The recent utterances of the leader of the British Conservative Party, Ms Kemi Badenoch, on further stringent immigration measures remind me of my maiden trip across the Cotonou Benin/Nigeria border in 2016 to attend a colloquium at the Universite Abome-Calavi. From regretting to ignore the advice of the driver to follow an Appian route in order to escape both official and unofficial extortion at the border, through refusing to return to use the ATM in Nigeria after being extorted with the hope that the machines in Benin would be compatible with a dollar debit card, to experiencing disappointments at the banks and ATM machines leading to being stranded in a strange country where my JSS 3 French became insufficient to comfortably navigate basic communication exchanges; the trip became an education of a lifetime that shaped my historical understanding of personhood, values and relations of power. While my predicament was well known among conference participants that were dominated by fellow West Africans, it was a Moroccan, Elmaarouf, who was gracious enough to buy me dinner, while a fellow Nigerian that I had traveled with left me behind in the country as punishment for cautioning her against some excesses.
While the organization of the conference was far from pleasant, especially having been initially housed in a dilapidated hotel for being African while European participants enjoyed the luxury of comfortable accommodation (this was rectified after protest on boycotting the colloquium), the conference organizers at least ensured I got back to the border safely after the event. During my arrival trip, a Beninois immigration officer had told me that the culture of border extortion had been introduced from the Nigerian axis and that they (the Beninois officers) never billed their citizens at the border. All of these experiences were therefore put within a context by a quote that I saw on the wall of one of the slave museums in Ouidah, which implied that though the Europeans introduced slavery (which itself was a wrong premise), African kings and merchants sold their brothers into slavery. This narrative of normalizing betrayal so as to exculpate the perpetrators of the magnitude of dehumanization and carnage that characterized the transatlantic slave trade resonates with the pretext of indirect rule that was subjugated to alien despots who occupied the colonies. It triggered the awareness that the Yoruba adage ‘Omo ina la n ran s’ina’ (neutralizing an entity is effective by deploying its kind) had been the imperial operational method with the long-term vision to rewrite history in perpetuating the morality of imperial subjugation. This has not only been characteristic of British politics abroad, but subsists in the competitive expression of the far-right politics at home.
My suspicion of this appropriation of narrative was later confirmed this year when I encountered a friend’s research on the notorious Portuguese slave dealer, Jorge Fremigo; who was killed for violating his pact with the Ogu, which forbade him from enslaving their kinsmen. At the colloquium, I had been very uncomfortable with not being able to communicate effectively with my fellow Yoruba kind based on linguistic colonial structures, while the German co-organizers of the event could comfortably communicate with them in French, and myself and others from Anglophone countries in English. I then understood the naivety of some African scholars and commentators in the boat of moving beyond colonialism, while every day we remain trapped within its ossified structures designed to subjugate us eternally. Some African scholars, who despite being born and bred on the continent, follow the bandwagon of exonerating the West of the guilt of slave trade, while they dissociate themselves from similar attempts by Elon Musk, who recently urged the Alternative for Germany Party to erase the guilt of Nazism from the country. Not only are such endeavors designed to perpetuate the injustices of the past, corroborative assertions like ‘moving forward’ and ‘salvaging civilization’ fit into the Nazi rhetoric on modernity. These often serve to demean ‘the other’ as backward and inferior to the extent of being subhuman. These expressions thus serve as foundations for hate crimes, be it slavery or genocide. While the dynamism of culture has never been in doubt, and this was aptly captured by Guy Debord’s definition of culture as the product of frictions between tradition and innovation; the assumption that cultural progress is an exclusive reserve of certain geographies – that are mainly beneficiaries of the evils of plunder and hate of their forebears, is a fallacy of disillusion. This resonates with the Nietzschean critique of European modernity in his On the Genealogy of Morality, where he described the double standards of European culture, where decorum at home often paved the way for bestiality in environments outside of their cultural constraints, where they sought to legitimized barbarism.
This is why one cannot but wonder the confusion that Ms Kemi Badenoch’s allusion to a British culture breeds, all in the attempt for a clampdown on immigrants. What is the British culture one may ask? The falsehood of imperial morality stares glaringly at one in the face in response. For clarity, it is typical of the hypocrisy that characterizes her polity of choice, and uncritical allegiance to her political accomplices, to admonish that Britain should not be embarrassed about its colonial past; on the basis that it was practiced by other countries and remains in the past. Her speeches have been laced with arguments against reparations through the valorization of colonialism; while asserting that colonialism and slavery were not fundamental to Britain’s industrial and commercial wealth that, according to her, were created during the Glorious Revolution. Some persons who align with her line of argument maintain that ‘domestic consumption, education, coal and rule of law’ brought Britain prosperity during the industrial revolution. It is indeed laughable that this isolationist argument is premised on the fact that other European countries and African Empires that practiced colonialism and/or slavery could not industrialize. What needs to be highlighted is that the gains of the Glorious Revolution were built on political reforms that put hitherto unchecked monarchical powers under parliamentary oversight. This belated change is, on the other hand, quite informative regarding the political lag in Britain at the time; especially as African monarchies, in particular, had functioning checks and balances that eventually became disrupted by colonial despots. One of the fallouts of the political reforms, however, was the economic resilience that was largely built on taxation, which included slave taxes and returns from the colonies. An account of British colonial taxation at the time has been detailed in William Hill’s 19th Century trailblazing article: ‘Colonial Tariffs’ that was published in The Quarterly Journal of Economics, with the United Stated as a case study. It is thus incorrect, even within the reforms of the Great Revolution, to assert that colonialism and slavery were not responsible for industrialization in Britain. The colonies were not only helpful in peace times, and their contributions during the Great War are well documented in the January 26, 1915 speech of Rt. Hon. Lewis Harcourt, MP, Secretary of State for the Colonies titled: A Free Empire in War Time.
While it is within one’s right to hold brief for a beneficial system, it is dishonorable to do so by undermining heritage systems with foundational benefits, even if there were unpleasant experiences. It is cliché to mention that there isn’t a perfect system anywhere, and while multiple factors may be responsible for what obtains in different climes, the deficits in Nigeria’s infrastructure also provided some leverage, along with the many challenges. While fortune favors the brave, the country is in no way lacking in terms of successful international figures; not least is the outstanding Director-General of the World Trade Organization, who earned her second tenure unopposed. Matter of fact, she had rallied the support of her countries of affiliation during the first term rather than seeking every opportunity to berate her country of birth. Despite the challenges that confronted her while she served under different Nigerian governments, she has consistently promoted her Nigerian heritage through her public appearance. Dr Okonjo-Iweala is not short of media attention, but is yet to boast of one viral video where she has undermined Nigeria or Africa, even while being honest with their challenges. Her recent interview with Fareed Zakaria on the challenges to global free trade highlighted why she has achieved and retained high-level success, especially through her resolve that diplomacy creates a more sustainable path to national economic prosperity than revenge and/or antagonism.
Even in terms of origins, Dr Femi Adegoke, an ardent enthusiast for Yoruba progress and leader of Voice of Reasoning, had opted for a Yoruba autonomy within a restructured Nigeria while he called for a constitutional review before the 2023 elections during an interview with the BBC. However, the British Conservative Party leader may have taken her father’s proposition a step further in an interview with The Spectator by not only identifying less with Nigeria than with the Yoruba, but also stereotyping Northern Nigeria as Boko Haram Islamists and ethnic enemy of the Yoruba. It is needless to engage such farce with the plethora of narratives in literature, broadly considered as encapsulating audiovisual materials as well, which have long settled the debates on inherent diversity amidst the propaganda of one North; not just in terms of ethnicity, but religion as well. Beyond this, there are also factual representations of consanguinity between the Yoruba and groups in Northern Nigeria as documented in historical research. It is however disappointing that such ethnic distinctions were not reflected in a viral letter to the Nigerian community, while she solicited for votes in the bid to secure a seat to represent Dulwich and West Norwood in the parliament, during the 2010 UK general elections. It is hypocritical that she would express disappointment in a Nigerian woman criticizing her for being Yoruba, while admonishing that ‘we really need to get out of this mindset where we are fighting one another and try and support each other instead.’ Except Ms Kemi Badenoch distances herself from this letter, it would be difficult to consider her of better ethical standards than corrupt politicians she claims to so much detest.
Such contradictions are however not unexpected with the complications of a religious identity as a cultural Christian, which rightly emphasizes belief in practice, but doubts the existence of God while professing agnosticism. Such complications, which must be respected as a matter of personal choice, also provide some insights on the personality of the adherent. While it is indubitable that Nigeria does impoverish its citizens, and she may have been fortunate to escape to Britain with her father’s last £100, it is not also untrue that the country has also empowered people who have advanced to become success stories, on merit. Indeed, beyond normalising trauma, some other people consider the positives of ‘fetching water in hefty, rusty buckets from a borehole a mile away,’ as luxury, compared to what they had to experience to make success of themselves; where success itself is relative. It indeed takes one’s upbringing to properly process the social dimensions of compassion, association, camaraderie and lifetime bonds that such ‘water encounters’ provide, beyond the ephemeral discomfort that is not peculiar to Nigeria. Yes, Nigeria is challenged with a corrupt political class and insecurity, but so is Britain and all other countries of the world; even if in varying degrees. It is therefore faulty logic to continuously attempt to consolidate far-right narratives by presenting political and security challenges as exclusive to certain climes.
It is also inappropriate political propaganda to discard the ideals of socialism alongside its abuse by fascist regimes, especially with the evolution of centrist ideologies that defies ideological polarities. It is worse to propagate falsehood that Nigeria is a socialist country with corrupt leadership, while the evidence of corruption basically stems from primitive accumulation founded on the uncensored greed of liberal capitalism. While Ms Kemi Badenoch is quick to demonize the Nigerian police by contrasting it with the British police – packaged as a model institution, various legacy media outlets on November 5, 2024 reported that at least 600 police officers were dismissed in England and Wales within a year from March 2024. This was based on a series of misconducts including rape and other sexual offences, child exploitation, as well as dishonest and discriminatory behaviour. It is also on record that there have been convictions for abduction and murder within the same British service. In any case, Mr James Akinwande, earlier in the year, displayed the communal and sacrificial nature of Nigerians by attempting to replace the shoes and wristwatch that some men of the Nigerian police had allegedly stolen from Ms Kemi Badenoch’s brother, ‘on behalf of every proud Nigerian.’ Maybe sometime in the future, we will be able to compensate for living without electricity and doing homework with candlelight.
Ms Kemi Badenoch’s victory over Mr Robert Jenrick is testament to her strength of character, resilience and determination, as she made history as the first Black leader of a Major UK party, and only the fourth woman to lead the British Conservative Party. But again, not everyone will agree with the model of the end justifying the means, especially with her relentless disparaging of Nigeria at almost every given opportunity; in a manner that at times resonated with Europeans endorsing slavery and Africans selling their kinsmen into slavery. The proposition that she was selected to run as MP in Salfron Walden by the Conservatives using a DEI strategy queries the strength of her popularity among the British public. This is such that her assumed identity is but a disillusionment of belongingness plagued by some atrocious claims against her country of origin, some of which were expressed on the ‘Nigerians for Conservatives’ WhatsApp Group.
But as the Ogu pact with Jorge Fremigo indicates, enslavement by one’s kinsmen was not a norm but an aberration in Africa, and it is neo-imperialism seeking to perpetuate discord between Africa and its diaspora that has engendered this Brutusque narrative as a canon. It is common sense that the comparison of pre-colonial slavery practices, which were entangled with feudalism and had pathways to freedom, with the dehumanizing carnage of the middle passage, is not just illogical but a choice to enforce narratives and cultures of injustice. To be clear, communalism has been identified with the African continent because it is traditional to look out for and protect one another within our different communes. This is an ethical paradigm that extends to those considered disadvantaged, even through conquest, irrespective of origins. That is not to romanticize the African past as perfect, but contend that the imperfections are inherited aberrations rather than norms. Africans who sold their kinsmen into slavery were not heroes of their communities but minority villains; and the ideological practice of disparaging one’s African roots for endorsement by neo-imperialists to rise through the ranks affirms the subsistence of this practice. This is evidenced in the loud silence on the compensation of slave owners in 1833 with £20 million worth of stocks in British government bonds while dismissing the call for reparations for enduring imperial harm as scam. To disparage one’s heritage is bad enough as character suicide, but the consequence of betrayal is betrayal as history continues to teach us.
Philip Ademola Olayoku coordinates The West African Transitional Justice Centre (WATJCentre).