to grant him regular interviews. On all
issues, they believed that Ola Oni and his group would have a position. The electronic media,
the radio and the television in the state were not left out. They often granted him interviews and
covered political programmes such as symposia, seminars, lectures among workers, students
and professionals. Ola Oni was also a regular contributor to the Advance Newspaper, the organ
of the Socialist Workers and Farmers Party (SWFP) in the 1960s.
After an end was put to political activities and Nigeria Labour Party in 1966 by the first
military rule, Ola Oni initiated the publication of the Nigeria Socialist, an organ of the Nigeria
Socialist Movement (NSM). He consistently published newspapers as organs of the political
association he led. He later published the Nigerian Vanguard (1975-78) and the Workers
Vanguard (l982-l990s).
These papers were popular among workers and students across the country and in the
community. The papers were organized in the tradition of the revolutionary press. They served
the purpose of organizing, agitating and propaganda. The organisation revolved around its
paper. Sometimes, when needed, the role of the paper was augmented by printing and
publishing of leaflets, pamphlets, booklets and posters.
The socialist press published various posters of Marxist, socialist and nationalist heroes
of the people. These included Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Mao Zedung, Che Guevara, Augustino
Neto, Walter Rodney, Nkrumah, Nelson Mandela and Fidel Castro. One poster that was very
popular and a must buy for the working people was the one that exhibited the state of
exploitation in society. The poster indicated how the domestic capitalists were on the back of the
working people (the workers, small farmers, artisans, petty traders, etc), while the imperialists
were at the top of the ladder, on the back of the domestic capitalists. The whole burden was on
the working people below the ladder.
Ola Onis press was boosted in the early 1980s with the financial support provided by

Page147

Babarabe Musa, then the Governor of Kaduna State. The support helped the organization hire
two full time typesetters working with the computers on a shift basis. At the time, the
organisation contracted out its typesetting filming, page making and the final stage of printing to
commercial printers as it did not possess a printing machine.
Full time workers were also employed at different times by the organization to assist Ola
Oni in the work of the organization and the press. These comrades include Clement Okeke,
Muyiwa Osunkoya, Biodun Olamosu at different times in the 1970s and 1980s.
Nevertheless, all members of the organization were required to visit the secretariat of the
organisation regularly and help with the secretarial aspects of the organization. Selling the
paper that was the organ of the organization was a priority for all members. The organization
had a map of the various companies, and institutions that are established in Ibadan and Lagos
where over 40 percent of the industries in the country were concentrated. Members were
allocated to cover these institutions and other contacts in the community and schools.
Programmes (seminars, symposia and lectures) were the surest opportunity for the sale of
papers and books.
The popularity of the organization was not limited to Nigeria. Often other radical
organizations in both the Western World and so-called socialist countries invited the publisher to
attend book fairs or seminar. Notable among these was one led by the West Indian Marxist,
C.L.R. James that held annual exhibitions in Britain. Others included the British publisher, Zed
and state publishers in Czechoslovakia, China and Sweden.
Ola Onis press also published at subsidized rates for student and workers unions. For
instance, the press was responsible for publishing the Academic Staff Union of Universities
(ASUU) monthly organ (Clarion), the National Union of Banks, Insurance and Financial
Institutions Employees (NUBIFIE) organ (Forward), University of Ibadan Marxist Youth
Movement (UI-MYM) organ (Militant) and the Ibadan Polytechnic - MSYM organ. It was also
responsible for the publication of the Charter of Demands of the National Association of Nigerian
Students (NANS). Many times, the press published for student political organizations free of
charge. Some times financial constraints reared its head as a reason for not publishing, but
solutions were soon found.
Financial drives were used to raise funds from members, supporters and sympathizers
to keep the business of publishing going. One such drive was embarked upon in a modest
manner in 1986 to launch the Workers Vanguard and raise funds for the continuity of the paper.
The launch included members of the organisation and other supporters and sympathizers.
Among the people who supported the occasion were Barrister Alao Aka-Bashorun (Chair of the
occasion), Kanmi Ishola-Oshobu and Femi Falana. Others in attendance included members of
the organisation Ola Oni, Dr. Akin Ojo, Dr. G.G. Darah (the editor of the paper), Laoye Sanda,
Bayo Owolabi, Biodun Olamosu, Remi Ogunlana, Segun Sango, Alhaji Abioye, Moshood
Erubami, Ajaguna, Gbola Olaniyan, Tunji Adegbongbe, Olumide Akanmu and Rasky Ojikutu.
While others like Niyi Fasanmi that could not make the occasion sent their contributions. Tens of
thousands of Naira was raised at this launch (including pledges).
At the time, left newspapers were not on the fringe, as happened later. Their opinion was
considered with respect and seriousness by employers of labour, the general public and the
state. Comrade Ola Oni was the editor of the Nigerian Socialist newspaper until l969 when court
action was instituted against the paper for libel. This was instigated by the Stevedoring
Construction Company owned by Chief S.B. Bakare, then one of the countrys richest
indigenous capitalists. The papers offence was to expose one of the ways the company used to
cheat the government, exploit and defraud its workers. The company, according to the paper,
claimed to be paying compulsory compensation to its workers when they sustained accidents at

Page148

work. But this was far from being the truth.

The company, like other capitalist enterprises, merely made false declarations to reduce
the amount of tax it had to pay. When workers sustained injuries, the company actually failed in
its responsibilities to pay compensation insurance. This way of maltreating the companys
workers was reported in the Nigerian Socialist and earned it a libel suit and confiscation of the
paper. This is a clear example of how the rich influenced and controlled the institution of law
even when they were perpetrating such open injustice.
Ola Oni served both the role of a journalist and publisher. He did both writing and
publishing at different times (in the 1970s and l980s) for the Nigerian Socialist, Nigerian
Vanguard and Workers Vanguard. The Workers Vanguard, for instance in the 1980s
concentrated on workers and students news and contemporary political, social and economic
events.
The publishing enterprise served as a training ground for many youths who are today
accomplished writers or fully fledged journalists. The paper also served as a means by which
Ola Onis group intervened in contemporary issues. In 1986 the paper canvassed against
retrenchment. Through the paper, the comrades become close to the parties involved in
struggle and such relationship were strengthened and maintained thereafter. The group was
recognised by the workers as a class fighter whose activities went beyond mere professional
journalism.
In the 1980s, through the paper, the organisation was involved in the struggle of workers
in various companies and that of the unions as well. This included the issue of the retrenchment
at Nigerian Airways, the refusal of Dunlop company to pay its workers an annual increment in a
boom period, the factional struggles of leaders of the Nigeria Union of Petroleum and Natural
Gas Workers (NUPENG) and the strike of Tate and Lyle workers at Ilorin who were fighting for
an annual increment. There were also other reports on the comatose railway system and
student struggles including the ABU protests of 1986 that led to arrest of NLC leadership. Oni
himself was actively involved on some of the burning issues of the moment while his lieutenants
who were students, lecturers, workers, professionals, lawyers and trade unionists were actively
involved in struggle wherever they were.
Through the paper, members of the organisation could penetrate the factory floor and
communities to agitate and canvass a position and also organise the people for current
struggles and the ultimate political goal socialism. The paper was also used to wage
ideological battles against the adherents of capitalism and other pretenders that professed
socialism, but practically worked against the interests of the workers or socialist change. The
bureaucratic labour leaders were not spared in this regard.
Typical of this revolutionary tradition was an article by Ola Oni against some labour
leaders who were seen as being patronising. The article was published in the
November/December 1987 edition of the paper (Workers Vanguard), titled The Ideological
Struggle in the NLC. The article pointed out that the history of trade unionism is the history of
searching for the correct mode of struggle by workers under the capitalist exploitation and
oppressive system; that the growth of unions organizationally has always followed an
ideological line. He stressed further that two ideological divisions ran through the labour
movements in most capitalist nations. He identified these two categories as first those unions
whose leaders support capitalism and want workers to be partners with the capitalist employers
in the preservation of capitalism.
In Nigeria, according to Ola Oni, the old United Labour Congress (ULC) was an example
of this division. The industrial unions calling themselves the Democratic Group could be traced

Page149

to this tradition. That is, they are union leaders who want workers to make capitalism their
ideology. For example, these Democratic Group (at the time) announced their opposition to the
socialist political document launched by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) and also publicly
declared that they regarded themselves to be partners with the capitalist employers and would
not agree with the NLCs confrontational attitude to employers or government.
The second division was represented by the old Nigeria Trade Union Congress (NTUC).
This set of union leaders is guided by the anti-capitalist ideology, socialism and Marxism. These
unionists want the workers to acquire political and economic power in order to end capitalism.
That is what Marxism means.
In emphasizing the struggle between the two groups in the contemporary period, Ola Oni
stated:
since NLC is at present controlled by the old NTUC members, workers can see
that the antagonism of the so-called Democratic Group against NLC is primarily
ideological. It is necessary that this issue be brought out openly and not covered up as
the Democratic Group is trying to do. It is important that all those unions who joined up
the Democratic Group should be fully aware of the present position that they have
supported.
In buttressing his position further he stated that:
there is no way the trade union movement can be purged of ideological
differences. It is its mode of existence. In practice, no neutral position is possible . . . In
1975/78 the administration of General Obasanjo set out to merge the unions into large
ones, to guarantee for them enough funds by compulsory membership and check off
dues and making it illegal for unions to affiliate externally with other world ideological
labour centres, it claimed that its intention was to build labour unity through insulating the
unions from external ideological divisions. Even if the regime of Obasanjo was sincere
about this, the effort came out to be an exercise in self-deception. The exercise in the
restructuring of trade unions to form NLC was nothing but a calculated plan to forge the
Nigerian trade union movement according to the ideological image of the ruling capitalist
and the multinationals.
Ola Oni pointed out how the restructuring of NLC took place. In clarifying this he stated:
In the re-organization, the federal ministry of labour imposed a constitution on
the unions to make them keep off from the political struggle for their workers. Efforts
were made by the ministry to influence the appointments into the top posts of the new
industrial unions. For example, in the case of NLC the candidate who performed best in
the interview for the Secretary-General post was dropped because of his Marxist
background. Thus, the process of the formation of NLC was a struggle by the regime of
Obasanjo against socialist influence in labour and to ensure that it came under the
control of capitalist union leadership.
But the result was not as expected by the regime. Ola Oni buttressed this, when he
pointed out that:
In the struggle, the regime met with disappointment. The Nigerian workers were
able to foil the plan of Obasanjos government by voting for leaders and appointing
officials with socialist orientation. In the two general elections held at the NLC
conferences in l978 and l98l the Nigerian workers openly rejected pro-capitalist
candidates and voted unanimously for the socialist and Marxist-oriented leaders. As a
result of this, the support of the government for NLC became lukewarm whilst the anti-

Page150

socialist led industrial unions began to work secretly to undermine the work of NLC. It is
on record that many of these unions deliberately refused to pay their dues to NLC
Secretariat. The ill-fated attempt by David Ojeli to float the so-called Committee for
Democratic Trade Unionism in l981 was part of this design.
The way events unfolded was a clear manifestation that NLC was a product of an
ideological struggle between the government seeking to make NLC a tool of the capitalist
interests and the pro-socialist forces in the unions.
Ola Oni therefore advocated and advised workers to:
see the . . . criticisms of the so-called Democratic Group as a continuation of the
ideological struggle that characterizes the historical development of all trade union
movements in all parts of the world. No law and (or) force can end it. It is only the choice
of workers themselves that can end it by showing determined preference for one brand
of trade unionism over others. And this is what is happening in our country.
Oni rebuked the so-called Democratic Group for rejecting the political document of
NLC. The document Oni described as representing a major historic progressive step for
workers of Nigeria. He said the ultimate goal of all (progressive) workers is to end capitalist
exploitation and oppression and this is what the choice of socialism means. It is therefore the
Democratic Group that represents a retrogressive position. There is nothing democratic about
such a group. The Nigerian workers must not hesitate in rejecting this group for its anti-socialist
campaign. The only interests this group was serving were those of capitalist employers and
imperialism. What we need at this time of deepening capitalist crisis is a progressive criticism of
NLC so that it can commit itself seriously and consistently to the socialist goal of workers
emancipation.
Many radical labour activists, including various Marxists who have discussed the
ideological differences in NLC did not agree with Comrade Ola Oni. They argued that one could
hardly differentiate between the right and left wing unionists ideologically apart from ideological
posturing which they used as a cover for their iniquities.
In reality, according to this school of thought, there were no offences that the right wing
leaders are alleged of that the so-called left wing were not also guilty of. Ola Oni could hardly
accept this position. Nevertheless, he identified the weakness of NLC as in the attitude of its
leadership:
bending too much backward in their concessions to the capitalist union leaders;
and that until the launching of the political document, NLC could not mobilize the
Nigerian workers behind an anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist programme in order to
defeat the economic repressive measures of neo-colonialism . . . The workers could not
therefore understand why the NLC that claims to be socialist and Marxist has capitulated
to the ruling class programme of retrenchment, cuts in pay, inflation, abolition of social
amenities etc.
He therefore concluded that,
it is these concessions and capitulations to forces of capitalism that have
allowed the so-called Democratic Group to grow wings and is now working to draw the
hands of the clock backwards. What the crisis of our country demands today is for
workers to get organized for power and put into effect an economic and political
programme for the benefit of the masses.
In its maiden edition of l986, the Workers Vanguard also argued how the railways could
be saved from ruin. The report was entitled: Railway Workers Strike to Defend Rights and to

Page151

Save Railway from Ruin. The paper X-rayed the background of the railway system when it
stated that:
The Nigerian Railways were built by the British Colonialists about a hundred
years ago. Except for the Bauchi-Maiduguri extension, no improvement has been made
since independence 26 years ago. The rails are old and unreliable causing regular
derailment. There is serious shortage of rolling stock and wagons, thus leading to
shortfall in revenue. Known as the line that links the land, the railways were a training
school for trade union militants and revolutionary patriots such as Comrade Imoudu.
With a vast territory and some 100 million people, the Nigerian Railways has abundant
opportunities to render service to the country.
In contrast, the report stated that this has not been the case because of the backward
and selfish ambition of the Nigerian bourgeoisie. The report stressed further that the Attempts
by the capitalists to destroy the railways were identified by the NUR President who remarked in
a statement that:
successive governments have been paying lip service to the plight of the
Railways because they have in the government bureaucracy, people and multi-nationals
who are urging the present government to privatize all her public owned corporations for
their selfish ends. They flooded the highways with long trailers and tankers that compete
with the Railways for haulage of goods Naturally they will abhor any act that will put
the Railways on the path of success. These people turn round and deceive the Nigerian
populace and accuse Railway workers of inefficiency, indolence and of draining the
national revenue. The state of railway today is appalling; trade dispute was at its climax.
Among the grievances of railway workers before it ultimately collapsed are: Nonpayment of full wages (for a long time); long hours of overtime work; non-payment of
union dues, cooperative dues and pension; lack of fringe benefits and incentives; threat
to cancel negotiated agreement; non-payment of pension and gratuity to hundreds of
workers retrenched since l983/84; failure of management to purchase additional wagons
and equipment to improve rail, transport.
Furthermore, poor conditions of work identified according to the report included:
There are staff who perform 12 hours duty every day. There are those who while
in their homes, cannot move out because they can be called for duty anytime and there
are those who have to be on duty on Sundays, Saturdays and public holidays.
It must be realized that the inability of successive governments to understand the
economic and social implications of infrastructure such as the rail system is borne out of their
short sightedness and lack of plans. If there is a good rail system, the problem of agitation
against the successive hikes in the price of petroleum products would have been drastically
reduced because railways will serve to many Nigerians as a ready means of transportation at a
very cheap and affordable price, especially for the poor. Population and traffic congestion, as
being experienced in the city like Lagos, would be drastically reduced because many people
could prefer not to live in Lagos while working in Lagos and shuttling between Lagos and their
country home through a modern rail network.
The governments refusal to finance this capital intensive railway system is untenable.
There is nowhere in the world where railway transportation is not controlled and subsidized by
the government. The privatization road is nothing but falsehoods. The innate corruption that is
associated with Nigerian capitalism is the cause of the collapse of railway system and not
because it was being ruined as a public corporation. Efforts to privatize other public utility
corporations, rather than solving the problems, have since worsened the situation.

Page152

The events of Friday May 23 l986, when students were massacred by military officers,
was condemned by all progressive Nigerians. Ola Oni used the opportunity to espouse his
position on the various issues challenging the student movement in Workers Vanguard.
In his opinion the issue went beyond Ango Abdullahi and Jubril Aminu, the Vice
Chancellor of ABU and the Minister of Education of the country respectively. In comparing the
crisis with the students protest of the l978 usually referred to as Ali-Must-Go, Ola Oni pointed
out that the capitalist system that was (and still is) in deep economic and political crisis was the
one on trial.
In his analysis, he explained that the ruling class and their imperialist masters, including
finance capital represented by the IMF, were pre-occupied with the imposition of repressive
economic policies to satisfy the imperialist creditors. In his words,
the present government of Babangida in obedience to these creditors has set
limits to the freedom of the people so as to extract the maximum resources for these
creditors. This is what the l986 budget and the so-called state of emergency are
expected to do.
The role of Nigerian Universities Vice Chancellors, as truly loyal and good
representatives of the ruling government, in keeping down students and staff is not fortuitous,
but in line with the IMF inspired policy of the government. A good example of this, according to
Ola Oni, was to increase fees beyond what are affordable by the poor, commercialize education
and introduce rationalization which is to limit educational opportunities to the Nigerian youths.
The Vice Chancellors and Rectors of our educational institutions have turned themselves into
agents transmitting the policy of government to students and staff by authoritarian power of life
and death. With flimsy excuses, student leaders and progressive staff who are critical of the
administration were persecuted. This ranged from dismissal of student activists to banning
student unions or preventing them from operating independently.
He also discussed why the heads of our educational institution could be intoxicated with
power and how this was being misused against the students. He pointed out that:
People like Ango Abdullahi and Aminu think they belong to the ruling clique and
that they are untouchable. Theirs is to preserve the status quo and anybody who does
not conform must go at all cost. You can imagine the number of families ruined as a
result of the oppressive administration by these agents who are in charge of our
educational system.
As a result of such revolts, lives of students were lost. Oni stated:
As in previous confrontations the police never hesitated to kill. The capitalist law
gives them power to do so to preserve the system. The police and the army are
organized under the capitalist system to repress and suppress the masses so that the
imperialists and their agents can continue to loot our wealth.
He advised the students on what to do to achieve success in the struggle. He said:
So far, one is indeed impressed by the united, spontaneous uprising of the
students in solidarity with ABU students. What is most crucially needed is to centralize
organized leadership to which all students must give unflinching support. This
organization (NANS) should assume full leadership and be the only voice to speak for
the students. Students should not return to the campuses until substantial gains have
been made. Towards this end, government sponsored probe panel must be rejected. In
l978, Obasanjo used the probe to diffuse mass action of students. The probe panel
came out with anti-progressive reports and leaders of students were made scapegoats.

Page153

That enabled Obasanjo to descend on the student movement in a most wicked manner,
banned the National Union of Nigerian Students (NUNS), dismissed their leaders and
terminated appointments of radical and pro-Marxist lecturers. Students must not allow
themselves this time to be taken for a ride, of course what is most important is that the
National Association of Nigeria Students (NANS) should put forward demands that
should advance the interests of students and those of the oppressed masses.
NANS should confront the government with their demands for full
democratisation of education and NLC should mobilize public support so as to push our
society towards curbing the controlling power of the imperialist and their agents in the
administration of the country.
NLC mobilized support for the ABU students and planned a rally for the purpose on June
4, l986. The rally was scuttled by the Nigerian state and NLC leaders were arrested before the
commencement of the planned rally.
Book Selling
Comrade Ola Oni held on to his strong belief in a socialist alternative to capitalism in all
areas of endeavour. This is the reason why one of the thing he did in the 1960s was to establish
a bookshop which was later registered under the name Socialist and Progressive Books in the
1970s with the purpose of selling and distributing socialist and radical books at an affordable
(cheap) price. The bookshop offered rock bottom bargains for radical classics for radical
classics from all over the world. These include Zed books, New Beacon Books of England
facilitated by Jonathan Zwingina during the 1983 Marx Centenary Conference that took place at
Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Zaria. Zwingina was also a member of Ola Onis group.
The bookshop was later dominated by books from Progress Publishers of Russia and it
served as its sole depot in Nigeria. Whatever might be the shortcomings of the Soviet Union
ideologically which was reflected in many of their books, at the same time, they also published
the classical original works of Marx, Engels, Plekhanov and Lenin. This provided access to texts
that pioneered and made valuable contributions to Marxism. It was from the Ola Oni socialist
organised bookshop that classical works of Marxist and radical authors were made available to
Nigerian public. This include: Communist Manifesto; Socialism: Utopian and Scientific; Poverty
of Philosophy; Peasant War in Germany; Conditions of Working Class in England; Dielectics of
Nature; Capital (Vol. I III); Civil War in France; Holy Family; Origin of Property, Family and the
State; German Ideology; Anti-Duhring; Collective works of Marx & Engels; Lenin on history,
ideology and dialectical materialism etc. It also stocked books from the Chinese foreign
languages press.
The bookshop contributed a great deal to the pursuit of academic, political and
ideological consciousness. People of different classes patronized the bookshop. Even the least
expected like the religious and military officers were always there. One of the groups that best
patronized philosophy books for instance was the students of St. Paul and Paul (Catholic
theology school), that was only a stone throw from the bookshop. Ola Onis junior brother Niyi
Oniororo confirmed this when he was trying to convince his brother about the progressive
identity of Ibrahim Babangida, the Military Head of State. Babangida used to come to Ola Oni
residence (where the bookshop was situated) to purchase books and he was a follower of
Mallam Aminu in the old NEPU (Nigerian Elements Progressive Union).
Ola Onis book business was inter-linked with the press. It was at its peak in the late
1980s when the Soviet Union crumbled. Stalinism that had been called by some real existing
socialism, collapsed and the ruling class in Russia (Gorbachev, Yeltsin and others) renounced
socialism and openly supported capitalism.

Page154

This success with the book business was one of the reasons Ola Oni wanted to retire
early. His plan was to dedicate his entire time to the struggle after retirement. Actually there is
no way he could depend on his small retirement benefits. They were particularly small because
he had cashed some when he was relieved of his work in 1979. So, his expectation was that the
new business deal he had struck with the Russian Progress Publishers would guarantee him an
average standard of living and that with this and the little he might receive as retirement
benefits, he could concentrate on his primary assignment of political activism and publishing
political and academic books for the rest of his life. Progress Publishers planned to provide a
vehicle for the bookshop to distribute books across the country and also to meet the business
overhead expenses.
However, a most immediately after Comrade Ola Onis retirement, the Russian leader,
Gorbachev and the ruling Communist Party came up with the new idea of Glasnost and
Perestroika (freedom/openness and restructuring). But before long, this had led to the
breakdown of the components parts of the nations that made up USSR and this ultimately
resulted in the restoration of capitalism in Russia and the various break away nations of the
former USSR.
It soon became clear that Gorbachev was deceitful only hiding his capitulation to
capitalism under the slogan of Glasnost and Perestroika. It is unbelievable that all the books at
the Russian embassy (from Progress Publishers MIR could be burnt and raised to ashes. This
direction, according to a source at the embassy, came from Moscow. There was no
discrimination on the type of books that should be burnt. All the books were burnt including
science books. This was the height of degeneration by the Stalinist bureaucracy beyond the
limits of what their foes (anti-Soviet) could ever imagine.
So, the earlier business agreement between Progress Publishers and Comrade Ola Oni
on behalf of the bookshop came to naught. Unexpectedly, books stopped coming and the earlier
wide interest in socialist literature stopped. This was how the book business collapsed. This was
how Onis business collapsed altogether because alternative sources of books were not
available. It was almost impossible to buy books from the Western Countries because of the
exchange rate to Nigeria currency was so poor.

Page155

CHAPTER TWELVE: HIS SOCIALIST VISION

Ola Oni attended the London School of Economics (LSE) where he studied Economics
and specialized in Financial Economics with the hope of pursuing a career in speculative stock
broking in the new independent countries of Africa. At University he was under the supervision
of Professor R. S. Sayers, a renowned commonwealth economist.
Ola Oni out of his social commitment towards the plight of Nigerian poor masses studied
and research into political economy on his own. He ventured to this area of study that was not
being offered anywhere in Africa at the time. This, he introduced to the Department of
Economics of the University of Ibadan. As expected, this was confirmed by the department and
became a well received course by the students.
Economic Development of Nigeria: The Socialist Alternative
The book titled: Economic Development of Nigeria: The Socialist Alternative was coauthored by Comrade Ola Oni and Dr. Bade Onimode in l975. It was sponsored and published
by the radical intellectual group, The Nigerian Academy of Arts, Science and Technology. The
book was the Economic Programme of the Nigerian Peoples Manifesto. The first part of the
political programme of the Nigerian Peoples Manifesto had been published earlier, in l974.
The book was the first such pioneering scientific work on political economy to emanate
from Nigeria. In the preface to the book, the publisher identified three strands of Nigerian
bourgeois social theories that the book intended to correct. The first strand was that it was
unabashedly subservient to the dictates and definitions of problems proffered by international
capitalist funding agencies. Such bourgeois theoretical outlook was described as the barren
mellifluous universalism of abstract man and his abstract problems. The second strand was the
retreat from reality into a search for an a-historic concept of African cultural consecration to
support the quest for preservation of neocolonial oppression.
The third strand was engaged with realistic academics. Working under a technocratic
redefinition of social sciences and thus restricting itself to a narrow empiricism of micro analysis,
it took the present Nigerian state as given and final. Its preoccupation was only with the efficient
administrative management of the apparatus. This school of thought is therefore imprisoned
within the narrow walls of this empiricism, This strand yields intellectual advocacy of reforms to
ensure stability for emergent capitalism in Nigeria.
As an alternative to the above bourgeois thought, the academy maintained that it stood
in sharp contrast to these schools. The academy defined contemporary Nigeria as neo-colonial
and capitalist. It claimed that it was the historically conditioned institutional environment that is
responsible for our underdevelopment. Its conception is fundamentally opposed to popular
bourgeois falsification which trace underdevelopment to lack of capital, shortage of manpower,
indolent labour, cultural backwardness, low achievement motivation, hostile climate, etc. From
this conception therefore, the group made it clear that the neo-colonial capitalist institutional
nexus could not be reformed to serve the interests of the oppressed majority. It therefore
concluded that the structures and institutions of the contemporary state must be transcended for
the struggles of the working class, propertyless masses to achieve political democracy.
The introductory part of the book that form its first chapter underscores the very essence
of its economic programme thus:
The logic of this second volume (Economic Programme) is basically that all

Page156

constitutional forms and political arrangements reflect and react to the material mode of
production that is the economic foundation of any social system. This is why it is
intimately necessary to elaborate an Economic Programme that outlines the dimensions
of the struggle against mass poverty, which is one of the three fundamental tasks of the
Peoples Democratic Revolution in Nigeria. This economic programme is designed to
transform the Nigerian economy into a Peoples Economy, the transitional stage to
Socialism.
In the opinion of the authors, the economic programme was:
the economic framework for completing the anti-colonial revolution which was
betrayed by the domestic bourgeoisie. It is therefore designed to liberate the vast wealth
and productive forces of the largest black economy on earth from the clutches and
pillage of foreign monopoly capital with the mission of utilizing them for the socialist
transformation of Nigeria into an independent and powerful socio-economic system
serving the welfare of the Nigerian people and all peoples of African descent.
Despite the beauty of this mission, Ola Oni and his associates realized that this could
not come on its own without class struggle. The economic programme itself, according to the
book, is a reflection of the stage of class struggle.
In an exploiting society, economic programmes are never neutral. Programmes
inspired and articulated by the rich class will always seek to protect and promote their
dominant economic interest by striving to maintain the established (status quo) relations
of production; whereas economic programmes of the masses are decisively addressed
to the imperatives of total liberation of the people being attacked by the hitherto
bourgeois economic programmes.
The programme itself was dedicated to the masses of peasants, workers, petty artisans,
market women, students, youth and patriotic professional people.
Five basic ideas can be drawn from the programme, these can be summarized as:
v. That mass poverty, starvation, disease and ignorance are not the inevitable fate of the broad
masses of humanity.
vi. That the domination of the economy by capitalism caused the resultant naked misery and
ruthless degradation of the poor people.
vii. That unequal economic relation in place bonded by capitalism produced its attendant ruling
class that is to articulate a policy that will enhance the best interest of the rich at the
expense of the poor and thereby caused underdevelopment and poverty.
viii. Common ownership and control of economic enterprises is crucial for the elimination of
mass poverty and exploitation.
ix. This common ownership and control is critical to make comprehensive economic planning
an effective tool for rapid development. Powerful private enterprise is incompatible with
serious comprehensive planning.
The book will now be reviewed along this line: Critique of the Present Socio-Economic
System; Neo-colonial Capitalist versus Socialist Planning; Peoples Democratic Planning;
Immediate Socio-Economic Transformation; Revolution in the Living and Working Conditions of
the People; Development of National Resources; Development of Socio-Economic
Infrastructures; Industrial Revolution; Agrarian Revolution; Commercial Revolution; SocioPage157

Economic Regulation.
Foreign Domination
The issue of Foreign Domination, Exploitation and Dependence is well discussed in the
book. The claim that the people of the country are poor because the country is poor is described
as teleological, facile and false. The appalling misery of the vast majority of the people is
derivable directly from the structural defects and malfunctioning of an economy that is rich in
both human and natural resources. So, the policy of the ruling class is therefore seen as
responsible for this underdevelopment that perpetuates mass poverty among the people. The
major plank of the defects of these anti-poor policies are identified as imperialist domination of
the national economy, brutal exploitation and service dependence, colossal waste of human and
natural resources, flagrant corruption in private and public life as well as deteriorating inequality
in the distribution of incomes, wealth and opportunities among individual people and groups.
Among the issues recognized for causing mass poverty and cultural degradation in
Nigeria even after independence is the domination of the countrys economy by the
multinational corporations. In the opinion of the book, neo-colonial domination is characterized
largely by: the economic surplus of the country being vested in foreign hands in terms of
ownership and control. Comprehensive planning is made impossible in such circumstances
because a country can only carry out such processes of mobilizing and allocating resources (the
real essence of planning) sufficiently only when she is in control of the economy. But when the
situation is otherwise, as we have it today, the interests of the foreign countries and the
multinational corporations predominate. This is a surest path towards undermining the political
sovereignty of the country and national independence then becomes nothing but a farce.
It is therefore in the opinion of Ola Oni and his group that the way out of foreign
domination of the economy of the third world countries is for these countries to insist on their
sovereign right to own and control all resources within their national borders. In the words of Dr.
Salvador Allende of Chile, quoted in the book to buttress this argument; he said (at the
conference of Non-Aligned Nations in Algiers in l973): Any national sovereignty that does not
cover the means of production, distribution and exchange is a bourgeois fraud.
In analysing this foreign domination of the country sectorally, the authors remarked that
the financial sector is important in any economy. But that in a neo-colonial economy like Nigeria,
the sector was geared towards being used to advance the course and interests of world
imperialism. This is being carried out by foreign ownership and control of commercial banks,
insurance companies and other allied financial institutions. In the case of Nigeria during colonial
rule, Nigerias monetary system was designed to facilitate maximum export of economic surplus
from the colony to the exploiting metropolitan, Britain. This mechanism of exploitation was
encouraged by the absence of exchange control. At the time, a lot of loans granted to foreign
corporations or institutions especially by the Marketing Boards were never paid back.
Banking and finance
Many of the loans received by the country were at a very high cost (interest rate). The
foreign banks and financial institutions also preferred to invest and lend to fellow expatriate
exploiters in Nigeria rather than to Nigerians.
The book also revealed that the foreign banks were growing faster than the indigenous
banks: the average increase in time and saving deposits was 90 per cent for foreign banks and
only 54 per cent for indigenous banks (1975). In the current (demand) accounts, deposits
increased by over 450 per cent (in foreign banks) and only 32 per cent for indigenous banks.
Page158

The same pattern was repeated in the insurance sub-sector and other financial institutions.
In 1972, the Nigerian government introduced palliative measures to try and address
some of this imbalance with public sector participation in financial institutions. It participated in
the banks to the tune of 40 per cent, while involvement in insurance corporations was in the
range of 40-49 per cent.
These reform measures were not accepted by Ola Oni and his group. As explained in
this book, such a palliative was rejected because they believed such participation would still not
ensure the control of credit and investment policies of these financial institutions. This they
believed is crucial to the development efforts of the country. The authors therefore
recommended a total socialization of banking and insurance institutions for the country to be in
a better position of controlling its financial institutions which can largely enhance economic
independence and development.
Imperialist domination
On the imperialist domination of the industrial sector, the book identified 185 industrial
establishments in the country. These establishments were categorized in accordance with their
mode of operation into: consumer non-durable, consumer durable, capital equipment, industrial
surplus, goods for export and mixed commodities.48 per cent of this industrial census was
foreign owned while 12 per cent, 10 per cent and 30 per cent were owned and controlled by the
private sector (Nigerian), the government and informal sector respectively. 81 per cent of
production related industries were also owned and controlled by foreigners. Apart from this,
foreigners also dominated and control the industrial establishment by way of the influence they
wielded and the key positions they occupied in the companies, such as managing director, or by
virtue of their numerical strength on the board of director.
The United Africa Company (UAC) group was a leading foreign controlled industrial
establishment in the colonial period and maintained its position after independence. The foreign
industrial investment was concentrated in consumer goods and semi luxury manufacture, such
as food products, drinks, tobacco, textiles, vehicle assembly and the like. There was systematic
neglect of capital goods production that is crucial for industrial breakthrough of an
underdeveloped economy like that of Nigeria. Import-substitution industrialization literally meant
the establishment of subsidiaries of multinational corporations by the foreign monopoly
companies that formerly exported their manufactured goods to Nigeria. This thus meant that
import substitution only led to the redistribution of income from the masses of poor consumers
to the fat exploiting imperialists and their Nigerian lackeys.
The indigenisation decree of l972 (Nigerian Enterprises Promotion Decree, 1972) did not
have any serious impact in the foreign domination of the industrial sector of the country.
According to Ola Oni, this reform barely scratched the surface of the problem of foreign
industrial domination. The reform was only concerned with full indigenisation of the small
industrial outlays with N20,000 capital outlay or less; it also required indigenous participation in
enterprises with N1million capital or N4 million annual turnover or less. The authors of the book
contend that the decree (1972),fell miserably short of the required bold attack on foreign large
and medium-scale industrial enterprises. The so-called indigenisation therefore thus shows
clearly the extent to which the domestic bourgeoisie will go to protect imperialist domination in
Nigeria and the complicity between the domestic and foreign capitalists and the ideological
bankruptcy of the countrys development strategy. Indigenisation was nothing more than a piece
of the bourgeois class programme which only assisted a few of the local people who were
already extremely rich compared to most of the population.
Page159

The book also described the situation in the mining sector that was predominantly
owned and exploited by foreign monopoly capital. Colonial rule, according to the book, provided
the environmental succour for this exploitative relationship. All lands, especially those used for
mining were appropriated by the government and seen as crown land. Nigerian mines were
therefore freely exploited and the products exported cheaply by virtue of the cheap local labour.
The monopoly capitalists and government earned huge profits and royalties respectively from
this business.
This free exploitation meant the authorities did not deem it fit to conduct a geological
survey of the country by which the available minerals could be ascertained and their use
planned. Unfortunately, this neglect still continues. Till date there is no serious government
policy to develop mineral resources beyond having a solid minerals Ministry that is charged with
overseeing the sector.
The book also specifically discussed the petroleum sector. This sector, according to the
book represents the most vicious example of foreign domination of our economy. This sector
requires huge capital outlay, sophisticated and multilateral connections. This is the very reason
the monopoly capitalist apologists want to make us believe that the government has no
business in the sector other than to throw it to private hands for ownership and control under the
present policy of privatization. Experience in other parts of the continent (e.g. Libya, Algeria etc.)
and the world blessed with petroleum resources have rendered such arguments nugatory. The
claim that government cannot be successful in carrying out the business of exploitation of
petroleum has been proved wrong in several in several places. Many governments have
acquired the necessary petroleum technology and nationalized the oil industry having started
with nothing. The study also stated that the petroleum sector provides the most painful example
of foreign monopoly capitalist domination of the Nigerian economy.
The issue pertaining to the shortage of oil refinery capacity is made clear in the book and
is the reason why less than 30 per cent of the exploited crude oil was being refined locally. The
study believed that if the whole of the exploited crude oil were to have been refined in the
country that this would have helped to gain the advantage of multiplier effects on the economy.
Many associated industries like plastic, insecticide, lubricants and petrochemicals would have
emerged. Again, this still remains the case today.
The study also made it abundantly clear that public or government interest and
investment in this sector would have earned the country an enormous rate of employment for
her citizenry. Despite the fact that the capital outlay involved in the sector is huge, the profits in
return would have been many times the initial investment. A press report (Daily Times of June
18, l974) buttressed this point when it ascertained that a 55 per cent (N780 million) investment
participation by the government in the oil sector would have earned the government nothing less
than N5 billion or nearly six and a half times the initial investment.
The question that then arose (at the time) was that if such huge profits could be gained
in this capital outlay of 55 per cent on participation, that what would then have been the result of
l00 per cent nationalization of the oil sector like other governments did? And what would have
been the result of this if the government had nationalized this sector from l958 when the first oil
exploitation started in the country? This problem is still with us today, in this era of privatization,
the government is doing everything possible to sell its shares in the oil companies in the name
of achieving efficiency. But really it will only benefit the few rich people who buy shares at the
cost of the poor majority of the population who will receive even fewer benefits from the
Page160

government.
What is happening today is nothing other than the reversal of the movement of the past
years. This is the reason that the indigenisation reforms were like a revolution when compared
to the bankrupt policy of liberalization, deregulation and privatization being openly show-cased
today by the government.
This pattern of foreign domination, the study revealed, was also the case in the building
and construction works, transport sector, and distribution trade business. In the building and
construction sector for instance, the study pointed out that contracts of over N200,000 were
monopolized by the foreign monopoly capitalists. This explained why 39 out of 42 large
contracts given out by the government by l966 were awarded to expatriates.
In the transport sector, the government (since the colonial period) was in control of the
rail and domestic air transport sub-sectors; while the rest of the sector, except road transport
that was preserved for the indigenous private business people, were all owned and controlled
by foreign monopoly capitalists. This included petroleum haulage, ocean shipping, international
air transport and internal river transport.
The distributive trade business was dominated by the United Africa Company (UAC).
This started from the colonial period. The book revealed this when it stated that:
Nigerians exports were handled by licensed imperialist companies while our
imports were also controlled by UAC and allied expatriate companies. This same
imperialist dominated the internal distribution of imports through a pervasive network of
wholesale stores and warehouses. This domination was so complete that at the time of
the independence in l960, UAC had become a separate government by itself. After l960,
our exports and imports remained under imperialist control. The exploitation of Nigeria
consumers continued without redress. Europe, North America and Japan invaded the
domestic market with their low-cost goods mass produced (manufactured) which they
pushed on the country at exploitative prices. The indigenisation decree of l972 could not
even be applied to these companies for their very strong influence on the government.
UAC and others were granted exemptions and the law granted them (their industry) time
of grace.
Nigerias recent membership of the World Trade Organization has reversed whatever
good might have achieved from the indigenisation reforms despite their shortcomings. The
international agreements of WTO have Nigeria the status of being a dumping ground for foreign
goods. So, there is no constraint on goods coming into the country.
This study by Ola Oni and Onimode discussed five forms of imperialist exploitation of the
countrys surplus value. This included profits and dividends which are the return on monopoly
capitalist enterprises in the country. A good example of this, given in the study, was that in l965
(alone) N1.91 billion was realized as profits by foreign companies in the oil sector.
Interest on imperialist loans is another form of such foreign exploitation. The study
pointed out that many of these loans presently facilitated by the IMF/World Bank would not have
been necessary if the government owned and controlled the banks, insurance companies and
the vast profits of imperialist enterprises.
Thirdly, contractor finance and suppliers credit is another form of such exploitation.
Page161

Foreign contractors for a project (road, bridge, dam building etc) may agree to initially finance
the project with their own resources. But then they will charge additional interest on this capital
which is a short-term loan to the government. The resulting rates are usually much higher than
normal. The only difference between this and suppliers credit is that it deals with the supply of
capital goods. Suppliers credit is also another form of short-term lending by foreign capitalists.
In this case, the equivalent of high short-term lending rates of interest on the supply of capital
goods to the country is added to the market prices of such capital goods so that delivery prices
become exploitatively high. These nefarious devices, according to the authors have also
become the means of disposing of obsolete and antiquated machinery by imperialists.
Fourthly, there are service charges on e.g. insurance, shipping and other transportation.
These types of charges appear in our balance of payments account as invisible debit items.
Such charges are foreign earnings to the extent that the industries are owned and controlled by
foreign companies, so these charges are repatriated abroad to the parent country of the
companies. In a situation whereby such earnings are re-invested in the country, they are still
foreign capital within the country for the purpose of generating exploitation of the countrys
resources.
The fifth and final form of this exploitation is rent. This arises from foreign ownership of
real estate in Nigeria.
As a pioneering study in political economy, the book made us to understand the
implications of the laissez faire ideology of international trade. The first contact Nigeria had with
Britain for instance was through slavery when slaves were taken to the Caribbean and USA to
work on the farm plantations. Later this contact was transformed to colonialism, another (new)
mode of production. During this period:
Nigerias foreign trade was structured to meet the demands of British industries
for raw materials and markets for their manufactured goods. As a result, in the name of
comparative advantage and free trade, Nigeria was exposed to very thorough,
systematic and unbridled exploitation first by Britain and later by other foreign capitalist
countries. The colonialists therefore directed the countrys national productive forces into
production of primary products (agriculture). Distributive companies, for example, UAC,
John Holt and CFAO directly distributed goods to petty traders.
The dependency syndrome we were compelled to follow is responsible for why our local
farmers specialized in cash crops for the purpose of exportation to service foreign industries as
against food production for local needs. This has affected our economy in many ways that
include food shortages and meeting the required food needs of the domestic population. Much
of the foreign exchange earnings have to be expended on importation of food into the country.
Also, local food production would have provided employment for many people, but it was
neglected. As a result, the country became reliant on foreign countries for our food production.
In a way this helps to provide jobs for foreigners while unemployment in our country is reaching
a crisis level. Even when cash crop farming has been abandoned by the farmers and the
governments because of over dependence on the oil economy, only lip service has been played
over the issue of diversification of the agricultural economy and this has not been pursued.
The same dependence on world capitalist markets made it possible for the foreign
capitalists to constitute themselves into monopoly buyers of our agricultural exports for which
they pay very cheap prices, the result of which caused us unfavourable terms of trade especially
for our primary agricultural production.
Page162

In manufacturing, the minimal efforts at industrialization were directed at export

substitution and to meet consumer demands based on the imitation of elitist (imperialist)
consumption habits of industrial production such as soft drinks, beer, cigarettes, confectionaries,
etc.
The country also depends on developed countries for the supply of goods to meet this
elitist habit. Our dependence on foreign goods and services to service the economy is total and
this exists virtually in all sectors of the economy. This includes: capital goods such as
machinery, equipment, spare parts, banking, insurance, transport, communication, commerce,
technical service (consultancy) and equipment and drugs for health services; in education (at
the time) the country depended on foreign syllabi, textbooks and examinations, even the
Universal Primary Education (UPE) programme was formulated with the assistance of Britain.
This over dependence on imperialist countries is the reason that the countrys economy is
subjected to so many vagaries in the permanent crisis of world capitalism.
The importation of capitalism through foreign capitalist domination and exploitation also
correspondingly reproduced the class structure of a capitalist system in the country. During the
colonial period, it was pointed out, the imperialists took special care to cultivate a ruling
bourgeoisie from the sons and daughters of the feudal elites of chiefs, local traders, civil
servants, teachers etc. These were given formal capitalist-type education and even sent to the
imperial metropolis to acquire capitalist values, morality and class-consciousness. Those that
displayed enough acquisitive aggression were recruited into the ranks of the local ruling class,
the compradors, the native collectors of imperialist loot. It was to these capitalist recruits of
petty-bourgeois intellectuals, comprador elements and petty-businessmen that the colonialists
handed over the ceremonial instruments of independence while they (the colonialists) retained
the real power in terms of ownership and control over our productive forces as well as the
national surplus.
Such was the genesis of the new Nigerian bourgeois class. By instinct and the very logic
of its existence, the new indigenous privileged classes have been as exploitative as the foreign
capitalists that came earlier especially in the course of colonialism. Indeed, any class structure
always involves exploitative relationships. And this is precisely why the domestic bourgeoisie
has retained alliance with the foreign capitalists and sometimes independently in order to
ensure continued successful exploitation of the rest of the country.
The study also explained about the mutual interest that exists between capitalists
despite border differences foreign or domestic. And that this unity of purpose is a deliberate
scheme to share, control, dominate and exploit the country. Their common gain therefore is their
access to the national surplus which guarantees them their conspicuous consumption, luxury
life and predominant power at the expense of poor Nigerians.
In the book Ola Oni co-authored with Bade Onimode alternatives to the countrys
dependence on international capitalism are provided. According to them, the direction of trade
must be restructured so that more trade was between the third world and socialist countries;
that the exploitative theory of comparative advantage which has condemned the country to
permanent exporter of primary products and import of manufactured goods should be rejected;
that the country should embark on a serious industrialization programme anchored heavily on
the production of capital goods and the country, like any other third world country, should
disengage from international capitalism and reject association with the imperialist countries of
Western Europe and North America and forge economic integration with African, other third
world countries as well as the socialist world.
Page163

Overall, the study indicated that the major source of foreign monopoly capital was
Britain, USA, and other Western European countries. These countries accounts for over 90 per
cent of total capital inflow and for 100 per cent of total capital outflow. Recently Japan, South
Korea, Brazil, India and China have become more important in terms of capital flows.
This scientific classical work pointed out that the major defect of the socio-economic
system next only to foreign domination was the waste of human and natural resources. This
waste took various forms, such as unemployment or underemployment, destruction/underexploitation of natural resources, poor planning or duplication out of planlessness, over
production, lack or bad education, waste of competition and advertisements, mal-allocation of
resources (between conspicuous luxurious consumption and neglect of production), corruption
(bribery, nepotism, abuse of office), social inequality (distribution of wealth, income and
educational inequality).
Social Inequality
The study in analysing the social inequality as form of waste, for instance, gave examples
of such grievous inequality in the distribution of economic power in the form of wealth, income
and economic opportunities. Some theories of the petty bourgeois intellectuals were criticised
for such bankrupt ideas that we cannot all be equal and that inequality is as a result of the
difference in ability of individuals and countries that are at different stages of economic
development, that the earlier stages of growth tend to exhibit greater inequality than more
mature stages. In countering this position of the bourgeois defenders, the study stated that it is
indefensible to rationalize individual differences to explain why some people have over
N1,000,000 while millions of other people have less than N10 in their pocket. Definitely, the
reason for this cannot be that members of the first group possess ability (physical or
intelligence) equal to 10,000 times members of the other group.
The authors also posited that the very people that are promoting the idea that we cannot
be equal are also the very people loudest in advocating the eradication of poverty, closing the
income gap and other similar deceitful capitalist hypocrisies. The book therefore anchored the
reason for this inequality on the basic premise of capitalist exploitation. In questioning the
bourgeois argument that inequality is inversely related to stages of development, the authors
responded to this by saying that the empirical basis for this assertion can be traced to capitalist
economics and that this is not the case under socialist development.
The study provided empirical examples of such social inequality. It provided instances in
which whole villages and farms surrounding urban areas have been bought off cheaply by the
emergent privileged bourgeoisie and resold to private firms or the government at huge profits;
cases whereby one individual owning about 50 houses in more than 4 towns and cities while
there are millions living in hovels, ghettos and under the bridge; while some were collecting less
than N200 (p.a.) others collected N15,000-N20,000 (p.a.) (then). This argument is still relevant
today, the official minimum wage is N7,500 per month while some Nigerians are earning N1.5
million per month (200 times as much).
There was also the concentration of businesses and shareholdings in the hands of few
people. The study stated that rather than government commitment to acquire all alien
enterprises for the people, it took sides with the selfish elite by making it possible for them to
acquire foreign investments through public loans. Furthermore, the possession of luxurious
goods such as cars, TV sets, refrigerators, the study indicated represented good examples of
social inequality that was not equitably distributed among the population. Educational inequality,
Page164

the study revealed was largely responsible for income inequality and access to opportunity by
the elites over the non-educated or semi-educated.
The authors further discussed the issues involved in neo-colonial capitalist and socialist
planning. The beginning of economic planning in the country was in l946 during the colonial
period. After independence in 1960 two economic plans were carried out. Economic planning as
practiced locally, according to Ola Oni, was associated with neo-colonial capitalist planning. It is
defined as such because the essence of the plan was to achieve growth in Gross Domestic
Product (GDP i.e. National Income) of the country rather than being seriously geared towards
development of most people and especially the poor.
Neo-colonial capitalist planning
The book enumerated the basic features of Neo-colonial capitalist planning including the
false conception of the problem of underdevelopment. This is reduced to a mere cataloguing of
the effects or symptoms of underdevelopment (such as low income, low savings, low level of
technology, limited domestic markets, high illiteracy, high fertility etc) as the very causes of
underdevelopment. This inability to conceptualize the issue of underdevelopment in third world
countries by the bourgeois ruling class is the reason they cannot explain why Africans for
instance are wretched of the earth.
The other reason is that planners wrongly accepted the neo-colonial planning
environment of capitalism as it is. They therefore saw their task as merely providing the
necessary accurate technical plan for growth within the system. This is the reason why many of
these planners have come to accept the failure of the plan, but they only blame it on
implementation factors. Another equally important feature of neo-colonial capitalist planning
identified in the book is its ability to intensify contradiction within the system.
The fundamental characters of this (capitalist) type of planning enumerated by Oni and
Onimode include:
o advancement of capitalist interests,
o planning what is not owned by it,
o reliance on foreign aid as a source of financing the planning which is not under
the control of the planners,
o private sector leadership which is not under the control of the planners, in place
of the development of the planning for mixed economy.
How mixed is an economy of small public sector under the domination of huge private
(foreign and domestic) economy? The state only serves as a tool of capitalist interests. It only
provides the social infrastructure for capitalist interests. The government also established public
institutions such as development banks, finance and investment corporations etc that granted
loans to private sector capitalists leaving the poor masses in poverty.
Other features include only planning in financial terms. Performance targets, for
instance, value planning in monetary terms and not in physical terms of material balances. Thus
some progress reports indicate a 200 per cent performance in the sense that the money spent
on the project was double its budget estimate. This is a misleading indicator of achievement.
This encourages corruption by diversion of materials etc.
The most conspicuous manifestation of neo-colonial capitalist planning is the neglect of

Page165

the masses in the formulation and implementation of plans. The elitist approach adopted
restricts planning to the political leadership, experts, bureaucrats and their assistants, all of
whom hand down the plan document to the people through mass communication (e.g.
television, radio, newspapers) without the opportunity for the common people to actually make a
significant input. This is the reason the masses have always treated such plans with contempt
knowing full well that the plan is irrelevant to their hunger, disease and misery.
The authors captured the consequences of neo-colonial capitalist planning in the book
as follows:
This is exemplified in the emancipated farmer, rusticating in an isolated village
hut, drinking from an infested running stream and with neither light nor access to the
simplest health or educational facility for his family. We see them in that savagely
exploited worker, barely surviving in a slum hovel with a meagre wage that covers
neither food nor clothing, and who will be scraped like a piece of machine without home
or insurance when his labour power has been fully extorted. The consequences are also
that endless stream of jobless applicants, roaming beggars and scandalous prostitutes.
We see them in acute food shortage and untilled arable land, in unprecedented boom in
oil production and fuel scarcity, in sporadic luxury for the few and untold misery for the
masses.
Some 70 per cent of the population is still stranded in agriculture which is even
now incapable of feeding the whole population as before. Our industrialization has
remained a flash in the pan with its spineless concentration on production of importsubstitute consumer goods (the conventional capitalist textiles first strategy) while a
solid foundation based on heavy industries has eluded us (the iron and steel industry
which should be the bed-rock of our industrial programme has remained on paper for
many years).
Along with continued foreign domination the associated macroeconomic
problems of mass poverty, increasing unemployment and crippling inflation have
persisted.
With income per capital of about N80 in 1975 and N340 in 2000, nothing has changed.
Nigeria remains one of the poorest countries in the world, even the first strategy of
industrialization, for example, textiles that predominated in the 1970s and 1980s are no more
today. The situation of industrialization painted by Ola Oni was far better than we have now in
an era that can best be described as deindustrialization.
Socialist planning
Socialist planning as against neo-colonial capitalist planning was defined in the book as
the strategy for the establishment of a non-exploiting society with the full liberation of people to
enjoy the fruits of their labour. This provides the fundamental basis for the total elimination of
mass misery and cultural degradation and full development of the potentialities of all people.
Socialist planning therefore requires basic political and economic change that will lead to the
rapid development of productive forces through non-exploitative processes and relations.
The attributes of socialist planning were highlighted by Ola Oni and Onimode to include
the effort to disengage the country from international capitalism. Such socialist planning is
derived from the basic socialist concept of underdevelopment. The aim is to address the
consequences of savage imperialist exploitation and to move away from the capitalist path of
development. This type of planning is geared towards the termination of bourgeois neglect of
Page166

the masses and asserts the predominance of the will of the mass of poor people.
The democratic character of this new type of planning is exemplified by the leadership
role which mass organization has to play in the formulation and implementation of the plan. In
this regard, mass or collective ownership and control of the means of production, distribution
and exchange is imperative. With this, mobilization and allocation for development is a straight
forward matter. It is by so doing that full-employment of labour and full productive forces can be
guaranteed. It also emphasises comprehensive physical planning (i.e. where there is no
separation between public and private sector) rather than just an emphasis on financial results.
Socialist planning encourages the formation and development of mass organizations like
trade unions and cooperatives. This is an attempt to encourage the organizations of the mass of
poor people to cooperate rather than being exploited or split into competitive rival groups as is
the caste with bourgeois planning. Such socialist planning is also pre occupied with production
for the needs of poor people rather than the exploitative profit motive.
Socialism has been criticized by bourgeois scholars for not being an attractive
alternative to the neo-colonial capitalist order. The basis for this criticism is that socialism is an
alien ideology that fosters dictatorship, lack of freedom and creativity. This position was
adequately countered by Ola Oni and his group by saying that socialism is not as alien as
capitalism and that socialism remains the only viable solution to what capitalism has created. In
reply to ethnocentric nationalism that canvassed for an indigenous African solution they argued
that the problem of mass poverty, exploitation, alienation, imperialist domination and neocolonial dependence that socialism came to address are universal and that the problem of
poverty are the same for all exploited peoples all over the world. They pointed out the
experience of USSR, China, Cuba, North Vietnam, and North Korea that were able to liberate
themselves from abject poverty within a few decades.
They therefore emphasise that what is needed is a creative application of the science of
socialism to our peculiar situation. It was pointed out that the bourgeoisie should know that
human knowledge is the common property of all people and that no culture, race or geographic
area can claim a monopoly of it. Socialism is part of that epistemology which is the common
heritage of the totality of the human race. They traced the origins of the misconceptions by
Nigerias petty bourgeois scholars to the capitalist manipulative tendency of laying claim to
Western Civilization. For this reason, they are now looking forward to another civilization before
they could reckon with socialism. This pervasive way of thought, the authors described as the:
ubiquitous instinct of capitalist private property rearing its head (on) everything
including knowledge that must belong to somebody, as the practice of imposing patents
and copyrights on knowledge under capitalism demonstrates. By similar reasoning
bourgeois intellectuals imagine a cultural or racial copyright on socialism . . . It does not
exist and it cannot exist, for the simple reason that scientific socialism is just a part of the
corpus of human knowledge which is the common property of all mankind: we all
contribute to it and should benefit from it. If the motive in the criticism of socialism as a
foreign ideology is intended to emphasize its creative application, then Franz Fanon,
Nyerere, Sekou Toure, Nkrumah etc have demonstrated by their creativity that socialism
is not foreign to Africa.
Strategy
On the issue of the strategy to be adopted, the study accepted that strategies may differ
from one country to another. It was argued:
Page167

We accept the necessity to domesticate socialist strategies. In fact, that is why

the processes of socialist development in different countries are not always quite the
same. But domestication should not be confused with utopianism or welfarist
programmes to preserve capitalist exploitation. What we must note is that these different
strategies derive their intellectual guide from the dialectics of social development, a
scientific model of development which calls for total abolition of exploitative relations.
Creative application cannot mean a distortion of this scientific truth. By analogy, under
capitalism you have a continuum of brands of capitalism ranging from the crude ruthless
version of laissez-faire private enterprise to price-control capitalism of the USA and
welfare capitalism of Britain which are all capitalist because their fundamental intellectual
inspiration is the system of private property.
On the issue of socialism and freedom, the authors pointed out that the capitalist system
is the one that shares the tendency for dictatorship and not socialism. The truth, according to
the study, is that capitalist (so-called) freedom is to exploit and be exploited together with a set
of fictitious political rights without the economic means to achieve them. This type of freedom is
for the rich to oppress the masses. Hence the very reason brutalizing unemployment,
pauperising inflation, mass squalor and unbridled exploitation are associated with capitalism.
The authors described such freedoms as bourgeois fraud.
The study also highlighted various experiences of dictatorship in capitalist history. These
included: Napoleon Bonaparte in France and Otto Von Bismarck during the unification of
Germany, Adolf Hitler, the most ruthless dictator in human history, Fascist Mussolini in Italy,
Franco in Spain, Salazar in Portugal, Batista in pre-Castro Cuba, Verwoerd and Vorster the
racist devils of South Africa and Ian Smith (another racist) in Zimbabwe (previously Southern
Rhodesia). The authors further queried and polemically asked:
What shall we call the capitalist Americans (if not dictatorship) who wiped out
some 3 million Red Indians to establish capitalism in North America, unleashed the first
nuclear bombs on mankind, launched an unprovoked and savage imperialist aggression
in South Vietnam for over 10 years and whose 22 million (about 50 million now) of their
black citizens are living under a condition, that is not free. This is what is nicknamed as
Western democracy. Dictators that abound in Africa as colonial masters in the colonial
period were also products of capitalism.
In contrast, the authors stated that socialism ensures real freedom for the masses by
liberating them from the exploitation of the rich.
This is achieved through the right to employment and the guarantee of full
employment, the right to free medical services as well as the right to housing, insurance
and clothing. When these freedoms are guaranteed, then alienation which makes him an
enemy of the product of his own labour is terminated and a new epoch of true freedom
for man begins.
State Capitalism in Russia and East Europe
Nevertheless, it must be understood, as recent historical facts have confirmed, that
many of the people calling themselves socialists or communists and claiming to be practicing
socialism were far from this. Typical of this was Joseph Stalin of USSR and other counterrevolutionaries that emerged with his support in Eastern Europe. By virtue of relations of
production in Russia and all these so-called socialist countries, where workers were being
Page168

repressed, exploited and far from having a role to play in the state machinery, it can be stated
emphatically that what was being practiced was nothing but state capitalism. This was what they
referred to as socialism. The bourgeoisie cannot have been ignorant of the situation in Europe
and the Eastern European countries that were practicing state capitalism. In fact, their security
service, the CIA was up to the task. This was the very reason they did not give any breathing
space to Leon Trotsky when he was in exile to save his head from the Russian state apparatus
under Stalin. They wanted to condemn the whole idea of socialism as dictatorship and so were
equally opposed to Trotsky who they knew stood for genuine socialism and democracy.
Peoples Democratic Economic Planning
The study recommended socialist planning or what the authors called: Peoples
Democratic Economic Planning. The book explained how it came to this conclusion by
exhaustively discussing the objectives of socialist planning in a quest for development for all.
These objectives are: free social services free education at all levels, free medical services,
and social security; full employment, termination of foreign domination and technological
revolution. The book also treated the issue of what the authors perceived should be done to
achieve the immediate socio-economic transformation of the country. This issue involves the
establishment of the solid foundations for economic democracy and mobilization of the masses
in the struggle for total eradication of poverty. This is about the struggle for control of economic
power by the working people. That is, the strategy and process by which the toiling masses, that
create all the wealth of this country, can gain effective control of the nations economic
resources. This entails the establishment of basic state institutions that will control and allocate
national resources. True democracy, the authors posited, must include both political and
economic democracy. Economic democracy is defined as to mean ownership and control of the
means of production, distribution and exchange by the masses of workers, small farmers, petty
artisans etc.
This is necessary because just as it is the social responsibility of the masses of
workers, farmers and other working people to create the wealth of a nation, their labour
power, it is also their historical right to own and control the wealth created by their
labour.
Four basic steps
Four basic steps and requirements for this transformation are established in the book.
Among others, this includes: total elimination of imperialist control. To achieve this, the
programme called for immediate total socialization of all foreign enterprises. This socialization
has two essential ingredients. First, the economic power taken away from the exploiting
foreigners must be transferred to all the people. Second, the nationalized enterprises must be
managed and controlled by the broad masses of working people who work in those
establishments and not managed by a few bourgeois directors and chairpeople hand-picked
from capitalists and over-stretched civil servants. This socialization programme will thus involve
socialized ownership and mass control of banks, insurance companies, oil, tin, large-scale
manufacturing, import-export trade, long-distance haulage, etc.
The second requirement for the transformation is socio-economic mobilization that
involves mobilization of the national economic surplus for development after taking it from the
imperialist hands and indigenous capitalists that monopolized it in the past. The other segment
of socio-economic mobilization is concerned with the centralization of the national surplus. This
is meant to wrestle the economic surplus from foreign capitalist and their local agents and
thereby terminate private appropriation of economic surplus so that comprehensive national
economic planning can truly mobilize the surplus for accelerated transformation for the benefits
of all and especially the poor masses.
Page169

The third requirement is the reorganization of the state sector (i.e. the creation of a
peoples democratic state) as one of the basic steps for this transformation. In the opinion of the
authors, the state should be an instrument of the poor peoples liberation. This will include: the
creation of new state ministries like the ministry of national economic planning; ministry of
science and technology and ministry of education and culture. It will also include expanding the
state sector through state ownership and control of the financial system, petroleum sector,
import and export trade, shipping industry, natural resources, long distance haulage etc. and
establishing peoples enterprises to operate companies taken over by the state; and the
transformation of the present largely colonial public service into a development-oriented system.
The final requirement is the elimination of capitalist anarchy which takes place in the
name of individualism, private enterprise and cut-throat competition. In place of this, the poor
people are to be reorganized into economic associations such as trade unions, poor farmers
association, and petty traders associations etc. This will encourage a public spirit, cooperation
and eliminate the colossal waste that is associated with capitalism.
The general objective, as expounded by this study, is the transfer of economic power
from exploiting foreign and native capitalists to the poor people. This is called peoples
democratic participation. By this, the working people in factories, on farms, in shops etc. will
manage and control the basic operations of production and distribution as well as their own
conditions of service. This also emphasizes ending the pattern of passing decisions to the poor
people from the top, down to the ladder as if the working people cannot think and make their
own decisions. Under this system, the economy will no longer be held in trust by a select
privileged few for the people. This kind of democratic mass participation of the mass of poor
people in the economic life of the country is the essence of economic democracy and the heart
of democracy itself. Bourgeois democracy consists only of certain rights and freedom is empty
political democracy (and a manipulated political democracy at that since the minority bourgeois
monopolize all the real power over ministries, armed forces, police etc). Therefore, genuine
democracy must include economic democracy to be genuine, meaningful, real and total.
Revolution in Living and Working Conditions
The book further discussed the issue of revolution in the living and working conditions of
poor people. The authors pointed out that this socialist programme is geared towards achieving
better living and working conditions for the poor masses. This is considered as a matter of
immediate revolutionary imperative and not a matter of gradualist evolution as the bourgeoisie
believe. The programme can be summarized as efforts to achieve full employment with living
wages, free education at all levels, equalization of educational opportunities, mass education,
acquisition of skills i.e. science and technology shall be given necessary attention. Cultural
revolution in the context of cultural decolonisation of the country, as well as a new national ethos
that is totally anti-imperialist.
Policy measures for peoples democratic education include providing the necessary
motivation for the teaching profession especially in rural areas, democratic reorganization of
educational institutions, and overhaul of the existing curricula to eliminate the colonial bourgeois
orientation. Better working conditions, the management of production will be democratized,
wages for different categories of labour shall be streamlined and people will no longer live in
fear of their economic future (economic insecurity); better living in relation to access to decent
housing for all, rapid change in rural/urban planning that will put an end to the existing squalor
and ghetto that has been the lot of the people in the past and still presently; social infrastructural
amenities such as water, light, transport, medical and educational facilities will be the right of all
Page170

poor people; the provision and financing of health services for everybody will be a basic
responsibility of the state.
Natural resources
The book also discussed the development of natural resources by identifying the various
known natural resources despite the dearth of surveys. The identified resources include ferrous
and non-ferrous metals, petroleum, natural gas, infinitely extensive arable land in abundant and
thickly wooded forest, huge rivers as well as prodigious fisheries, crops such as grains - rice,
wheat, maize, guinea corn, millet, tuberous products-yam, cassava, cocoa-yam, animal
husbandry - cattle, goats, pigs, poultry etc. It also covered non-utilization of wealth and potential
wealth from these natural resources as a result of the criminal waste like the colossal quantities
of gas set ablaze on the oil fields which also contribute to global warming; the foreign pillage
and unbridled exploitation of these natural resources and finally, the total neglect of a
comprehensive geological survey, which made dependable statistical data on land, and mineral
resources scanty.
The study made it known that 80 per cent of Nigerias total arable lands were
uncultivated while many people were suffering from acute food shortages; while problems
associated with agricultural land were said to include shifting cultivation, bush burning and
associated soil erosion. Residential land is made difficult and unaffordable for the poor because
of the role of the speculative bourgeoisie that perceived land as a business to collect rent rather
than to meet the needs of the poor people for accommodation. The study advocates one
person, one plot; a peoples housing scheme for all; and no land acquisition by spectators and
monopolists. On land for industrial needs, it was suggested that the government should have
access to industrial land for development without limiting itself to a few elitist industrial estates;
with proper industrial planning and location policy. On forestry, that the state should be involved
in the business of lumbering while state forest reserves should be established in different zones
of the country. That all minerals and mining in the country should be socialized in order to
ensure controlled utilization of these resources, centralization of mineral surplus accruing from
them and to achieve adequate provision of mineral reserves for the future. On water resources,
the book solicited for the need to effectively harness big rivers such as the Niger, Benue etc for
irrigation. That these bountiful rivers can best be utilized for pipe-borne water to stop the
shortage of portable water and dams used for the total electrification of the country. The
development of fishery resources if properly organized, it was discovered, could go a long way
to meet the protein diets needs of the mass of poor people.
In order to achieve scientific development, it was reasoned out, that there was the need
to bring the knowledge of science and technology to the masses who are the direct producers of
wealth. A way to bring about this, the book suggests, is that basic science and technology
should be made compulsory in all educational institutions. By this, a solid foundation would have
been laid for a technological culture which can be accompanied with granting special awards to
inventors/ innovators and periodic exhibitions of new technological developments as a way of
motivation.
Basic socio-economic infrastructures
The developments of basic socio-economic infrastructures were also touched on in the
book as it assessed the dearth of social infrastructures under both colonial and neo-colonial
capitalist regimes. Its strategy of development emphasized the construction of basic
infrastructure as the foundation for economic growth, but ironically it had been a flop and a
failure that could not achieve its set goal. This was the essential reason the socio-economic
infrastructures were in such an acute shortage. It was also observed that class factors dictate
Page171

the allocation of social infrastructures. As it was pointed out:

Colonial productive infrastructures like roads, railways as well as posts and
telegraphs merely linked major centres of export production in the hinterland to the sea
ports in a parallel network to promote the accumulation of monopoly profits.
This is to say that the infrastructures that existed were only geared towards achieving
the interests of monopoly capitalists. This was the reason it was common to have residential
zones for the elite class, while houses for the poor were neglected. The situation now in the
allocation of social infrastructures remains the same as was discussed by Ola Oni as far back in
the 1970s. He then complained of gross inadequacy and manifest mal-distribution of socioeconomic infrastructures.
The issue of inefficiency in the operation of social infrastructures has become an issue of
debate for a long time now. The ruling class and their collaborators have associated the
inefficiency in the management and performance of public enterprises with the general
inefficient nature of the public sector. This was denied by Oni. His argument was that the cause
of this so-called inefficiency was located within the exploitative logic of capitalism, despite the
social and public orientation of these corporations. But this purpose could not be achieved
because it was being established and controlled by the bourgeois (capitalist) ruling class for its
egoistic motive as against the best interest of the working people. As a result of such divergent
interests the class in power is responsible for the management of these corporations. They are
expected to run them in the image of capitalism. In practice, such corporations are ruined
through the political appointees that play the role of diverting public funds into private pockets of
the people who appointed them, either for selfish personal reasons or to fund party political
campaigns.
One other reason given in the study as for the collapse of these social infrastructures is
that the contractors engaged for its construction are linked with the ruling class through
nepotism or 10 per cent kick back. Apart from this, the contractors are themselves capitalists
that are only concerned about meeting their private accumulative interest by all means possible
(include dubious means). This capitalist way of (under) development was the cause of
deterioration in the quality of infrastructural projects and its ultimate collapse. The oversized and
costly outlay for bureaucracies in the tradition of civil service is regarded as one other reason for
the problem of this public corporations; moreso that they are plagued by directives from the
bureaucracy (ministry), without the corresponding autonomy expected. In summary, the reason
for such inefficiency that the capitalist ruling class are running away from (as the cause) is that it
is capitalist prone and a reflection of the general inefficiency, exploitation and social injustice
perpetrated by the corrupt and selfish acquisitive way of life of the ruling class.
The failure of the free market
The book also criticized the capitalist option of enthroning private capitalist business
through privatisation, as against the public corporations of the past. The authors stated that the
deplorable incompetence of our badly planned and poorly managed public utility and related
enterprises cannot be used as a cheap case for the advocacy of free-for-all laissez-faire private
enterprise. This is because private capitalism is a failure in various places where it was being
practiced.
One thing that the advocates of privatization and liberalization do not tell their listeners is
that in developed capitalist countries like Britain, USA, Germany, Italy, France etc the states
subsidize the agricultural sector and railways Ola Oni and Onimode pointed out that some
Page172

public corporations are established for the purpose of social service without necessarily for profit
motive. This they refer to as social profitability. Another argument is to ask who is to be blamed
for the various privately owned textile companies, trading companies, banks, insurance
companies and other industrial establishments that have collapsed in Nigeria over the years.
Inefficiency is not only limited to public sector.
The reason why the public sector is the only one that is seen to be bedevilled with such
problems is because, according to the authors of the book, the failures of private capitalist
business are typically not publicly reported by the press. Public enterprises are subject to public
accountability. In contrast public commissions (probe panels) are rarely constituted to scrutinize
and expose the inefficiency of private companies.
The scandal of Aaron Company, a US based power generation company, is a typical
example. The company was engaged by Lagos State Government to provide electric power for
the State before US governments investigation into the operation of the company and its
financial scandal. One can also mention the International Bank of Commerce and Industry
(IBCI) that was alleged of money laundering by drug barons. These are only two examples of
how the bourgeois ruling class is covering up are the sources of the so-called efficiency in the
private sector.
What the advocates of converting public corporations into private holding do not take
into consideration is that apart from this resulting into rapacious exploitation and appropriation of
the nations economic surplus by the foreign monopoly capitalists, it is also the surest way of
undermining the economic and political sovereignty of the country as was the case, for example,
with ITT with helped with the overthrow of the socialist Allende government of Chile in the
1970s. This ewplains why the US Government never thinks of privatizing its sea ports despite
its general support for neoliberal policy of privatization. Similarly most governments of the world
never conceive of the idea of privatizing their key natural resources as the Nigerian ruling class
want to do with their oil business.
Colonial heritage
The book went on to highlight how the social infrastructures like that of electricity
generation, oil and gas, coal, railways, airways, ports and shipping, communication and water
supply can be transformed by a socialist programme in the best interests of the masses workers, small farmers, artisans, professionals etc.
The chapter on industrial revolution espoused how the present industrial structure in the
country is an integral part of the colonial heritage that strongly discouraged the path to industrial
development as a matter of deliberate policy. This is the reason why the few successful
industries centred around the first-stage processing of primary products or last stage assembly
of manufactures like cotton, mining, palm oil, kernel crushing, plywood, textile, bicycle assembly,
motor assembly etc. This also accounted for the backward state of industrialization that was
dominated by small industries, based in consumer goods such as textile, cigarettes, soft drinks,
confectionaries, sugar, beer, groundnuts, palm and others vegetable oils, plywood etc. There
was a virtual absence of a serious foundation of heavy capital manufacture. The little real
industrial technology that existed was at the prerogative of the foreign capitalists. The
manufacturing/industrial sector was largely dominated by the foreign companies. Industrial
development remained unplanned. The foreign monopoly/oligopoly companies that dominated
the industrial sector unfortunately concentrated on import-substitution consumable goods at the
expense of capital goods production.

Page173

The authors also considered the defects of the countrys industrial policy. These included
the reliance on exploitative foreign aid and foreign investment for industrialization. This,
according to the authors, was responsible for abandoning industrial power to the hands of the
imperialist import-substitution strategy. This also enhances dependence on the management of
local subsidiary companies on the parent body based in the metropolitan countries. This
resulted in weakening the balance of payment position of the country because it was more
costly to buy locally rather than directly from abroad. The profits accrued to such business
ventures were also at the mercy of foreign monopoly capitalists that transferred them abroad or
re-invested the funds by adding to the means of production for further exploitation.
Import-substitution was also found to be the appendage of multi-national corporations
and such policies were responsible for allowing the private sector to lead the countrys
industrialization. This resulted in a gross distortion in the allocation of resources in the
economy. This also led to a general lack of involvement of petty artisans who helped to launch
industrial technology in other countries of the world as they developed.
The study also discussed the role of credits as another obstacle to industrialization. Its
failure was due to the fact that the banks, insurance and other financial institutions that could
provide credit to local companies were in the hands of foreign capitalists. One other problem
associated with industrial underdevelopment was that of the location factor. The study identified
the objectives of peoples industrial revolution as including: the socialization of industry,
domestic-oriented industries, expanding industrial power, an emphasis on capital-goods
industries. A planned and integrated industrial structure could have seen the integration of
location planning with overall economic planning in order to ensure a balanced geographical
distribution of industries across the country.
Measures advanced by the authors to achieve an industrial revolution included: the socialisation
of foreign industrial enterprises; industrial and comprehensive national economic planning;
proportional allocation of investment shall be made between capital-goods and consumer goods
with the former taking the bigger share; cooperatives of petty-artisans to develop their technical
skill and raise productivity; and an emphasis on inter-African cooperation to achieve industrial
development within the region.
An agrarian revolution
In discussing the issue of an agrarian revolution, the study discussed the state of
agriculture during the colonial period through the postcolonial period, specifically covering the
military era. In analyzing the position of agriculture in the colonial period, the role and status of
agriculture was conceived in terms of the capitalist international division of labour. The colonies
were conceived, by the colonialists, of having a comparative advantage in agricultural
production whilst Britain was to specialize in industrial production. This served the purpose of
perpetually making the colonies junior partners in the relationship between the two parties
leading to an unequal exchange of wealth. The imperialist specialized in industrial
manufacturing and the colonies exported agricultural commodities. This pattern of specialization
assured the colonialist a cheap and steady supply of raw materials such as cocoa, cotton,
groundnuts, palm oil, kernels etc for their factories. This policy was also responsible for the total
neglect of food production that should otherwise have catered for at least 88 per cent of the food
needs of the mass of the people.
The Marketing Board system was initiated in the colonialist period. It served as a
mechanism of exploitation mainly of the peasants and poor farmers. The consequences of this
colonial agricultural structure, as the study pointed out, was the sluggish appropriation of
Page174

agricultural surplus, absence of any real effort to develop peasant farming through land
reorganization, provision of neither agricultural credit nor marketing facilities.
The state of agriculture in the post-colonial period was also discussed as it related to
such features as lines of agricultural production-exports products and food crops. Over 60% of
the population engaged in agriculture with backward techniques of production and exploitation
by Marketing Boards. The study also explained the consequences of the prevailing agricultural
policy. This included the colonial orientation of cash crop export enclave; neglect of food crops;
high prices of food; over 80 per cent of uncultivated land; the oppression of the peasants - poor
remuneration from their export crops as a result of low prices; heavy and multiple taxation of the
peasants; perverted roles of the Marketing Boards against the peasants; crippling distribution
problems which led to peasants being dependant on parasitic middlemen; poor transport and
storage facilities; the tedium of labour on tiny plots; inferiority of other farm inputs - low yielding
crop varieties; lack of provision of fertilizers and insecticide; illiteracy among million of peasants;
agricultural credit not extended to peasant farmers, but remain the prerogative of big farmers;
social amenities for peasants were poor or none existent; agricultural extension services were
very few and far from the poor farmers; and the cumulative effect of years of bourgeois
oppression that led to rural depopulation.
The economic programme therefore highlighted the objectives of what it called the
Peoples Democratic Agricultural Revolution. This was designed to achieve: the total liberation
of peasants from years of both foreign and domestic capitalist exploitation; the guarantee of
peasants having full control over production and distribution of their produce; a drastic increase
in peasant income by eliminating multiple taxation, parasitic middlemen and marketing boards;
provision of social amenities pipe-borne water, rural electrification, health facilities, good roads
to the rural areas, social insurance including old-age pension for peasants; introduction of
agricultural technology ploughs, tractors, cheap fertilizers and insecticides made available to
all poor farmers; distribution of agricultural output to be revolutionized by making the entire
country readily accessible through cooperative distribution bodies; end to shameful food
shortages and the inflation of food prices; as a way of achieving high agricultural productivity
and optimum utilization of the idle arable land and savings.
Ola Onis organization equally suggested how to achieve the above objectives through
such measures such as the formation of peasant organizations that shall discuss the problems
and the implementation of the solutions. Cooperatives of the poor farmers and peasants, as
distinct from existing practice of bourgeoisified so-called farmers cooperatives, that should be
charged with the task of consolidation of communal land ownership; deciding what machinery,
fertilizers etc that will be employed; raising agricultural credit to be managed by the
cooperatives. Autonomous Peoples Agricultural Marketing Enterprises should be established to
replace the abolished Marketing Boards. These should have been run by the cooperatives
themselves. Adequate storage facilities should be established to make supply steady between
harvest periods and detailed agricultural planning should be part of comprehensive economic
planning to ensure integrated development of industry and agriculture.
Commercial Revolution
The authors further stated, in a programme on Commercial Revolution, that commerce,
industry and agriculture must be developed together without constituting bottlenecks. The
revolution in this sector becomes necessary, according to the study, so as to wrestle the nations
commerce from the clutches of neo-colonialists and with the objective of internalizing the
commercial surplus from the country which can best be used for the transformation of the
countrys economy. It looked at the state of commerce under the colonial period whereby it
Page175

operated at two ends, the international level (i.e. foreign trade) and the internal level. According
to the book foreign capitalists dominated both levels whereby the:
exploitative colonial foreign trade was completely in the grip of the colonial
pirates. The imperialists owned the ships and controlled the ocean shipping that
conveyed these exports and imports; they owned the insurance companies that insured
the cargoes in transit. Within Nigeria, they owned and operated (like UAC, John Holt,
SCOA, etc) the chain of mercantile houses that controlled wholesale and retail trade in
the imported consumer goods. Long distance road haulage of fuel and other imported
commodities was their virtual monopoly. And, of course, the colonialists also owned and
controlled the banks which organized the export of the huge commercial surplus from
this imperialist looting called free trade.
The pattern of the commercial system started by colonial merchants continued beyond
political independence in l960. Exports and imports remained better developed while internal
trade in food commodities, local manufactures and craft were poorly integrated and less highly
capitalized. The entire commercial structures of the country were dominated by foreign
companies such as Kingsway, Union Trading Company (UTC), John Holt, G.B. Ollivant, CFAO
(Compagnie Francaise de lAfrique Occidentale), Peterson of Zochonis, Leventis, Bhojsons, K.
Chellarams, Esquire, Union Trading Company (UTC), Commercial Society of West Africa
(SCOA) and United Africa Company (UAC). After independence, neocolonialism made its
business to continue as before.
The old system of business relations was maintained whereby foreign trade made the
country exclusively rely on capitalist countries for the sale of exports and purchase of imports. It
also included oligopolistic structures;
lavishing fortunes on advertisement; the utterly
disorganized state of the countrys market women and petty traders; the parasitic role of
myriads of middlemen that were responsible for hyper-inflation; poor credit facilities available to
indigenous petty traders; excessive reliance on imports that led to high import bills; and
commerce (excluding transport and financial services) was a relatively small proportion of the
total Gross Domestic Product (GDP).
The programme of the organisation to achieve equitable business relations under its
commercial revolution include: the socialization of import-export and wholesale trade mainly to
terminate foreign domination of the commercial system; liberation of petty traders to play a
leading role in the development of commerce, reduction of imports especially of consumable
goods, ostentatious luxuries and food produce that can be produced internally; disengagement
from imperialist market and reorientation towards third world and socialists countries; adequate
supply of all commodities to be guaranteed to all parts of the country; elimination of price
exploitation to ensure uniform prices for commodities throughout the country.
Measures suggested as capable of achieving the proposed commercial revolution
include the followings: the export-import enterprise shall be directly controlled and managed by
representatives of petty traders, market women, workers, peasants etc; the state shall take
over all wholesale trade, wholesale establishment shall be linked to production units and exportimport enterprises; associations of petty-traders will be organized to own and operate
department stores and cooperative shops, the interest of working people shall be represented in
the management of such stores and shops. These establishments shall also be linked to
wholesale enterprises; the financing of the nations commerce shall be rescued from the whims
and caprices of neo-colonialists. There shall be peoples banks for commerce for joint financing
of commerce and transport and that there will be an urgent programme of market reconstruction
Page176

throughout the country. This will provide large sheltered markets in all urban and rural areas.
Socio-Economic Regulation
Socio-economic regulation was defined as measures adopted to cope with the
contradictions that emanate from the system from time to time so as to patch up the system and
avoid uncontrollable crisis. It was made clear that such reforms or regulations are not new but
essentially the same as the major capitalist countries have been used to. So, it was posited that
the problem inherent in the third world countries like Nigeria goes beyond such reformist
prescriptions, but one that requires a structural solution. In the words of Oni and Onimode:
In the resultant drama of social engineering, the country is today witnessing the
manifest bankruptcy of liberal Keynesian economic recipes, as well as the fundamental
irrelevance of bourgeois reformism based on marginal adjustments to the essentially
structural problems of underdevelopment.
The basic challenges that required socio-economic regulation to address included: the
capitalist mode of production, which means that this type of regulation was mainly directed to
the neo-colonial capitalist by the developed capitalist countries to serve their own selfish
purposes. A typical example of this regulation is the restriction of Third World countries to
specialize in the production of raw materials for the international market while at the same time
they grant subsidies to their own farmers for the production of the same agricultural produce
and ensure a cheap price on the international market. Furthermore, the specific liberal reformist
measures of capitalist regulation in the country included fiscal and monetary policies, price
control, income regulation and control of foreign trade (import duties, import quota, export taxes,
licensing etc). The multiple taxation of the masses as a common form of regulation includes
import duties, export taxes, excise taxes, produce tax and personal income tax.
Another feature of such regulation is contradictory, piecemeal and ad- hoc measures.
This refers to measures taken by authorities such as the Central Bank, Treasury, Price Control
Board, and Ministry of Trade when experiencing economic difficulties and to alleviate economic
consequences of price increases, unemployment, trade deficits etc.
Such regulation exhibits the confusion of mixed-economy:
The mixed-enterprise (mixed-economy) orientation of the country (in due
course) produces mixed responsibility for socio-economic regulation. The private sector
is required only to assist in implementing the regulatory measures of the public sector.
Yet the economy is predominantly in private hands (especially foreigners). This means
that existing socio-economic regulation in the country as in other capitalist countries,
divorces power over the economy from responsibility for the stability of the system.
One major objective of this kind of socio-economic regulation is to achieve stabilization
of exploitation. This the bourgeoisie usually refers to achieving stability. Stability to the
bourgeoisie means stability of the status-quo whereas the real objective of the current
regulatory system is to ensure private accumulation of wealth by the bourgeois class or neocolonial capitalist through wage freezes, credit to capitalist investors etc.
The study also identified regulation as having class character, bias and domination as
was inherent in all neo-colonial social policy. This was seen as one of the major failures of
socio-economic regulation. In providing a clear case of such bias, the study pointed out that:

Page177

the history of stabilization policy in this country is replete with bans on industrial
action, wage freezes and similar controls on labour (whereas) there is hardly one
effective restraint on rent, interest profits and dividends of capitalists ... Labour regulation
is generally biased in favour of employers and against the workers. The l973/74
regulation on trade unions with its stringent conditions for union recognition and merger
really stifles trade unionism. Indeed, the same provisions that freeze wages and ban
strikes also typically offer investment credit to capitalists in the grossly erroneous belief
that ostentatious capitalists create the wealth of the country. Rent is largely uncontrolled
and rent edicts have been a national farce. The (1970s) bitter controversy over Udoji
Commission Report and Government White Paper on it underlines the clear class
character of socio-economic regulation in Nigeria. The commission was silent on the fate
of farmers and ignores workers in the private sector. Its grading and pay
recommendations increased income inequalities between the elite classes and the
working people.
Another important feature of this regulation was its futility or general ineffectiveness. The
reasons for this failure can be located in the dominance of the economy by the private sector
(especially the foreign capitalists). It becomes difficult for the public sector to control an
economy that it does not own.
Distortion of bourgeois priorities was another factor for the failure of regulatory
measures. The governments looked at the scarcity of commodities such as housing, water,
electricity etc as a problem that could be solved by putting in place regulatory controls instead of
looking at the misplacement of priorities of policy formulation embarked upon by the government
that was responsible for such scarcity. For instance, the authors observed that the problem of
scarcity would have been avoided, if the authorities had not indulged in erecting, luxury flats,
multi-million Naira arts theatre, stadia, as well as organizing frivolous drumming and dancing
(like the squadammania on the Second World Black Arts Jamboree).
The issue of the price control and other regulation such as income policy were also
raised in respect of its failure to achieve the desired goal because of the neo-colonial bourgeois
status of the country that could hardly be expected to implement such a policy that would work
against the interests of capitalism. This is the reason the authors viewed such attempts as just
propaganda to deceive the working people.
In discussing the neglect of the foreign pillage of the national economic surplus, the book
remarked that the so-called regulation is not mindful of foreign domination and exploitation. This
is responsible for siphoning abroad (to the centre of world capitalism) the nations surplus from
banking, insurance, petroleum, mining, manufacturing, shipping etc. The government was crying
out for money and running to foreign investors for foreign aid. At the same time, the capitalists
were appropriating the nations surplus to themselves at will without the government adopting
regulation to stem such unequal economic relations.
In conclusion, the objectives of regulation was said to be ill conceived due to the warped
idea by the government that viewed this from the perspective of management of the economy in
terms of maintaining stability through marginal adjustments to social engineering on the basis
of the neo-colonial capitalist approach. Instead a bold strategy of a coordinated programme of
total mobilization of the nations resources was needed to solve the problems of
underdevelopment.
Stressing this further, the authors stated that reducing unemployment based on
Page178

Keynesian economic prescriptions is a flagrantly bourgeois fraud. This is because the

unemployed (however few they may be) constitute the Marxist reserve army of unemployed
labour which is used by capitalists to depress the wages of workers. If China with a population
of about 800 million (now about l.5 billion) could achieve full employment, why cant Nigeria do
the same? It was similar with the state capitalist countries like USSR that were able to achieve
full employment in the 1970s at the time this programme was written.
Other issues that were of paramount importance in socialist regulation are: the
elimination of class exploitation like freezing wages and restraining workers demands while
granting huge profits to capitalists through such prodigal system of providing incentives for
industry and cheap public loans for capitalist investors. Such (socialist) regulation would
ultimately aim to guarantee a living wage for all Nigerians.
Comprehensive economic planning
Comprehensive economic planning should be in three stages - perspective plans of the
whole socio-economic system for 10 years, medium-term plan of 4-5 years duration and annual
plans to give operational immediacy to the medium and long term plans. The plans should
stipulate how to involve the working people especially the working class in the reorganization of
the economy. It states that:
Peoples democracy requires that peasants, workers, patriotic professional
groups etc. should play a leading role in socialist regulation of the socio-economic
system.
Reorganization will include development of an independent and dynamic labour
movement, recognition of trade unions should be automatic, merging of central labour
organizations should be actively stimulated by the state rather than been edged and hindered
by crippling preconditions. Labour participation in politics as a way of guaranteeing labour power
and workers welfare will be encouraged. Democratization of production decisions and
management should be centred around labour. Abolition of the current distinction between
employers and workers by socialization of all enterprises and carrying out a complete overhaul
of the existing class-inspired labour law.
This also includes physical planning that should involve planning for labour and capital
resources in terms of material performance or objectives e.g. specific number of pupils enrolled
in school, health delivery, tons of steel to be produced, kilogrammes of yam, rice to be produced
etc.
This socialist planning should also include fiscal planning of government revenue and
expenditure. This should emphasize matching funds with social needs; self-reliance instead of
foreign aid, elimination of the class bias and character of taxes; taxes shall be in accordance
with the ability to pay; elimination of capital or profit tax (since all profits will accrue to the state)
produce and export taxes. Personal income tax, excise tax and import duty will all be replaced
by a single consumption tax. Monetary-credit planning will be carried out by the state since all
financial institution will be socialized.
Regulation of prices shall be based on a new conception of prices as a planning device
to equate material balances in plans. Prices shall perform the role of planning parameters,
which is their historic role. There shall be appropriate standardization of commodities. Prices of
commodities will be stamped on them at source. Once the prices of manufactured goods are
appropriately regulated, prices of agricultural and other commodities will fall in line (since price
regulation from the viewpoint of the cost of living is required to maintain an acceptable terms of
Page179

trade or exchange between industry and agriculture so as to guarantee that the masses can live
comfortably on their wages).
Income planning shall be based on the socialist conception of income as the reward for
social production required to guarantee the welfare of the workers. Therefore all incomes will be
regulated appropriately to guarantee essential needs such as food, housing, clothing,
(education, medical services will be free) for all.
Conclusion
This chapter, captioned Socialist Vision, has outlined the economic programme of the
organization led by Ola Oni in the 1970s. The programme was basically anchored on the
socialist paradigm. There is no doubt that between then and now many things have changed in
the economic configuration of the country. At the time of writing this book that encapsulates this
socialist vision, the entire capitalist world was entering its first economic crisis after the Second
World War as a result of the rise in the price of oil. Though, Nigeria was an oil producing
country, it was still affected by this price increase. This period was also characterized by state
control of the economy just like other countries across the world. Even in the developed
countries, Keynesianism was the prevalent system in operation.
But all this has changed now and traces of public ownership and control of the economy
are hardly noticed. Debt crisis that has caused immense devastation in the economy was
unknown at this period. The prevailing ideology is that of privatization, deregulation,
neoliberalism and commercialization. This has the purpose of cutting government expenditure
on such important social needs as education, health, and other social infrastructures such as
railways, roads etc. Privatization of state enterprises is also promoted, along with devaluation of
the Naira, removing import controls and other restrictions on foreign investments, ensuring
market pricing, and making labour flexible by promoting the practice of casualisation. So some
of the reforms in place that still accommodate the welfare of the people, as discussed in Ola
Onis book, were replaced with alternative programmes that have significantly shifted rightwards
thereafter.
The shortcoming inherent in this vision could be that of circumstances of time. However,
this has been largely mitigated by the eye-sight of a class analysis from the prism of the socialist
method adopted in Ola Onis work to counterpoise the foundation of the existing variant of a
capitalist reformist programme. This makes many of the prognoses advanced in his book still
very relevant up till this day.
The prevalent situation of the neoliberal world makes it imperative for a shift in
arguments and analysis, especially as it concerns the nature of capitalism today. The local
ruling class, politically and economically, are not as weak as they were at the time Ola Oni wrote
his book. However, there is greater exploitation than ever known in history, especially in the
poor nations. This is the very reason that Aliko Dangote, a Nigerian business person, is not only
the richest man in Africa but also richer than any individual in Britain. There is huge capital flight
from Nigeria to the developed countries, but indices of poverty show 70 per cent of Nigerians
still exist below the poverty line.

Page180

CHAPTER THIRTEEN: THE NATIONAL QUESTION

The secessionist bid of the former Biafra Republic, declared by Odumegwu Ojukwu in
1967, later led to a full scale war for two and a half years. This was the height of ethnic rivalry
and competition. It was a difficult question among the three major ethnic warring factions
(Yoruba, Ibos and Hausa/Fulani) of the bourgeoisie, and among other minority ethnic groups as
well.
Ethnicity as an ideology of the bourgeoisie predated independence. It was influenced
and encouraged by the colonialist administration that adopted the tactics of divide and rule in
order to prolong colonial rule. On a subtle note, this started with indirect rule when only a few
selected chiefs were co-opted to execute the orders of the colonialist. Indirect rule could not
succeed in achieving ethnic irredentism because of the rise of nationalism during the struggle
for independence that counter-posed the effect that such colonialist ethnic policy might have on
the people. Instead, ethnicity at the time was functional in mobilizing different ethnic groups to
support the nationalist struggle. The cause was strongly supported by many ethnic groups that
included the Ibos, Hausa, Fulani, Tiv, Yoruba, Urhobo, Ibiobio, Ishekiri, Barum, Kanuri, Kataf,
Nupe and others.
A negative turn took place with the Richard constitution of 1946 which arbitrarily divided
the country, made up of over 300 ethnic groups, into three regions. This was denounced by all
nationalist groups and leaders. The National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) for
instance championed the campaign against the new constitution by mobilizing against it across
the country. While the Action Group (AG) led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, despite their
reservation against the constitution like others, on their own part sought to give the new
constitution a trial.
Awolowo came to rationalize the idea of regionalism in later years as necessary because
of the multi-lingual and multi-ethnic composition of the country. This led him to canvass for a
federalism as a system of sharing power between different levels of governments the local,
the regional and the central government and this was enshrined in the constitution whereby the
regional governments were to exercise power in respect of functions listed under the residual
laws that were the prerogatives of the regional governments. The central government, on the
other hand, was charged to perform the functions listed under the exclusive laws that were its
own prerogative as well. The third category of laws is called concurrent. This laws could be
performed by both the regional and the central governments.
Chief Obafemi Awolowo and his Party (Action Group) accepted the Richard Constitution
and, in 1954, prevented Dr. Nnamdi Azikwe, the leader of the opposition party in the Western
Region, going to the central legislative house (House of Representatives). They did this by
whipping up ethnic sentiments among the majority members of the house that were Yorubas
including Azikwes own trusted party members. These actions embittered the NCNC and many
other nationalists and made them condemn such acts as betrayals of the true spirit of
nationalism. This bitterness is still expressed today and this leads some people to remark that
Chief Awolowo was the one that introduced ethnicity into Nigerian politics.
Despite Ola Onis known political disagreement with Awo on class issues he concord
with him on this ethnic issue later in his life. In his opinion: Awo was been misunderstood by
opponents at that time. In defending Awo against his opponents that referred to him as a
tribalist Ola Oni said, The truth is that Awos political career did not corroborate their charge.
There were two important occasions during which Awo would have split the country if indeed he
was anti-unity. One of these was the time he was the premier of the Western Region. If he had
meant to, he would have used his position to step up the campaign to split his region from

Page181

Nigeria and he would have succeeded as the North was also in the mood to go its own way (at
the time). The second occasion according to Ola Oni was during 1966/67 crisis:
The All-Nigerian constitution talks were summoned by General Gowon after the
July coup that brought him to power. The declaration of secession by Ojukwu gave
Awolowo the chance to join forces with the secessionists if indeed he was opposed to
national unity. It was the stand of Awo on each of these occasions that preserved the
togetherness of this country till today.... If the opponents care to understand Awos
sincerity and honesty of purpose they would have found that his main preoccupation was
how to keep the country together harmoniously. Just as Awo was looking for an
appropriate economic system for Nigeria so also was he busy in his search for a political
system suitable for all of Nigeria.
Oni summed up Awos intention by saying:
Awos position was that there cannot be political stability in Nigeria until we
evolve a federal constitution that takes special cognizance of the ethnic diversities of the
country. He considered it unrealistic to sweep under the carpet the existing ethnic
differences as the unitarist tried to do.
The earlier position of Oni on Awo on ethnicity must have been moderated. Oni had
been known for mobilizing the working masses and other oppressed masses against the rich
class who he believed were the ones whipping up ethnic sentiments in other to achieve their
selfish interests. At such a time he argued:
The central character of all the three trends of political reformism (i.e. liberal,
authoritarian and traditionalists) is the desire to end divisive, ethnic politics and to unite
and stabilize Nigerian society politically. But in trying to do this, the reformists have
continued to carry with them the ethnic perspective that has grown up with Nigerias neocolonial federalism.
Their mistake therefore is to pursue political restructuring alone. They have
refused to tamper in any fundamental way with the capitalist economic foundation on
which the political system rests. All military administration from Ironsi to Abacha regimes
supported this defective perspective. Reformists assume the Nigeria neo-colonial
capitalist economy as given and ideal. Their task is no more than to structure the political
system to conform to it. Thus their solutions have not gone beyond relocation and
redistribution of powers, roles and functions, when they think that it is the system that is
defective or a programme for purification of individual characters when they think that it
is the attitude of the participants that is not in conformity with the rules of the game.
Whereas scientific analysis reveals that the contradictions in the economic
process arising is the source of the competitive struggle for private accumulation by
exploiting the masses as the main cause of ethnic division and political instability. The
ethnic rivalry is a product of this struggle amongst factions of the ruling class for private
appropriation of resources. This struggle inevitably results in a serious political crisis as
a result of the resistance of the masses against exploitation and repression. It is
therefore the contradictory relations generated in the area of economy that is at the root
of political problem.
Oni response to all the various forms of reformism was that:
All these problems they sought to solve cannot be tackled successfully unless
the capitalist system of development is replaced by a proletarian socialist system of
development. Capitalism is the main cause of these problems which cannot be removed

Page182

as long as the system remains.... bourgeois reformists who are now advocating for some
ethnic restructuring of our political system such as the call for federalism based on
rotational leadership, confederal or secessionist systems are not putting forward
solutions for solving our problems as long as they are silent about capitalism. For
example, how do we expect say a confederation or secessionist arrangements when the
hardship of the people is not due simply to Yoruba, Hausa, or Ibo leaders being in
control of political power. What we should direct our attention to is the capitalist policy
pursued by whoever is occupying the leadership position. It is the capitalist policy of all
rulers, whatever their ethnic origin, that is the cause of unequal distribution of amenities,
domination of one ethnic section by another. It is capitalism that causes unemployment
and underemployment which in turns breeds ethnic favouritism and divisive ethnic
competition for resources and jobs.
Merely creating an Oduduwa, Biafra and Arewa confederation will not solve
these problems. In fact, confederation and secessionist balkanization of Nigeria will
create small and smaller puppet regimes for more intensified imperialist exploitation. In
these states, as long as the capitalist economy remains as their mode of resource
allocation, social inequality among classes and areas will not stop; the masses will
continue to be present.
Certain socialist factions transferred this to analyze the situation during the civil war. The
Socialist and Labour Movements were then divided behind the warring factions of the
bourgeoisie. In defending the socialists on the side of Nigeria (as opposed to Biafra), Oni stated
that such decisions were taken because:
The revolutionary Comrades viewed secessionism as a weapon of imperialism
and its domestic agent to balkanize Nigeria for effective neo-colonial domination.
They maintained that secessionism must be seen in the contexts of present day
imperialism seeking to establish small states which cannot stand on their own in
resources and which will be helpless in the face of the technological and military power
of the imperialist countries.
Efforts to back up this position with practical action led to the emergence of the Nigerian
Afro-Asia Solidarity organization (NAASO) in 1966 organized by Aminu Kano and S.G. Ikoku,
with the assistance of the federal military Government. Eskor Toyo was the Secretary General of
the organization.
NAASO (aims) was to combat the Biafra propaganda disseminated among leftwing circles abroad.
Oni insisted that:
Many genuine comrades who joined NAASO saw it as a platform to make their
modest contribution to the defense and consolidation of the unity of Nigeria threatened
by divisive agents of imperialism.
NAASO, in line with its objectives, reached the length and breadth of the globe. Ola Oni
was an active member. He was the National Financial Secretary of the organization in 1971.
Other leaders of the organization included: Alhaji Aminu Kano (National Patron); Professor
Olumbe Bashir (President); Alhaji S.A. Tanko Yakassai (1st National Vice President); Ademola
Thomas (2nd National Vice President); Kanmi Ishola Osobu (National Secretary); Armstrong
Ogbonna (Asssistant National Secretary); Jare Isafiade (National Administrative Secretary);
Ladipo Fasade and Bola Ige (National Publicity Secretary); Dr. M.E. Kolagbodi (Research and
Liason Officer); Alhaji Raji Abdullahi, Mallam Ibrahim Nock (National Organisers); Sam Ikoku

Page183

(National Liason Officer).

Ola Oni was part of the delegates on the platform of the organization that were billed to
travel to Eastern Europe, to convince them of the position of the Nigerian side in the struggle.
But Ola Oni could not make this journey as his passport was not renewed.
The travel actually exposed the intrigues within the left at the time. Ola Oni before this
time had difficulty in travelling out of the country since his passport was seized in 1964 for
political reasons. With the situation of the (1967-70) war that united the left on the side of the
Nigerian faction one would have expected that this would have been an advantage for Ola Oni
to have freedom to travel out especially for the purpose of defending the country. This was not
the case. Ola Oni could not be trusted to do the bidding of Federal Government even when Ola
Oni assured them.
Sam Ikoku personally took Ola Onis passport to the then Inspector General of Police
M.D. Yusuf (who was seen as a friend among political activists because of his political pedigree
and association with the Northern Elements Progressive Union (NEPU). This was to facilitate
Ola Onis travel plans. But the purposes of the Nigerian Afro-Asia Solidarity organization
(NAASO) were frustrated by the authorities as they neither renewed the passport nor released
it. Nevertheless, Ola Oni made available his international contacts to the delegation, led by Sam
Ikoku, that made the journey abroad.
In the USA, the student movements of Nigerians and the Nigerian Community were
divided along the two warring factions at home. Omafume Onoge who later became a very
close associate of Ola Oni was at the time a post-graduate student at Harvard University. He
took an active part in the struggle on the side of Nigerian faction. He was to act as the spokes
person of the group. He reflected over the activities of the period when members of the group in
support of the Nigerian side would have to sit down for long hours discussing the problems of
Nigeria and its future. He also recounted discussions and preparations he used to have with the
leading members of the organization before proceeding to represent the group on television
interview debating programmes when both factions were represented. The best orators on both
sides used to be nominated for this task. While Onoge (later a professor of sociology) stood for
Nigerian side, his bosom friend Chienwensu (now a famous writer), who was a student of
Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), stood for the Biafran side.
Laoye Sanda, another associate of Ola Oni was a mass communications student of the
University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) when the war started. He was a victim of the war.
According to him, while the government had provisions for the final year students that were
relocated to other universities in the west, no provision was made for students at lower levels.
This explains why Sanda lost three years of his stay at Nsukka, only to start his study all over
again at University of Ibadan. Sanda never hid his anti-Nigeria stand on the war. He supported
Biafra except for the way it was badly prosecuted by their leaders.
Many Marxists were not happy with the tactics of the socialist movement over the civil
war. It is the opinion of Edwin Madunagu that socialist and labour movements in general did not
play the class role expected of it, because of the way the movement had been battered before
the military came to power with the first coup of l966. Madunagu stated:
by the time the army assumed power in January l966, the labour movement had
lost the unity of l963-64 and was again divided rigidly into five or more central labour
organizations; the labour bureaucrats themselves had become miserably alienated and
discredited, while the state of the socialist movement was no better. In this situation,
Nigerian workers could hardly be expected to intervene or play any progressive role in
the events leading up to the civil war (l966-70)...A further blow fell on the movement

Page184

when the crisis developed into secession and civil war in l967. The movement simply
split into two, not only geographically, but also ideologically; each component upholding
and supporting the particular military regime (Gowon and Ojukwu) under which it found
itself. As soon as the Nigerian crisis developed into an open war, a new form of
opportunism emerged in the labour movement. Organizations were formed to campaign
and mobilize support for the governments war efforts, delegations were led to the
socialist countries where they presented their credentials as Marxists-Leninists fighting
against imperialist attempts to dismember their country.
Onis position against the bourgeoisie as the cause of ethnic chauvinism is a
characteristic of socialist class position, but his new position of agreement with Awos analysis of
the national question might lead to confusion. Revolutionary Marxists in particular must
recognize the ethnic factor where it arises as something that they cannot run away from. Even
though it is a tactical position Marxs perspective on the National question could be deduced
from his articles on Ireland and on India. Lenin wrote exhaustive articles on the National
question in Russia which have since become classical position on this issue. He took his cue
from Marxs position. The details of how this will work out largely depend on the intrinsic
situation of a particular country; which differs from one place to another. But Marxists generally
agree on the universal laws that permeate this question. It is their view that ethnic question
cannot be treated in isolation from class struggle. It has to be subordinated to the class struggle.
So, the position of Marxists to support the oppressed nations and their rights to selfdetermination is not only tactical but also strategic.
These rights were seen from the position of being democratic. The argument of Sam
Ikoku and the Nigerian Afro-Asia Solidarity organization (NAASO) against supporting Biafra is
therefore faulty. It was their position that Biafra was made up of many ethnic groups and that the
Igbo was just one of these ethnic groups. For this reason they cannot lay claim to be fighting for
self-determination. As a matter of fact there is nothing wrong in two or more nationalities fighting
together for their shared interests. Even though in the struggle for national independence or
secession various forces were involved including the bourgeoisie, the workers, and other
oppressed masses. Marxists are to caution the poor strata of this movement not to be carried
away by the euphoria of the moment because the bourgeoisie in their movement that
emphasize brotherhood and sisterhood will soon come back to stab them on the back if they do
not take cognizance of different positions and selfish interests they represent which is at
variance with the interest of the working people.
Yoruba people say while crying that this does not stop one losing his/her sense of sight
(Ti aba nsun ekun kin sepe ka ma riron). When poor people are together with the bourgeoisie
in what seems to be the same cause, the poor must be cautious in the relationship in the way
and manner a cat and mouse relate so as not to regret such a relationship. If the past is
anything to go by, the experience of l950 cumulating in independence in l960 provides lessons
to learn from. The bourgeoisie faction of the decolonization struggle betrayed the working class
and the poor who had continually demonstrated, they were always on the barricades to confront
the colonialists openly.
The struggle for the actualization of June 12 was another case in point where the
politicians have relegated the real forces that battled the military. It is for this reason that
Marxists take caution to recognize and fight for the progressive or revolutionary portion of the
national struggle. At the inception of the June 12 struggle, in July l993, the left groups met at
Tony Enahoros residence to discuss what their intervention should be. Oni characterised the
political struggle at hand as a popular democratic one. He canvassed and advocated that the

Page185

organization should intervene as socialists and not just as anti-military or pro-democracy or

human rights activists. He said:
Remember where we are coming from, remember the class character of the
personalities around whose names this struggle is being waged, remember the specific
and general affinities between the military dictatorship and those it denied electoral
victory, remember how the militant nationalists and after them, young socialist idealists,
were betrayed by their bourgeois leaders and idols, remember the betrayals of the
Babangida years; bear in mind that since the aim of the bourgeois political class are very
limited in this struggle, they will not only abandon the struggle when these aims are
realized, they will also turn against us, their class allies, if we go beyond their limited
objectives, above all, in this struggle as in all other popular democratic struggles, we
must make our demands, especially its class and national character clear; in other
words, we must resist bourgeoisification and ethnicisation of the struggle, we must never
betray the masses.
The Marxist perspective on the national struggle is therefore to stretch the struggle
ahead for the working masses into a struggle for political and economic power for the
permanent emancipation of the working class and the mass of poor people more generally. So
efforts should be geared towards using any opportunity to strengthen working class
organizations through which this future ideal can be realized.
Marxists, despite their combativeness in the front line of the struggle against national
oppression, have some things they will not undertake. They will not join the bourgeoisie in
whipping up ethnic sentiments suggesting that their culture or nationality is the best in the whole
black race. They will not join them in displaying their flag. This is because they know quiet very
well that the struggle at hand is the beginning of a series of struggles to come. And they also
know very well that they share a lot more with the poor masses on the other side of the
barricades than with their own bourgeoisie who pretend to stand on the same side with them.
The present dispensation is a lull whereby the bankrupt and opportunistic leadership of
the labour movement has failed in their responsibility to put in place a strong revolutionary
organization that can pass a true test of time. This has led to the present predicament with the
national question being put forward rather than a proper class analysis. So Marxists while
actively participating in this struggle in line with their programme of rights of nations to selfdetermination will also add in the programme the alternative option of socialist federalism of the
country.
This line of argument should have been supported by the socialist movement during the
civil war years of l967-70. Madunagu identified the reasons why the movement did not take this
road. The problem was clearly on the false perspectives of fighting imperialism and their agents
in Nigeria rather than the issue of the weakness of the socialist movement. No doubt the
strength of an organization can influence the level of intervention in an event such as a civil war.
But the reality is that a weak organization comprising of genuine and committed cadres with a
clear socialist programme can be strengthened in the course of such events. A good example
was the courageous role that Tai Solarin and Wole Soyinka played in the war by identifying with
the Biafran side despite the fact that they did not have organizational framework to back up their
perspectives.
The slogan of the movement against imperialism and for peace and unity was a
misplaced one, a false slogan to support an oppressor nationality. The fact that Biafra lost is
another ball game all together.
Ola Onis situation in the war was pitiable for he lost many of those who were dear to

Page186

him. Among these was Gogo Chu Nzeribe who was arrested and murdered by the government
in a Lagos prison. Gogo Chu Nzeribe was a militant trade unionist. He was a very close friend of
Ola Oni and was the one that opened Onis eyes to revolutionary politics.
At Ibadan, Oni saved a lot of student comrades of Igbo extraction. He kept them in his
house away from the military attackers, until the war ended.
Comrade Ola Onis supporters, sympathisers and followers knew him as being second
to none in his commitment to socialism. So, they asked, what could have been responsible for
this socialist ideologue turning around to embrace an ethnic cultural group? His intervention in
the June 12 struggle on the platform of an ethnic-cultural group was precipitated by the role he
realized that such group would play in the unresolved national question.
The reasons for adopting the self-determination line by this school of thought, as
personified by Comrade Ola Oni and others, are multi dimensional. One, the old civil society
groups that were strongly linked with the working class and the students and were known to
anchor their analysis on class relationships in society had more else collapsed. If there was
anything that remained, at best it could be described as the remnants or caricature of the old
structure. These old civil society groups were at the time being referred to as the left or
socialist, but before our eyes they folded up. Many people believe that there is a correlation
between the collapse of the USSR and other Stalinist states and the collapse our own socialist
left groups. Most importantly, it came almost simultaneously in quick succession.
The immediate impact that the collapse of the Stalinist states could have on the Nigerian
socialist groupings, the working class, trade unions and students was possible because of the
ideological affiliation that existed between the two. Long before the ultimate collapse of the
former Soviet Union, socialism had ceased to exist as the ideology of self emancipation of the
working class, but rather it has been reduced to a mere propaganda instrument and idea to
champion the interests of the bureaucracy that was well entrenched and had its stronghold in
the Russian state machinery.
In the same way, the militancy, radicalism and ideological purity associated with the
trade unions, working class and students during the period of anti-colonial struggle and against
military rule had vanished before the ultimate collapse of the Stalinist state.
This shows clearly that both the working class that has ceased to be politically relevant
in the struggle to change society since 1960s and the student movement that has been
hijacked by adherents of cultism have been relegated to a bygone pit of history. They had failed
to exercise the power that resided in the masses they controlled.
Ola Oni as a devoted field worker must have been influenced to have a change of
position having observed the level of degeneration going among the workers largely seen
clearly and earlier than many of his colleagues in this business of revolution. Citing a few
instances of degeneration of the left which Comrade Ola Oni recorded in his diary will go a long
way to buttress the point being made here that a vacuum had already been created on the left
and that this was the very reason a shift towards human rights organizations and selfdetermination groups was possible.
Ola Oni recorded in his diary that: the Movement for Social Justice celebrated Human Rights
day by holding a seminar on the 10th of December 1989 at Press Centre, Iyaganku, Ibadan and
Tam David West, Femi Otubanjo, Editor of Tribune were present. Two of his comrades
(members of his organization) had joined the movement and had taken positions there behind
the organizers of the seminar. Another such event in 1989 was recorded as follows:
One other of our Sunday meetings of every first weekend in the month did not take

Page187

place. Comrades did not turn up. When we ended the seminar on the 10 th December,
comrades then met and agreed to fix the meeting for Friday December 15th at 6pm in
my place. Only Alhaji Abioye turned up for the meeting. So, it was not held.
These are a few graphic examples of the disappointments that Ola Oni faced within his
own organization. How many more inter-organisational disputes and disappointments also
happened? One important lesson one can draw from these records is that members had started
doubting the ideology they had supported for many years. The issue did not end there. Most
importantly was the fact that organizational meetings were abandoned. Commitment ebbed
unlike the situation in the years past when meetings were promptly attended especially by the
core members of the leadership.
The reason for this downturn in the commitment of members cannot be blamed on Ola
Oni or any other individual member of the leadership, but rather it was a result of the
degeneration that had eaten deep into the fabric of the entire system including the labour
movement to engage the ruling class. At this point, survival questions now take up much of the
time of activists and therefore they have little or not enough time for the struggle. At this time
also, people started to cultivate the culture of how to make struggle a business to help
individuals to survive. Such benefits never crossed ones mind in the past.
The fact remains that if one or two members made mistakes, as pointed out above (by
embracing loose and non-revolutionary organizations), the only place such issues could be
addressed remains the floor of the organizations meetings. However, the organization was
finding it very difficult to meet. It then follows that the organization was almost winding up.
Another example of such a disappointment also took place around the same period and
involved the NANS leadership. Ola Oni was irritated and forced to flare up. The letter one of the
leaders of NANS wrote to Ola Oni thereafter summarized their feelings about Comrade Ola Oni.
Ola Onis reply can best be described as the harbinger of bad things to come to NANS, as if he
was a soothsayer. So, if one is talking of the state of NANS and the degeneration associated
with it today definitely it start some years ago, it has been there for some time eating deep into
the structure, destroying it like canker worm. The letter this NANS leader wrote to Ola Oni is
pregnant with meaning and serves as a testimony of the degeneration in the movement. The
student was not an ordinary member of the organization but a leading cadre that later became
the president of the organization. The letter was as follows:
Dear Comrade Ola Oni,
...I must say that the seminar was highly educative to most of us, particularly as
it affords us the chance once more to understand ourselves better. I personally, can say,
without fear of being misquoted, that your performance at the seminar was
disappointing. My previous impression about you was completely negated. This is
because of the personal ego that characterized your speech during the seminar. This is
what is responsible for your outburst claims of subsidising the printing of the NANS
Charter of Demands. In addition you were also telling everyone including the security
men that were present about the existence of an underground organization, Patriotic
Youth Movement, Nigeria (PYMN); thereby threatening our individual and collective
security. It is therefore on the basis of this that we strongly feel that we have to excommunicate some comrades including you, in order to ensure our own security. But if
you feel that the decision is unjust, you can write us and explain your point for our
consideration.
The letter, itself, while questioning Comrade Ola Oni of egoism is not devoid of the same
allegation of self aggrandizement. The letter gave the impression that some of the NANS

Page188

leadership have the right to ex-communicate. As if by so doing they can deny Comrade Ola Oni
certain things he personally benefitted from, for example, by submitting his life for students
cause.
Comrade Ola Onis reply pointed out clearly that the source of the polemics that ensued
at the seminar organized by NANS at University of Ibadan in 1989. This was the issue of the
role NANS should play in the formation of a Labour Party that Ola Oni and the other comrades
were campaigning for.
Unfortunately, NANS leadership maintained a position of neutrality. This was on the
basis that the trade union leadership was conservative and the Labour Party would be the
property of Bafyau and other conservative trade unionists. At last NANS reluctantly came to a
position of recognizing the Labour Party in principle, but their intervention was said to largely
depend on the course of events. Instead of supporting this political intervention that would
provide a broad labour movement platform comprising various left and mass organization like
workers, trade unions, student unions, socialist organizations, small farmers, professional
artisans, and other progressive organizations and individuals; the students refused to take the
initiative.
This was unlike the NANS/NUNS of the past that were always ahead of other
groups in the country on policy and political matters. They had always been the one to
pressurize the working class on issue of this type. This was the very reason that they dominated
the radical forces of the 1970s and early 1980s.
In response, Comrade Ola Oni stated:
Dear Comrade . So, it is only my egoism that you were able to pick from my
contribution to the seminar. What of the central issue of my contribution which charged
the Marxist leadership of NANS of not providing the correct leadership, that the lead of
anarchism and reformism of the student struggle should be replaced by one guided by
Marxist-Leninism, that student economist parochial struggle should now give way
towards making the student movement part of the general national mobilization of the
masses for political power, that it is time that students identified their allies and did not
allow themselves to be cut off from other national Marxist organizations by the intense
propaganda of the state.
Ola Oni pointed out the reason he had to be personal in his contribution at the risk of
being accused of egoism was that:
In our situation, where student leaders always think and give the impression that
Comrades who have been in struggle before them have done nothing and do not
appreciate what they have inherited, and in a situation where the student leaders feel
that they know better than those who have been in struggle before them and refuse to
appreciate the gains that they have inherited, it is necessary for some of us to drive
home that point even when it means the risk of being accused of egoism. Some are
forced to recount the past and our contribution to the struggle so as to get the history
straight and let you know the injustice you are doing to our struggle for not recognizing
the need to ally with your past and take bearings from that past. In our situation where it
is common to distort the past in order to sell incorrect roads of struggle for the present, it
is necessary for the participants of the past to cry out before another error is again
committed. For I do not know what on earth some of the NANS leadership have against
some of us older in the struggle who have been chosen to back up the organization of
the Labour Party and we are pleading for joint work in emphasizing the political
mobilization of the masses for power instead of continuing on the reformist mode of
struggle which they are selling as the revolutionary road. There is no way we who were
actors of the past can relates the past without being accused of egoism, if a supporter

Page189

relates the past he may be charged of hero worshipping.

On the issue of PYM, you charge me of exposing you to the security. What is it
that you are doing that is secret? When we formed PYM in 1974 we did not expect it to
be secretive and there is nothing you engaged doing that is not lawful. PYM was
organized then to be student front of our Marxist organization at the time and remained
so up till 1978. But some students who came to the leadership of PYM cut it from its root
and became afraid to operate openly. What is it that the PYM does that is not lawful. You
are living with the illusion that PYM is not known to security. It is already infiltrated
because PYM has never been organized as a disciplined underground with a serious
revolutionary mission. At best, it is just a radical group in the student movement and I do
not see anything you do that should make any of you to be afraid of being identified with
the organization openly. The right wing has its own body sponsoring candidates for
NANS and it exists organizationally within NANS, the security knows you exist and have
their agents in your ranks.
This statement coming from Ola Oni turned out to be the reality and an open secret a
few years after making it. In 1990, Gbenga Komolafe and Ogaga Ifowodu were picked up in Jos
city on a tip off by SSS, while there at the instance of NANS for a meeting with some students
outside the University campus for mobilization against the governments new hike in the price of
petroleum products. In 1991, NANS Academic Reform (ACAREF) struggle failed by virtue of
intelligence agents invasion of students structures. It was later discovered that some of the
leadership of PYM and NANS were informants and SSS agents. They played no small role in
working against the success of the action.
The news came on the eve of the action on the 9 o clock News that the student action
had been called off according to the press statement signed by the Senate President of NANS.
The day following the action, Punch Newspaper reported that the action had been called off at a
meeting of the student leadership forum in Lagos. This meeting was not of the NANS structures,
but it was PYM; whereas the role of PYM was expected to be a guide to NANS and not to be
directly involved in replacing NANS. This was one of the undemocratic ways Stalinists that were
in control of PYM misused this organization to manipulate NANS activities for their selfish
motives.
The whole episode involved with the action came to the fore later. There was a story of
one of the Vice Presidents of NANS who collected money from the SSS. The PYM came to his
defence saying that he informed them of the SSS overture and that he had their backing to
collect the money. Also there was a confirmed story that the Secretary General of NANS, who
was also a leading member of PYM at that time, was a complete SSS agent. At the time the
action was about to commence, rumour went round throughout his school, University of Jos that
he was an agent of the state. It was discovered that he was nowhere to be found when the
national action was to start. Meanwhile the SSS were going from place to place where the
activists could be found on the prompting of this traitor to arrest the other student leaders, so as
to nip the action in the bud.
The state failed to achieve their objective in this respect, the action succeeded in many
of the schools where the Marxist student groups were still strong. These included the
universities of Jos, Ibadan, Ife and Ilorin. The PYM leaders, on realizing the success of the
action, came to Jos from Lagos to pick up the NANS President to shield him from arrest and
probably to try and end the struggle in University of Jos.
The SSS operatives knew the terrain as one of them was an active student leader with
the residential addresses of some of the student leaders in Lagos. All the SSS needed was the
active collaboration of this student agent and in a matter of days many student activists were

Page190

arrested in the wee hours of the day. By the time they succeeded in doing this, the student-SSS
(NANS General Secretary) was already behind bars for the purpose of identifying the arrested
student leaders. This role he played perfectly well. The result of this degeneration and
opportunism was the factionalisation of the student body whereby NANS was divided between
the right wing and the Stalinist factions for many years. This no doubt truncated the ideals of the
body to the extent that NANS has become irrelevant presently in the general struggles and that
of the students in particular. Where do we go from here, after the student ranks and leadership
have been penetrated by the intelligence and security officials?
Ola Oni suggested the way out. He stated that:
Our response is to build our own counter-intelligence method. As long as
we are crippled with fear of security you cannot move. We must act boldly to
assert our right to action organisationally and intimidate the security agents. Do
not forget they have no support among the people. They too operate with fear of
the peoples reaction. Unless we act boldly to increase our right to organize
openly and demand certain things openly we cannot make progress.
Ola Oni therefore said, in respect of the allegation that he had exposed this NANS
leadership to security:
Those who feel that I threaten their security by mentioning the existence
of PYM do not know the history of PYM and they may be people who do not want
to have a bad record with the state because of future employment in the state.
True to type, the former NANS president who wrote the above letter to Ola Oni, Lukman
Salisu who was in the league of having nothing to do with Labour Party on the basis of Labour
being reactionary worked for the same labour leadership he condemned for many years after he
left school.
Ola Oni went further to say:
I make no apology for mentioning PYM. We never intended PYM as a
secret organization but as a student progressive body fighting for the unity of
student action and advancing progressive and revolutionary ideas among
students. Those are legitimate acts. All constituent bodies of PYM operate openly
in campuses and they have the legitimate right to federate for joint action. The
tragedy of PYM is that it claims it could go it alone and cut itself off from the old
Marxist organizations in the country. And ever since, it has entered into crisis and
crisis.
This down turn in the student movement could best be described as a tragedy of
grievous dimensions. This was capable of causing Comrade Ola Oni nightmares because this
was an area where he had committed much of his life. But Comrade Ola Oni was propelled by
higher forces of courage so he had a shock absorber for such disappointments.
As a result, he was not greatly physically or mentally affected by such disappointments.
For this reason, in one way or another, he aligned with the new emergent forces of self
determination that saw the problem the Nigerian state face as being the oppression of minority
ethnic groups by the majority ethnic groups. Some of the majority ethnic groups also accused
themselves of oppression in the course of the political and economic competition that existed
between them.
The recognition of this rivalry came up again openly with the annulment of June 12, 1993
Presidential general election result. This singular action was on the part of a military regime
headed and dominated by people of Hausa/Fulani extraction. The Yorubas therefore concluded

Page191

that this was part of the legendary ethnic agenda of the Hausa/Fulani. The Ibos also had their
own history of oppression to tell which ultimately culminated in 24 months of civil war and is still
not able to solve the problems that they are living with.
Ola Oni had been talking of the unresolved injustices meted out against the Ibos before
the Yoruba declaration of war against the injustices they faced. Ola Oni regularly meets people
of different ethnic backgrounds, with different histories of injustice to complain of, in the course
of the various periods of detention he suffered in his revolutionary career. One of such story that
had remained constant was the injustices suffered by the Ibos. The Ibo security operatives used
to discuss these problems with Ola Oni when in detention. Ola Oni had always had it in the back
of his mind that the country had never been safe. He had always revealed to people close to
him that the Ibo secession agenda was as constant as the northern star and that only justice,
equity and fairness could heal this wound.
Ola Onis flirtation with the Yoruba irredentist organization was very surprising, but his
inspiring role in these circumstances should also be well understood. The first thing to be
realized is that the perceived injustices done to the Yorubas by the Hausa/Fulani led to new
political formations, such as the Oduduwa People Congress (OPC), Oduduwa Liberation
Movement (OLM), Oduduwa Youth Movement (OYM), Oduduwa Parapo etc becoming mass
organizations around the same time.
Ola Oni, as a revolutionary, was therefore interested in how he could be relevant within
these new formations and shape them along class lines in the best interests of the poor masses
that were feeling the crisis of exploitation and oppression. This terrain was not new to him. He
had been involved in different organizations in the past that resulted from the capitalist crisis.
These included the Peoples Organisation Movement for the Eradication of Poverty, Nigerian
Tenants Association, Agbekoya Society, Peoples Movement for Economic Justice and Price
Control to mention a few that were not classically working class based organisations. While he
was actually involved in these organizations, he never for once had the illusion that the
objectives of these organizations were the end in-itself but rather he had always seen them as a
means to an end. This was the way he viewed the Odudua Parapo, for which he was the
Coordinator. As a matter of fact, he first entered the Oduduwa Peoples Congress (OPC) with the
aim of injecting revolutionary ideas into the organization so as to mould it along the ideas he
believed in.
Ola Oni and Baba Omojola, two comrades that had been together in revolutionary
struggles for many years were in partnership over creating a revolutionary force that could meet
the test of time as a true defender of the masses. Their plans for the organization included
organising political education for the rank and file members, to prepare them with all round
education on culture, politics, economics etc so that these fighters for social change could be
well grounded and abreast of the very reason for the course they were sacrificing their lives for.
This plan was stopped by Dr. Frederick Faseun and other leaders of the OPC organisation at
the national level, who enjoyed praise singing, eulogy and the myth of heroes rather than seeing
the organization as weapon of struggle for the masses of the Yoruba nation.
It was in the aftermath of this resistance that Comrade Ola Oni and others put in place
Oduduwa Parapo, which was a coalition of other Oduduwa groups. OPC, Oyo State branch was
part of this coalition at the beginning before it was pulled by their Headquarters led by Faseun.
Ola Oni helped to build this self-determination organization and so it had one important
ingredient that other organisations fail to have. The component groups that made up Ola Onis
Oduduwa Parapo give preference to both theory and practice. Educational classes were made
imperative for their members. This was in line with the well-known Ola Onis dictum that there

Page192

cannot be a revolutionary practice without revolutionary theory.

For the sake of people that do not know, nothing much was different from Ola Oni, the
socialist revolutionary and Ola Oni, the leader of Oduduwa Parapo. This is because the socialist
ideas and ideals were constant at both ends; only the tactics and strategy differed. This might
be contentious because the issue of strategy is very important and key to determine the socialist
revolutionary potential of an organisation and not otherwise. A close look at Ola Onis lecture
notes for Oduduwa Parapo students is a testimony to this fact that he was training socialist
fighters for the Oduduwa cause.
So, one can say that there is nothing new about Comrade Ola Oni canvassing for
federalism. This is because as far back as 1978, in the programme of his party the Socialist
Party of Workers, Farmers and Youth (SPWFY), he had advocated socialist federalism. The only
point was that the issue was not then contentious and was not practically demonstrated by Ola
Oni until shortly before his death. He came to this federalist position on the basis that little or
nothing was being done by activists in other parts of the country. He considered that they were
rather part of the privileged ruling class, examples of this type abided in all parts of the country.
There was a case of one self-acclaimed socialist activist who confronted Ola Oni at a
United Action for Democracy (UAD) meeting about the self-determination struggle. This person
was later a Deputy Governor of one of the states in the north and a minister on the platform of
the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). One may ask whether the PDP is a platform of struggle
where the socialist dream can be realised. The platform of struggle of self determination is
definitely better than the compromising position of this comrade sharing platform with such a
right-wing political party as the PDP. This is not to say that comrades cannot vie for positions of
governor or even the presidency in bourgeois elections. Such is not new, Balarabe Musa, for
instance, was elected Governor of Kaduna State in 1979. This did not go to his head and he
used the position to forester the cause of the poor classes. No Comrade can deny this of him,
but this cannot be said today of our so-called comrades in positions of authority. The reason for
the divergent behaviour is difficult to understand. Balarabe was elected on a platform of struggle
and he has never changed his mind to contest elections on other platforms. Standing as a PDP
candidate tells us much about such people. They want to win elections by all means possible
and so shift ground and move away from what they professed in the past. They have indeed
degenerated. There is another person who has been three times Minister at the Federal level.
The first people he attacked on getting to office were his former colleagues (lecturers) at
university and the Campaign for Democracy (CD).
So, Ola Oni never wavered in his commitment to socialism. In fact he was still an active
leader of the Socialist Revolutionary Vanguard (SRV) till he died. All he was after was that the
socialist organization in the Yoruba area should be better organized and more capable of
capturing power than in a united Nigeria. This was for various reasons such as the opportunist
tendency associated with comrades in other parts of the country that only see their radical
posturing as a stepping stone to collaborate with bourgeois ruling class. However plausible this
position may look like, its futility is not far from being detected. First and foremost, it must be
realized that comrades from Yoruba/Western Nigeria have been consistent, committed and
active. This has never been because of possessing superior genes or their race, but this was
historically necessary by virtue of the capitalist structures that were strong in this geo-political

Page193

area.
This is also responsible for the forces of the opposition being stronger in this part of the
country. So, a revolutionary organization might be justified in concentrating its efforts in this area
because of the advantage that might be gained from doing so. Just as it is expedient for
success in commerce for entrepreneurs to establish in an area where they can have access to
market, labour, raw materials and other social infrastructures as ports, water, electricity etc); it is
inappropriate to restrict business operations within such a geo-political area. For business
considerations, of maximizing profits, a good entrepreneur will be interested in establishing its
market outpost in the hinterland for the purpose of increasing their rate of turnover and so
profits. In the same way, a revolutionary organization is expected to see the whole country as its
constituency (if not the whole world) despite its strategy of concentration in certain areas for
political exigency.
The traditions of struggle in different parts of the country in the past did not justify the claim that
the people in other parts of the country are not committed to struggle. Many factors have
accounted for such a state of limitation. This might have been due to a lack of a thorough
understanding of the ideology being professed, leadership problems, isolation, wearing out or
exhaustion etc. But the fact remains that for a sustainable revolutionary force there is a constant
need for renewal. There is the need for creativity in the mode of struggle. Efforts should be
made to raise cadres among the youths who will be able to take over the leadership from the
past leaders. Revolutionary organizations professing socialism that engage in the policies of
nationality groups will not be doing anything extraordinary that is outside its calling. They know
full well that such engagement is tactical and conditional, while the overall ideology and goal of
the organization remains imposing and as gallant as the Orole rock of Ikere-Ekiti.

Page194

CHAPTER FOURTEEN: EPILOGUE

The co-authors of this book, Biodun Olamosu and Ranti Olumoroti, students and political
associates of Comrade Ola Oni, were at Rantis office at Abadina Library U.I. discussing the
situation of the country in general, but along the line they fortuitously came to the idea of writing
the Biography of Comrade Ola Oni to express their appreciation of the contributions of the man
as a revolutionary that has no equal in political social engineering of the country.
Immediately a consensus was reached on this idea, Ranti suggested that we should go
to Comrade Ola Oni immediately to inform him of this position and that work should commence
on this immediately. This was how the work commenced in 1998.
When Comrade Ola Oni was informed of this plan, he had nothing against this, but he
wanted it to wait a bit till the time the current struggle of self-determination of ethnic Nationalities
would have been finally resolved. This position of asking us to put on hold the writing of the
book (at the time) by Comrade Ola Oni was informed because he did not want to be distracted
from his focus on the struggle at hand. At the time, unlike other participants in the struggle, he
did not believe the struggle has been concluded despite the politicking that was going on in
preparation for partisan politics. Before this duo (Biodun and Ranti) intimated Comrade of this
project, an associate of his who is a coomissioner in Lagos State had approached him that he
will sponsore his birthday ceremony; in recognition of his contribution to Nigeria. This he turned
down on the basis that he did not believe in such but ultimately he agreed to put down in writing
his remniscences which the comrade planned to finance. He accepted to do this on one
condition that he will not start the work until when the (present) struggle of self-determination of
nationalities has been concluded.
The death of Comrade Ola Oni, a Marxist, Socialist, revolutionary, emancipator,
journalist, trade unionist and University teacher was announced on December 23, 1999 when
he could not be revived the previous day at University College Hospital (UCH), Ibadan at 12.30
pm. He died at the age of 66 years.
As usual when a person died in Yoruba-land either highly or lowly, rich or poor, young or
old, people will always want to know the cause of such death.
Ola Oni case was then not an exception when people kept on enquiring about what
could have been the cause of his death at that age; more so that Comrade was physically
strong, energetic and hardly took ill. This was the very reason people were surprised that he
could take ill for two days and died thereafter. The authentic story of the family was that he took
ill on Monday December 20, 1999 complaining of body pains and was attended to at nearby
Hospital, St David Hospital at Akingbola Bodija, Ibadan where he was put on drips and drugs
were prescribed for him. On Tuesday, he left for Lagos to attend Press Conference to be
addressed by Afenifere chieftain, Senator Abraham Adesanya at Airport Hotel, Ikeja. On
returning from Lagos, he attended the ward meeting of his party, Alliance for Democracy (AD),
at Bodija at about 4 pm to give members report of the Press Conference he attended in Lagos.
On leaving the meeting, he returned home and retired to bed early enough at about 6 pm in the
evening. Family source pointed out that he woke up in the morning of Wednesday groaning in
pains and unable to talk. This was how he was rushed to UCH where he finally died. He was
later buried at his residence, 6 Odeku Close New Bodija, Ibadan on January 14, 2000.
The burial and other programmes that were organised in commemoration of the life and
death of Ola Oni include such activities as symposium, procession and rally among other things.
Page195

The ceremony drew together many people across the country that Ola Oni had touched their
lives at one time or the other. This include the young and old, students, workers, University
teachers, socialists, artisans, politicians, journalists, Yoruba Cultural groups (OPC Apapo Omo
Yoruba, Yoruba Liberation Movement, etc), NLC, and Trade Unions, ASUU, NANS, AD, DSM,
UAD, CD, NCP, SRV, Ministers, Commissioners, Governors, and other Statemen,
representatives of Obas, University Dons, Businessmen and relatives. To mention but a few
personalities that grace the occasion, they include: Bola Ige, Beko Ransome Kuti, F.O. Onoge,
Akin Ojo, Olorode, Jimi Adesina, Femi Falana, Femi Aborisade, Dipo Fasina, Bayo Aborisade,
Moshood Erubami, Adams Oshiomhole, S.O.Z. Ejiofor, Ayo Adebanjo, Osagie Obajuwana, Femi
Israel, D.D. Adodo, Barrister Gbenga Awosode, Biodun Aremu, Wale Adeoye, Yinka Odumakin,
Laoye Sanda, G.G. Darah, Bala Omojola, Gbenga Komolafe, Murumba, Lanre Arogundade, Ayo
Arogundade, Remi Ogunlana, Funmi Adewumi, Sola Olorunyomi, Doyin Odebowale, Bolomope
Ibrahim, Bayo Owolabi, Ranti Olumoroti, Biodun Olamosu, Sylvester Odion, Chima Ubani,
Solomon Oluajo, Nkem Onyekpe, Femi Obayori, etc Governors Niyi Adebayo, Lam Adesina,
Tinubu, Segun Osoba and a host of others not less important.
Edwin Madunagu and Eskor Toyo on their own initiative organized a befitting burial
ceremony at Calabar for the commemoration of life and death of Ola Oni in the best tradition of
Socialist movement. The occasion was graced by many workers, students and University dons
and other patriotic Nigerians as well.
The popular press in the country wrote tributes and editorial comments on Ola Oni. In
the two pages Tribute of Socialist Democracy, titled: Ola Oni: Outstanding Socialist Teacher and
fighter, the paper discussed the contributions of Ola Oni in the struggle for emancipation of the
poor. The paper therefore stated that: The greatest tribute that socialist can pay to the memory
of Ola Oni is to redouble the efforts to propagate socialism and also increase the fold of
revolutionary forces with a view to make a socialist revolution which can pave way to a worker
and peasant government that will be capable of consistently implementing economic and
political policies that can guarantee better life for working masses. For todays socialists the
struggles for self-determination and for better life are dialectically related struggle. There can be
no room for valid separation of one from another. If these basic tenets are resolutely pursued,
then the current generation of socialist will be able to take the struggle for socialism to the
enviable heights worked for and desired by the older generation of socialist leaders and fighters
like Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Lenin, Leon Trotsky and to a considerable degree, Ola Oni
himself.
Edwin Madunagu, who himself is a socialist and a mathematician has this to say on Ola Oni:
When I learnt in the evening of Wednesday December 22, 1999 that Comrade Ola Oni was
dead earlier in the day in Ibadan; I was shock more forcefully than ever before that the general
sta of the Nigerian Socialist Movement which brought my own genera on to Marxist
consciousness was gradually passing into history. Tributes to Comrade Ola Oni referred to him
explicitly as a prodemocracy and human rights activist and implicitly as an activist leader of
ethnic nationalism. The only appropriate word here is activist, because Ola Oni was indeed an
activist in the best sense of the popular democracy and fought for more than four decades. But
he did not come to democracy via imperialist inspired prodemocracy movement of the 1990s.
Ola Onis popular democratic politics for these four decades included at its very core the
struggle for, and defence of fundamental and all embracing human rights generally and as they
relate to the conditions of the masses. Ola Oni was a Marxist, a communist and ipso facto, a
socialist and a humanist. He was an intellectual of the working class. Ola Oni was a proletarian
fighter of international reach and perspectives. But above all, Ola Oni was a revolutionary,
where this means having an active and activist commitment to overturning the existing
enslaving, exploitative, anti- people and oppressive social order by destroying its roots.
Page196

Baba Omojola who has been his political associate since when they were together in
Britain in the 1950s commented as thus: An evaluation of the life of Ola Oni must also be an
appraisal of his times and introduction to the history of agitation in Nigeria since independence.
My own encounter with him was first in the late 50s in the corridor of the British library of
political and economic science at Clara market in London at night and at meetings of the
Nigerian Socialist Movement in London. In Nigeria, I had interacted with him in several protests,
agitation and struggle. Omojola recounted that Ola Oni was the first to see through Abachas
ridiculous administration when Ola Oni was distributing leaflets saying precisely that Abacha is a
thief while most of the people would say merely that he was corrupt.
In his own tribute, Chief Gani Fawehinmi expressed shock over Ola Onis death. He said
if it is true (that Ola Oni had died), then the authentic progressive and people oriented radical
group of the polity would have lost a frontline crusader for truth and social justice. He said
further that: He (Ola Oni) devoted his entire life to championing the causes of the masses. Ola
Oni, according to Fawehinmi, used his talent as an intellectual to advance the cause of the
masses.
Oni was always prepared to match with the people, to fight with the people, suffer with
the people. His entire life centred around the people. The Lagos Lawyer (Gani Fawehinmi)
remembered his first intimate relationship with the late economist in 1971 when a crisis erupted
in U. I. He (Gani) represented the students in the Justice Kazeem Judicial Commission
investigating issues surrounding the crisis. He (Oni) fed us with his money. He housed us
without asking for a kobo.
Femi Aborisade, a student and political associate of Ola Oni for many years lamented in
his tribute that was read by him at the burial ceremony (rally) on 14th January 2000. The
statement pointed out as follows: Comrade Ola Oni, you have departed us at a time when you
deserve to take a rest after the heroic struggles against military dictatorship. But we know that
no matter how high a tree may grow, the falling leaves would inevitably return to the roots.
Therefore, though you have gone, we cherish your memory that is more potent, more present,
than some individuals whose mission is to enslave the masses. Comrade Ola Oni, your life as
a great man, is a great lesson to some of us, in many respects: You taught us to live a principled
life. In poverty, you remained committed to the struggles to emancipate the masses without
expecting any personal material benefits; You taught us to realize that there is a need for the
masses to be organized in a political party or parties opposed to those of their oppressors; for
the greater part of your life you taught us to appreciate that the root cause of the socioeconomic and political crises lies in our colonial history and its capitalist economic framework
and that the ultimate way out lies in a socialist revolution; Comrade Ola Oni, you were not only a
man of ideas but also a man of courage. At an old age, you risked your freedom and life
challenging military dictatorship. Though your physical body is gone, you live forever as your
ideas live in the hearts of man.
A student of Comrade Ola-Oni at U.I. Ibadan, who is now a lecturer of History and
Political Economy at University of Lagos, Dr. Nkem Onyekpe has this to say: Comrade Ola-Oni
was easily the most committed to the cause of the wretched of the Nigerian earth. He realized
quite early in his career, and involvement in proletarian struggles as Vladimir Lenin did long ago
in Russia that the masses (Workers, Farmers and Youths) could be liberated only on the basis
of a socialist revolution. He (Ola Oni) began by promoting revolutionary scholarship at Ibadan
where he groomed young intellectuals who then graduated to spread proletarian ideas about
liberation and freedom. He then formed a number of Marxist-Socialist organizations such as
Marxist-Leninist study group for students and the Socialist Party of Workers, Farmers and Youth
Page197

(later known as Socialist Workers Party).

That Comrade Ola-Oni was Nigerias own Vladimir Lenin is not an overstatement, for although
in his lifetime and struggles he did not lead the Nigerian workers through a successful Socialist
Revolution, he was clearly focused in theory and praxis on the Revolution. The best way to
immortalize Onis name is for all progressive and socialist forces to overcome their sectarianism
and other problems and fight more than ever before for the socialist reconstruction of Nigeria
along Popular-Democratic lines.
The one page tribute of G.G. Darah (student and political associate of Ola-Oni) (Sunday
l6th January 2000) captioned the whole essence of Ola-Oni. The tribute was titled: Oni and the
Radical Tradition at Ibadan. the article/tribute stated that: Comrade Ola-Oni whose mortal
remains were submitted to the from dust to dust commuted over the weekend is both planter
and harvester of that splash of rush and gold. In 36 years of ceaseless struggles and political
work, Ola-Oni and the generations he spurned made revolutionary thought and radical politics to
scatter throughout Nigeria like broken China in the sun.
Onis arrival in Ibadan changed the place. The British colonial establishment banned
socialist movements and literature in the country. The policy remained in force even after
independence. Activists had to operate clandestinely and in disguise. Some change names the
way the Russian Bolsheviks like Leon Trosky did. Socialist advocates were frequently arrested
and detained. The secret police had apartheid white South African officer posing as British
experts. The communists were denied passports and visas. Oni was never allowed to travele
out of the country from l963 (after his studies in Britain) till he died. Inspite of the hostile
environment, Oni went to Ibadan to introduce Marxist courses in Economics. And the university
never remained the same thereafter. He brought academic integrity to socialism and devotees.
Soon, others joined him on this path, including Professor Bade Onimode (his former student)
also in Economics; Harvard trained Anthropologist, Professor Onafume Friday and a pioneer
nuclear Physicists, Professor Akin Ojo. For blazing the trail, Oni did not escape the usual
victimization suffered by heretics; the University (Ibadan) held back his promotion, alleging he
was teaching ideology, not scholarship! But he ignored them.
When I (Darah) arrived in Ibadan in l970, the campus was already polarized in two rival
constituencies; a small radical, anti-imperialist but popular trend on the one hand and a large
pro-establishment, run of the mill section on the other. A large number hovered in-between
shifting positions according to prevailing trends. The l967-70 civil war had rattled
consciousness. The social sciences faculty and the campus-based Nigerian Institute of Social
and Economic Research (NISER) were the sanctuary of leading theoreticians and policy
dreamers. The post civil war reconstruction years made economics and political science the
prime disciplines. The likes of Onitiri, Tunji Aboyade, Billy Dudley, Allison Ayida and their fellow
travellers bestrode the intelligentsia like colossus. Under Onis leadership, the Marxists tackled
them head on. What economic and social route was Nigeria to take after the illusion-shattering
experience of the war? The bourgeois school favoured private enterprise with foreign investors
in the vanguard. The Marxists rooted for outright, at least substantial indigenisation. Onitiri and
Ayida I think edited an economic conference proceeding on the matter. Shortly after, Ola-Oni,
Onimode and Akin Ojo jointly published a rejoinder with the title: Economic Development of
Nigeria: The Socialist Alternative.
Workers Education Journal, a monthly publication of Dr. M.E. Kolagbodi Memorial
Foundation titled its tribute on Ola-Oni: Comrade Ola-Oni-A Great Loss to the Labour
Movement. The paper pointed out: You will not find his name in who is who, never. But he is
one of the greatest Nigerians who ever lived. He passed through the Nigerian rubble, like a
Page198

dashing star, luminous yet ignored, a cross the firmament and the people preferred the
darkness to the light that he was. His path was straight; the light was bright; the message was
distincts and clear, the intensity was consistent. They ignored him, sometimes even by those
who want to be like him. Ola Oni, Comrade for short and to millions, was indeed and in truth the
authentic Comrade of the exploited; the worker, the peasant, the unemployed, the artisan and
the intellectual.
Until his demise on December 22nd l999, Comrade Ola Oni was a resource person with
Dr. M.E. Kolagbodi Memorial Foundation (KMF). In one of his joint assignments with KMF in
September l999, he came to Lagos from Ibadan as usual by bus, very ill and yet determined to
go with us to Kano and Jos for a week programme of grassroots workers education. Of course
Ola Oni did complete the assignment with us. The Board of Trustees, members of Dr. M.E.
Kolagbodi Memorial Foundation and numerous beneficiaries of our grassroots workers
education programme in which Comrade Oni was actively involved, certainly we miss this great
labour icon, we mourn him and we will continue to be inspired by his invaluable contribution to
the labour movement. Adieu, Comrade Ola Oni. The labour and progressive community in Black
Africa has lost you but history has gained you.
In his own tribute titled: Comrade Ola Oni: The struggle, his life, Chief Ebenezer
Babatope pointed out that Ola Oni was a beloved Comrade throughout his entire life. We can
confidently say, today, while reviewing Comrade Ola Onis sojourn on earth that, struggle was
his entire life just the same way as old man Nelson Mandela had titled his
autobiography-struggle is my life. No discussion was meaningful with Comrade Ola Oni unless
it was strictly political. He was Marxist to the core. He loved it. He taught it for many years in the
Department of Economics, University of Ibadan where he created Political Economy course. He,
in his lifetime practised the tenets of socialism until he breathed his last. We all loved him and
he loved us in return. He was a teacher, a leader, and a builder. He was in the first republic
one of the socialist activists who had pulled out of the Dr. Tunji Otegbeye led Socialist Workers
and Farmers Party (SWAFP) to form the Labour Party led by old man Michael Omnibus Imoudu.
Mention the socialist movement of the 70s and early 80s that did not have Comrade Ola Oni
either as the moving spirit or as an active participant. There is none. Mention the student leader
who identified himself or herself with revolutionary ideals of the 60s, 70s and even till now who
will claim never to have met Ola Oni. There is none. There is no radical activism of the labour,
farmers and students movements in Nigeria since l960s that Comrade Ola Oni had not been
actively involve. When in 1965, the Tafawa Balewa led NPC government arrested the late Sidi
Khayam, Comrade Olu Adebayo and a British Trade Unionist, Victor Allen and charged them
with an attempt to overthrow the government, the police and the special branch of the time
fingered Comrade Ola Oni as the brain behind the group, Arrested trived without number,
detained several times as radical activities of students and workers, brutalized by fellow
politicians of the SDP in Ibadan in 1991. Comrade Ola Oni was never ruffled till the very end.
He was one of the souls and conscience of socialism in Nigeria. His house at Ibadan
served as the center of events for radical forces throughout his entire life.
Ayo Adebanjo in reacting to Ola Onis death pointed out that: He was one of the most
dedicated progressives Nigeria has produced. He was a great nationalist, a great patriot and a
great Yoruba priest. He is also a rare gem amongst the progressive, very unmaterialistic. It will
be difficult to find his type in the country, particularly when a lot of the Young Progressives are
after bread and butter.
Alafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi III on reacting to the news of the death of Ola Oni he
called for the institution of a national hall of fame where Onis name would be immortalized and
Page199

his legacy preserved for posterity. The monarch said such hall of fame should chronicle the
positive exploits of altruistic Nigerians who rendered selfless service to humanity. He remarked
that Oni deserved such honour in view of his tireless sacrifice and contributions to democratic
struggle. Alafin said further that: although death is a due everybody will pay, but that he has
died at this time is very painful. He was in the foremost of the crusade for the enthronement of
democratic rule in the country. Unfortunately he did not live long to enjoy the fruits of his labour
and reap the benefit of the crusade. Oba Adeyemi paid tribute to the Late Ola Oni, who he said
discountenanced the threat to his life during the dictatorial regime of the late General Sani
Abacha.
In the tribute of Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) to the late Comrade Ola Oni that was
expressed in the statement issued by the Acting General Secretary of the organization,
Comrade John Odah, NLC described the Late Comrade as a very close associate of the NLC
and the working class movement in Nigeria; who will be remembered for his dedication and
commitment to a socialist transformation of Nigeria. NLC note that Comrade Ola Oni was at the
Vanguard of Labours several attempts at the formation of a political party from the 60s. The
statement also added that Comrade Ola Oni suffered several deprivations for his belief and
activism; it recalled that following the 1978 Ali Must Go student crisis, Comrade Ola Oni was at
the head of progressive Marxist intellectuals thrown out of the University by the then General
Obasanjo Administration allegedly for instigating the crisis. Following the 1998 May Day protest
against the self succession plan of late General Sani Abacha, under the auspices of United
Action for Democracy, Comrade Ola Oni was one of the prominent activists arrested and
imprisoned as prisioner of war. NLC finally said: The working class movement has lost a cadre,
teacher, motivator, fighter and foremost proletarian intellectual.
Lagos state Governor, Ahmed Tinubu extols the virtues of Ola Oni. In his tribute to the
late Comrade, he (Tinubu) noted that the deceased was a great Nigerian who strove
passionately to improve the lot of the poor. Tinubu further stated that: Throughout his life,
Comrade Ola Oni was consistent in his commitment to the ideals of social justice, truth, equity
and fairness. He added: He was a passionate crusader for the upliftment of the down-trodden
from the humiliating grip of poverty, squalor and degradation. Indeed this was the consuming
passion of his life.
Poets like Niyi Osundare, Ogaga Ifowodu and Femi Obayori paid their tributes in poetic
form.
Niyi Osundare who was also one of the political students of Ola Oni and later his
colleague at the University of Ibadan extols the virtue of Ola Oni in this poem titled: The real
Authentic Comrade. (5/1/2000)
In the poem, he stated as follows:
A life of commitment and dedication
Full of courage
Empowered by vision
True and strong
Dependable like an umbreakable pledge
Page200

Live on, Comrade Ola Oni

Live on, visionary spirit
No one can talk about people like you
In the past tense
Thank you for enriching our lives
For putting the spark in our hearth
For showing the way
Live on, Comrade!

Ogaga Ifowodus short poem is as follows (2/1/2000):

How long he lived?
Long enough to make eternity !
And how well he lived?
So well, any parent would want their child to be like him
Those still unsold to the decadence of the day
Action Comrade

Femi Obayori poetic words extray life and virtue of Ola Oni as thus (23/12/99):

Death is a debt
We all owe;
The wages of good
Is death
The wages of evil
From the earth We
are made; To the
Earth
We must return;
Page201

From the Earth;

We get life;
To Earth

We must give life;

Life is death

Page202

And death is life;

Life is transient

Death is permanent

What we sow in life

We reap in death

Life is transient

And what we give

Life permanent

Death is a debt

We all owe

The wages of good

And the wages of evil

(Nothing more to say).

The authors of this book Biodun Olamosu and Ranti Olumoroti were both students and
political associate of Comrade Ola Oni.
In their tribute (Daily Sketch of they extol the role of Ola Oni in the contemporary struggle
against the military rule: Ola Oni role in the June 12 struggle that came thereafter will ever be
remembered. He was a leading figure of Campaign For Democracy (CD) and United Action For
Democracy (UAD). The two coalitions at

Page203

different times that were at the battle front against Babangida and Abacha maximum military
rulers. Ola Oni was a victim of the military repression. He was being moved from one detention
camp to another. Even though detention was not new to him because in the course of his
revolutionary duty, he had been to detention times without number but this last one of May 1,
1998 when Oyo state Military Administrator, Colonel A. Usman described Ola Oni and others as
Prisoners of War was the worst detention, he had never experienced. He spent two months at
Iyaganku police detention and Agodi prison altogether. He complaint seriously against the poor
treatment meted to them and the poor conditions of the Agodi prison where people were dying
on a daily basis. It is generally believed that this was the beginning of Ola Oni death that was to
be formalised on Wednesday 22nd December, 1999.
Ola Oni till his death remained active, partisan politician and revolutionary turent. Ola Oni
died as a great leader and hero of the unfolding popular struggle. Before his death, he was a
member of Justice Kolade Panel instituted by Oyo State Government to probe the past military
regimes in the state. He also served as the SDP sole administrator in Benue State in 1992-93.
Above all, as a scholar, Ola Oni was a respected intellectual of the working class at the
University of Ibadan where he taught economics and political economy for twenty-four years
before he retired in 1987. He was a good debater blessed with oratory power of communication
and a prolific writer.
Apart from being a publisher of a socialist paper- Workers Vanguard and Nigerian
Vanguard, he was a regular contributor to academic journals and popular press like Daily Times
that was most popular press in the 1970s and Labour Punch Newspaper (a weekly paper). He
authored many pamphlets including Towards a Socialist Political System for Nigeria; The
programme for the Working People; His major published work with Bade Onimede in 1975 was
titled: Economic Development of Nigeria: The Socialist Alternative.
Ola Onis contribution to the spread of socialist ideas has no equal in the country. He
was able to achieve this fit through his bookshop which was stocked with radical and socialist
books. Ola Onis house is to socialists what Mecca is to practicing Muslims. Comrade Ola Oni is
survived by children, a committed and supportive wife who herself is a woman activist in her
own right, Mrs. Kehinde Ola Oni and his political associates. With the exit of this great man in
class struggle, the working class and student youths have no doubt lost a class fighter that is
irreplaceable. But our solace lies in the legacy that he has left behind for the oppressed class
fighter to learn from.
Lanre Arogundade, a journalist, political activist and former NANS President wrote in
Sunday Concord of January 9, 2000 edition a tribute on Ola Oni titled: Death of a Comrade.
Desirous to continue revolutionary activity after life in the University campus, it was to Comrade
Ola Onis Workers Vanguard that some members of our generation turned upon leaving the
Ivory Tower in the mid-eighties. It was a rewarding experience writing for and selling the
Workers Vanguard Newspaper at schools and in workplaces. It was a more rewarding
experience working with the group whose General Secretary then was Dr. G.G. Darah and
which paraded the likes of Femi Aborisade and Laoye Sanda.
You had to be well prepared ideologically and politically to engage Comrade in a debate.
He would argue with all the forces at his disposal though usually starting on a low tempo, with a
low voice before exploding. If you dont feel it that imperialism is milking our people, the
masses, I feel it, I feel it in my blood. Sometimes Comrade would say. Such intense debates

Page204

arose over the future of the South African Revolution affiliation to an international socialist
working class organization, Trotskyism and Marxism-themes, which he was very familiar with
having started off in London as a young school activist in the days of the existence of different
socialist groups. So ardent, so passionate, so well versed in political economy and so
committed. Comrade was concerned about building cadres even to a fault. If I am to propose
an epitaph on Comrade Ola Onis gravestone, I will simply state; Here lies a genuine Comrade,
who taught comradely, fought comradely, related comradely, lived comradely, and died
comradely. Still, it is so hard to believe that a man who literally speaking was always on the
move is no more.
Tunde Aremu, a senior correspondent of The Punch Newspaper in his article titled
Comrade to the end has this to say on Ola Oni: He was never tired of fighting. If the whole of
Comrade Oladipupo Onis life could be summarized in just one sentence, it would be written of
him. He was a fighter. For many sensitive youths of this country who passed through the tertiary
institutions in Nigeria in the 1970s and the 1980s Comrade Ola Oni was a symbol of
consistency in the agitation for the down-trodden and an equitable society. His consistency
perhaps is better appreciated among those who shared his political and economic views of the
organization of the Nigerian society. Whereas most of the people with whom he had shared his
world view of a society organized on the Marxist philosophy have either totally abandoned the
position or have lost credibility via opportunistic actions. Ola Oni continued to be treated with
respect.
At the collapse of the Stalinist state of the Soviet Union, many people who had claimed
to be Marxists lost their bearing. The rise of human rights activism was to take more of their
time, especially those working outside the academic environment. Comrade Ola Oni, however
never for once wavered. Even when he joined some political parties, such as the Social
Democratic Party (SDP), created by Babangida and later the Alliance for Democracy (AD) he
never ceased to talk of the society organized according to the dictates of socialist philosophy as
the ideal one. He, for instance, was one of the conveners, not long ago, of a meeting of all the
leftist organizations in the country aimed at exploring the possibility of an all left party.
A young prolific writer and journalist, Reuben Abati wrote in his column in Guardian
Newspaper of January 21, 2000 where he fictionalized the event of Ola Onis death. In this
article titled: Where are the Marxists? The author reported as thus: The burial of Comrade Ola
Oni could not have been without drama. The Comrade lived an eventful, dramatic life, as
university teacher and as an active student of society and its politics and contradictions.
Obviously, however, he did not take the precaution of dictating how he should be buried, and
hence, the crisis of ideology, particularly the Marxist ideology to which he subscribed was
signposted in the course of his burial.
Friends of the departed comrade in Calabar, led by Eskor Toyo and Edwin Madunagu,
according to one report, resolved not to attend the bourgeois capitalist burial which they thought
Onis family was planning in Ibadan. In protest, clearly, they chose to organize their own burial
a progressive, Marxist Socialist burial. Labelling was part of the ideology of Marxism and its long
drawn fight with capitalism. Oni was himself one of the leading exponents of those labels one
against the other.
The burial in Calabar stayed within the paradigm. Toyo and Madunagu made speeches.
A collection of vanishing comrades, and unrepentant comrades, clad in jeans, and faded
windcheaters remembered a departed comrade. There were reports of the Calabar burial in

Page205

newspapers, but no photographs. Marxists dont like ceremonies, I am told.

The bourgeois capitalist burial in Ibadan however, was of a different sort. Children and
wife of Comrade Ola Oni were gorgeously dressed in capitalist Aso oke and fitting caps and
headgears. The Comrade himself was buried in an expensive looking casket, borne aloft by
equally gorgeously attired pall-bearers. All the capitalists, those whom the Comrade railed
against, seemed to have been in attendance. Capitalist newspapers gave the burial full
coverage. Capitalist pall bearers made good money from the burial. It wasnt a poor Comrade
going to Heaven; the Comrade had a burial that looked like a religious worship. In death, it was
the capitalist ethic that greeted the occasion of the burial of one of the most consistent Marxists
in our society.
In x-raying the activities and character of the Marxists that include Ola Oni in the political
history of the country, Abati went further to add In the 70s and up till 1990, Marxism enjoyed
much patronage in the Nigerian society. The disappointment that followed independence, the
angst and anxiety of the post-independence era, the failure of the emergent political class and
the nouveaux riche resulted in intellectual circles I a determined search for an alternative
tradition. Alternative, in this instance, was considered synonymous with change. Change was
analysed as a pseudonym for revolution. At the vanguard of this search for change, emerged a
group of Marxists, or Socialists, or Communists as their critics preferred to call them. They were
gifted in rhetoric and analysis. Educated in Europe, America, but significantly in the Soviet
Union, and Eastern Europe, they worshipped at the alter of Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Frederick
Engels and all the other apostles of the socialist ideology. They reduced societys problems to
the crisis of class oppression and spoke of a countervailing force, namely the dictatorship of the
proletariat, the common ownership of labour and resources, as a way of freeing society from the
evil grip of a parasitic bourgeois class.
In virtually every discipline, but remarkably in literature and the social sciences, the
socialist option became a standard paradigm for serious analysis. The class perspective
became an industry to which scholars like Biodun Jeyifo and Chidi Amuta and Femi Osofisan in
literature and Eskor Toyo, Bade Onimode, Omafume Onoge, Okwudiba Nnolo, Ola Oni, Edwin
Madunagu etc in the social sciences devoted their energies and entire careers. What was even
instructive was not so much the content of Marxist intellectualism but the style of its devotees.
To be a Marxist was quite a style in itself, complete with attitudes. They called
themselves Comrades. They wore berets, heavy beards, not to have a hair cut until the battle
against capitalism had been won. Their ready allies in society were members of labour unions
and student unions anyone who was on the side of the poor and the dispossessed. Together,
they constituted that large ideological category, identified effectively as the left. In a way, these
Marxists, even when they belonged to the middle class affected the attitudes of the poor. They
were cheap clothes and shunned any form of ostentation. Capitalism were considered enemies
of the people. Intellectuals who supported capitalism were dismissed as agents of the CIA,
America lackeys as it were, and the Marxists waited for an euphoric moment when the
bourgeoisie will vanish from the surface of the earth. The duel between the capitalists and the
Marxists was taken to the pages of newspapers. Young men, then studying in the universities,
were compelled to stand on this or that side. By 1990 however, the forces of capitalism turned
out to be eventual winners. The collapse of communism and the unravelling of the Soviet Union
signalled the failure of Marxism, and the triumph of capitalism leading to a uni-polar world in
which the American ethic became the dominant ethic.

Page206

In Nigeria, the Marxists resisted the kind of change that was sweeping through Eastern Europe
and the Soviet Union. They argued that what had failed was not Marxism but the Stalinist model
and that this disruption was an inevitable stage in the movement towards the evolution of
Communism. Edwin Madunagu who had defended Communistm withevery strand of hair on his
head, told anyone who card to listen that he was certain Communism will re-emerge, and
triumph.

Page207