Re: Setting the Record Straight on Potiskum
Re: Setting the Record Straight
The recent publication titled “RE: Concerned Indigenous People of Fika Emirate Tirade of Abuse – Setting the Record Straight” by Aminu Suleiman Jaji attempts to sanitize a controversial submission made by his father Suleiman Jaji (Talban Potiskum) at the constitutional review hearing held in Maiduguri. While the author claims to be setting the record straight, the article itself is a classical exercise in deflection, misrepresentation, and intellectual go-no-where aimed at downplaying the divisive undertones of Suleiman Jaji.
1. Constitutional Rights Do Not Preclude Responsibility
No one disputes that Suleiman Jaji has the right like all citizens to submit a memorandum during a constitutional review. However, rights are not exercised in a vacuum. They come with civic responsibility, tact, and sensitivity to the fragile socio-political fabric of the nation, especially in historically complex areas like Fika and Pataskum. What the rejoinder conveniently ignores is the timing, tone, and target of Suleiman Jaji’s submission, which clearly sought to stir ethno-political conflict under the guise of civic engagement.
By questioning the legitimacy or territorial standing of a long-established traditional institution like the Fika Emirate, Suleiman Jaji has not merely exercised his right but he has inflamed tensions, deepened divisions, and introduced toxic narratives into what should have been a sober and inclusive national process. That is the core of the criticism, not whether he has a right to speak.
2. A Subtle Agenda Disguised as Reform
The argument that Suleiman Jaji never called for any institution to “relocate” is clever but unconvincing. Language, especially in memoranda of such nature, often carries implications even when not explicit. The essence of his submission ala a redefinition of chieftaincy boundaries in Yobe State is in effect a direct challenge to the jurisdiction and legacy of Fika Emirate. Dressing this in constitutional jargon does not erase its implications. Reform, yes but not when it is cloaked in divisive intent.
3. Historical Records Are Not Intimidation but Evidence
The rejoinder trivializes references to history by equating them with threats. That is intellectually dishonest. If a people or institution chooses to defend its position with historical documents, treaties, and colonial records, that is not intimidation but it is assertion of identity, heritage, and truth. What is dangerous is the attempt to delegitimize these records while promoting alternative narratives that lack scholarly rigor or communal consensus.
It is ironic that those calling for constitutional clarity are uncomfortable when historical clarity is sought in return.
4. Marginalization Should Not Be a Weaponized Narrative
Claims of marginalization must not be used as a blanket justification for undermining others. The Fika Emirate has, over the decades, evolved into a pluralistic institution representing diverse groups: Ngizim, Karai-Karai, Hausa- Fulani, Bolewa amongst others. If there are gaps or grievances, they must be addressed through dialogue, not distortion. One man’s submission to a constitutional panel cannot override the lived experience of hundreds of thousands who see the Emirate as a symbol of coexistence.
True representation is built through consultation and collaboration but surely not through calculated narratives pushed in a politically charged fora.
5. Unity Requires Restraint, Not Provocation
The rejoinder positions Suleiman Jaji as a hero of democracy. But democratic processes require more than boldness but demand restraint, respect, and responsibility. When a leader from one ethnic group uses a national platform to challenge the legitimacy of an institution that has historically unified several groups, it is not democratic courage, but it is what it is dangerous posturing.
If the concern is truly about justice and representation, why not seek dialogue with stakeholders within the Emirate first? Why go to Maiduguri with a memo instead of going to Damaturu with a proposal?
6. Rights Must Build Bridges, Not Burn Them
We reaffirm that peaceful engagement in constitutional processes is the right of every Nigerian. However, when such engagement takes the form of targeted delegitimization, selective history, and rhetorical provocation, it ceases to be civic duty and becomes a threat to cohesion.
Let us remember: the Nigerian Constitution guarantees both freedom of speech and the duty to preserve national unity. It is this delicate balance that Suleiman Jaji and his co-travelers must understand.
The peace of Yobe, especially in multi-ethnic areas like Potiskum, must not be gambled on the altar of naked ambition or identity politics.
The Constitution, yes. But let truth and caution also guide our discourse.
