CULTIVATING A CULTURE OF DIALOGUE: NURTURING UNDERSTANDING IN A CULTURALLY AND SOCIALLY DIVERSE NATION

I am deeply honored to be here today as we commemorate three years since the passing on to glory of Rev. Dr. Wilson Badejo, and as we recognize the legacy of Rev. Mrs. Adeyinka Badejo. I solemnly
recall the Sunday three years ago, when Rev. Dr. Wilson Badejo graced us with an unscheduled visit to the Citadel Global Community Church.

Upon encouraging us with his heaven-filled greetings, he said to us as he returned to his seat, “Till we meet at the pearly gates.” Few weeks later, exactly three years ago, this great man of God went to be with
the Lord. It was then that we realized that he had come to bid us farewell. This was particularly poignant because it was Rev. Dr. Badejo who commissioned our ministry when The Latter Rain Assembly
started 35 years ago on April 01, 1989 amid severe opposition. He remained committed to us till the end and would not leave the planet until he had bidden us farewell. Like Jacob who blessed his sons and
then tucked himself to bed and slept in the Lord, like David who admonished his son, Solomon before he rested with his fathers and like my spiritual father, Dr. Lester Sumrall who slept in the Lord in 1996
after releasing his book titled “Bye Bye planet earth, it’s been nice knowing you”, Rev. Dr. Wilson Badejo died the death of the righteous.

It also evokes a deep sense of meaning that, barely two months after her husband’s transition to glory, Dr. Badejo’s beloved wife, Rev Mrs. Yinka Badejo also bade farewell to the saints here on earth and joined
her husband among the great cloud of witnesses in the presence of the Lord. Though dead, this amazing couple still speaks. Their continued impact through the Wilson and Yinka Badejo Foundation lends credence to the words of Frank Rooney, “Immortality is the genius to move others long after you yourself have stopped moving.”
How fulfilling it is to see that the children, family and friends of these servants of God have kept their legacy alive.

Seven years ago, as a keynote speaker on the occasion of the 70th birthday celebration of Rev. Dr. Wilson Badejo, I gave a lecture titled “The Cure for Extreme Poverty and Corruption in Nigeria.” It is no
coincidence that today, seven years later, even as we gather once again to honour Rev. Dr. Wilson and Rev. Mrs. Yinka Badejo, our citizens are out on the streets protesting the reign of poverty in the land, with outbreak of violence recorded in several states. I am as convinced as ever that any attempt to address our nation’s problems that fails to tackle the root cause of these triple devils – corruption,
poverty and violence – is merely an attempt to paper the cracks. Just as committees cannot curb corruption, piecemeal measures cannot curb poverty, neither can brute force stop the violence on our streets.

While I commend our gallant servicemen as well as the various security and law enforcement agents for continually putting themselves on the line in defense of our nation and the protection of our citizens, I must state that the mere fact that the government has had to mobilize the army in anticipation for deployment in response to citizens protests – in the event that the police is overwhelmed – indicates that there are fundamental issues to be addressed.

The situation suggests deep flaws in our governance structure, our national culture and security architecture. It reminds us not only of our militarized history but also that our system are inadequate to
meet the demands of domestic security, that our external defense mechanism are overstretched, that our intelligence apparatuses need rejigging and that there is an urgent need to rethink our national peace, security and stability frameworks. It is a call to revisit the very foundations of our nationhood and to rebuild the systems and structures by which we are governed.

The on-going #EndBadGovernance protest across the length and breadth of our country further convinces me that the time to revisit our nation’s foundation can no longer be prolonged. It was George
Santayana who once said, “Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” As we examine the theme, “Cultivating a Culture of Dialogue: Nurturing Understanding in a culturally and Socially Diverse Nation,” please come with me on a journey into our national history with a view to understanding where the rain started beating us and why we must meet at the dialogue table.

Why We Must Dialogue

Prior to our colonial experience, the entities that today constitute the entity called “Nigeria” were mostly independent territories. Among these territories, while there was cooperation and alliances through such economic and social interactions as trade and marriage, whenever there was any semblance of a union of territories, it was almost always the result of violent conquest. For instance, the Sokoto Caliphate, which encapsulated much of the North, was formed by the violent conquest of the Hausa City States. Around the advent of colonialism, the Yoruba kingdoms were engaged in civil wars aimed at territorial expansion. The Igbo territories as well as the territories of the Delta were engrossed in violent slave raids, and so on. When the colonial masters arrived, they violently conquered each of these territories one after the other, from the Bombardment of Lagos in 1851 to the conquest of Sokoto in 1903. Eventually, the entities were
forced into treaties in what has been described as gunboat diplomacy.

For instance, British war ship, HMS Prometheus, was stationed with its artillery facing the Iga Idunganran, the Palace of the Oba of Lagos, when Oba Dosunmu was asked to sign the Treaty of Cession of Lagos
in 1861. It was a case of “sign or be blown to pieces” – that was the nature of “dialogue” that began our journey to nationhood.
Following successful annexation and colonization, the several protectorates were gradually merged until 1914 when the protectorates of the North and South were amalgamated to form Nigeria. Let’s pause for a while to examine the word, “amalgamation.”

From the dictionary definition, the word “amalgamation” is usually applied to things such as metals and corporate organizations; it is not normally applied to peoples or nations. It suggests a merger rather
than an integration. The formation of the Nigerian state at its inception was motivated by the need for operational efficiency between hitherto separate British commercial interests and had nothing to do with nationhood. The Amalgamation Proclamation of 1914 was done in the context of organizational merger and was never meant to integrate the Nigerian people and neither has it truly united us since then.

Following the amalgamation, we were given a series of constitutions under colonial arrangements, including the Clifford Constitution in 1922 and the Richard Constitution in 1946. Notably, each of these
constitutions were handed down to the people by the colonial masters and did not involve dialogue or consent by the people. Under these constitutions, the government was so removed from the governed
that the people resisted anti-people policies through protests that the governments attempted to suppress with violence. From the Aba Women’s War in 1922 to the Abeokuta Women’s Revolt in 1946, from the Erunkoja Tax Riots in 1948, to the Iva Valley Protest in 1949 as well as the Lagos riots involving the Nigerian Youth Movement in the 1940’s, these were the reactions of a people to policies that did not
favour them within constitutional arrangements that did not involve them.

It was not until the Macpherson Constitution of 1951 that some input from the people were incorporated in the process by which we as a nation were governed. It is notable that it was the Macpherson Constitution that introduced to the governance space the likes of Chief Jeremiah Obafemi Awolowo, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe and Sir Ahmadu Bello. From that time onward, our journey to nationhood was characterized by the coming together of diverse interests often with conflicting ideas as to how to exist as a nation.

As some may recall and as others may find surprising, even the very notion of an independent Nigerian nation was met with intense division among the Nigerian people, a divergence of opinions that was
so strong that it descended into violence. When the motion for independence was moved by the then 30-year-old Anthony Enahoro at the House of Representatives in 1953, the motion was supported by the South but strongly opposed by the North. For opposing the motion, the northern representatives were booed on the streets of Lagos by Southerners. In response to what was seen as provocation, the Northern Region released an 8-Point Agenda in which the region demanded secession. Some may find it surprising that the Igbos were not the first to demand secession from Nigeria. The North was.

When this happened, the southern elite, led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo made a move to “educate” the North on the benefits of independence. For this purpose, the Action Group embarked on a northern tour which, however, ended in the Kano Riots of 1953.

Nevertheless, in spite of this divisive start, our founding fathers met at the dialogue table in the form of a series of conferences, from the 1947 London Conference to the 1950 Ibadan Conference; from the 1953 London Conference to the 1954 Lagos Conference; from the 1957 London Conference to the 1958 Lancaster House Conference and, finally, to the 1960 Constitutional Conference in Lagos. Through
each of these conferences, our founding fathers and mothers laid the foundation of the Nigerian nation, with each conference building upon the strengths of the preceding conference until we agreed to coexist
as a federation of diverse constituents. In the 1963 Constitution, the details of our federation were spelt out and we began our journey as a republic in the quest for a more perfect union as it were.

Not long after independence, corruption set in and the fault lines deepened. First, corruption took the form of electoral fraud as evidenced in ballot snatching and vote rigging. Strongly associated with political corruption was political violence. As a little 12 year old boy, I witnessed firsthand “Operation we tie,” when political thugs were unleashed against opponents. Political corruption, combined with economic corruption, soon brought the military into the equation. This was captured by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu in his radio broadcast after the January 1966 coup; He said:

“…Our enemies are the political profiteers, the swindlers, the Men in high and low places that seek bribes and demand 10 percent, those that seek to keep the country divided permanently so that they can remain in office as ministers or VIP’s at least, the tribalists, the nepotists, those that make the country look big for nothing before international circles, those that have corrupted our society and put the Nigerian political calendar back by their words and deeds.”¹

One would think he was describing the Nigeria of today. In any case, with the violent overthrow of government came the destruction of the constitutional foundations upon which our federation was built. The ethnic divisions in our polity became so deeply entrenched that the nation erupted in a pogrom that eventually led to a Civil War. This is why those who call for the unconstitutional overthrow of government
must learn from history. When, as a nation, we attempted to deal with corruption and poverty by violence rather than by dialogue, the very foundations of our nation were destroyed. We are still reeling from
the effect of those actions today. Since the Unification Decree of May 1966 that abolished the 1963 Republican constitution, Nigeria’s path to stable, acceptable and prosperous governance can be described as wobbling and fumbling.

Although General Olusegun Obasanjo, as military Head of State, convened a Constitutive Assembly in 1977, that comprised of the diverse sociocultural, economic and political constituent parts of our
nation to dialogue on the way forward for the nation, the eventual outcome, in the form of the 1979 constitution, was not what the people wanted. Obasanjo’s military government allowed the people
to dialogue but gave the people what he wanted, not what the people wanted.

For instance, by inserting the Land Use Act into the 1979 Constitution, the government took away from the Nigerian people the power of property ownership and all the benefits that come with it, including
the ability to exchange one factor of production for another – that is land for capital. In his book, “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere,” Peruvian economist,
Hernando De Soto, identified lack of property ownership as the major cause of poverty in regions like South America and Africa. In its summary of the core message of this book, the publisher states the
following,

In strong opposition to the popular view that success is determined by cultural differences, de
Soto finds that it actually has everything to do with the legal structure of property and property
rights.”²

From the absence of a sustainable mortgage system to the high cost of accessing loans, the Land Use Act has continued to cast a long shadow over the Nigerian economy and has remained a major contributor to poverty. It is a clear example of what happens when the government disregards the output of dialogue and imposes its will on the people.

Fellow citizens, including the millennial and Gen Zs who were not born at the time of that milestone in our history, it is important to note that the current constitution was derived from that constitutional process.

The 1999 constitution, which determines how government serves you, what rights you can enjoy in your country, the quality of the people who rule over rather than lead you, how easy it is to obtain a mortgage
and secure housing when you graduate from school, how easy it is to start and sustain a business, or, by implication, how easy it is to get a job, and whether or not the government’s responsibility to deliver on the essentials of good governance is justiciable – the 1999 constitution was derived from the 1979 constitution, a process that substituted the will of the governed for the will of the government.

At the Heart of Our Division

Today in Nigeria, a nation of over 300 ethnic groups and over 500 languages,³ there are divisions across various geopolitical, ethnosociocultural and demographic groups – divisions between the North and South, between the East and the West, between Christians and Muslims, between the old and the young, between the rich and the poor, between men and women, and so on. But at the heart of all of these agitations and divisions is the struggle for the control of resources. Take, for instance, the question of religion. If you look through our history, you will find that the role of religion as a dividing factor was minimal until extremist groups like the Maitatsine emerged with the 1980 riots in Kano. The division in our country up until that time was largely geoeconomic and political and was more of a struggle for control of resources among regional and ethnic groupings irrespective of religious divisions.

We can see this in statements attributed to the first and only Premier of the then Northern Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello. On the one hand, Sir Ahmadu Bello promoted a Northernisation Policy that conferred
economic benefits on Northerners above other Nigerians,⁴ but indoing so, he insisted that the North had “no intention of favouring one religion at the expense of another.”⁵ We also see this religion-neutral
disposition of the North in the fact that the first military Head of State from the North after the countercoup in 1967 was a Christian in the person of General Yakubu Gowon and he governed for eight years.

What mattered most to the vested interests were that one was from the North, not so much whether one was Christian or Muslim. It means that at the root of even our religious crisis is a struggle for economic resources that manifests itself in politics because politics is the authoritative allocation of value.
This is why it is often said that hunger is a unifier. It is why citizens are responding or reacting to the #EndBadGovernance protest across the land, from the North to the South to the East to the West. Hunger does not ask whether you are a Muslim or Christian, male or female, Yoruba, Hausa, Fulani, Igbo, Edo, Efik or what have you. It does not even ask what political party you belong to, whether you belong to APC, PDP or Labour Party – hunger does not care nor does the market price of food and other essential commodities. This is in line with King Sunny Ade’s song a long time ago that goes thus: “T’ebi ba de, owo
aro, t’ebi ba de, ese aro, afoju ko le ri ran, aditi ko gbo yago, eni ebi npa kogbo wasu, rara o, rara, eni ebi npa ko gbo wasu, rara o, ra ra….”.

I understand that believers are spiritually from Zion and operate in an economy that is different from the world’s – I have demonstrated and taught it and I continue to demonstrate and teach it. I understand the “Goshen in Egypt” principle. But when God allows His people to go through the same hardships as the rest of the world, as was the case when the whole world was in famine, including Canaan where Jacob
and his eleven sons were originally located, it is because He wants the Joseph kind of leaders to emerge – leaders who will implement divinely enabled economic blueprints that can help their countries navigate global and regional economic crisis so that their economies can emerge from famine stronger than ever.
⁶ Furthermore, when Godallows his people to go through the kind of hardship that was experienced when Samaria was under siege in the days of Elisha, a famine that was so severe to the extent that women began to eat their children, it is because He wants His prophets to take responsibility for the state of the nation and transform the economy with “Thus saith the Lord.”⁷ But what often happens is that the people of God isolate themselves from the world, rather than prophetically govern, systematically engage and strategically intervene, making contact without contamination and demonstrating the love of Christ.

What We Must Dialogue On

This principle of “hunger as a common denominator” can be deployed as we dialogue our way to nationhood. It means that among the diverse constituents of the Nigerian state, we can begin to find
common ground around basic irreducible minimums. We can begin by asking basic questions such as: How do we ensure that no Nigerian goes to bed hungry? How do we ensure that no child is left out of
school without access to basic education? How do we ensure that Nigerians can access basic healthcare so that no one dies of diseases for which cures have long been found? How do we ensure that every
Nigerian has access to clean water such that no Nigerian is exposed to diseases like cholera? How do we ensure that our homes, schools, streets, villages, highways and cities are safe and secure so that Nigerians can work, play or travel with their minds at rest, and go to bed with their hearts at peace, and that no child is kidnapped at school? How do we ensure that every Nigerian household and business is guaranteed access to electricity? How do we ensure that no youth is unemployed and that our young men and women become job creators in an innovation-led and technology-driven global economy? How we can harness our artistic, cultural, entertainment, tourism and sports diversity as our national assets in such a way that respects the cultural sensibilities of the Nigerian people? As we progressively ask such questions, we will soon find ourselves asking what kind of governance structure will guarantee the Nigeria we want to see and live in. This economy-oriented approach to governance structure reforms is also why I believe that geoeconomic restructuring should lead the way to geopolitical restructuring.

As we dialogue, we can argue and differ on the “how,” but we all agree that the attendant problems need to be solved and the opportunities harnessed. The process of disagreement on methodologies is the way
political parties are formed around ideologies. We can disagree without being disagreeable and we can disagree to eventually agree.

As Mahatma Gandhi said: Honest differences are often a healthy sign of progress”. In essence, whereas the solution to our national problems warrants a return to the foundations to rebuild the old waste places, we can do this by returning to the dialogue table.

Some may, argue that the very beginning of any dialogue should be to deliberate and decide on whether or not we even want to be a nation in the first place. While I respect this viewpoint, I am convinced that
we are better off as one nation. My experience at the Centenary National Conference in 2014 as a south west delegate is worth a mention at this point, although the fuller story is told in my memoir which will be released later this year during my 70th birthday celebrations. When the Conference was inaugurated by the then President, Goodluck Ebele Jonathan, the diverse constituents came with different agendas. The Northern delegates came with initial doubts regarding the motives of the country and they threw a
bombshell at the beginning when they circulated a document that diminished the role of the South in the Nigerian equation. The Southern delegates where aggrieved by the assertions of the North. Some of the Yoruba delegates began to tinker with advocating secession. However, I hosted some of the Yoruba delegates in my home and we dialogued on how to strategically respond. Eventually, we came up with an evidence-based response to the claims of the Northern delegates while acknowledging the need to work together as a nation. At the end, after heated arguments and trustful give-andtake, the Conference agreed that we were better off as one nation, and we put forward proposals for equitable and just co-existence. The hallmark of the success of dialogue in resolving our nationhood dilemma during that conference was the unanimous adoption of the Nigerian Charter for National Reconciliation and Integration by the 492 delegates. That Charter which I was privileged to sponsor, was adopted by the National Conference as the basis of our union.

How We Must Dialogue

As we proceed to the dialogue table in the quest to resolve our national problems, we must deal with the trust deficit that exists particularly between the people and the government. According to the 2024 Edelman Trust Barometer, among four key institutions surveyed, namely, Government, Business, Media, and NGOs, trust deficit is lowest between the people and the government. While the average trust level between the people and all four of these key institutions is 61 percent, the government is the least trusted, scoring 42 percent. Media institutions fare better with a 56 percent trust rating. Businesses are next with a trust level of 73 percent while NGOs are the most trusted at 74 percent.⁸
The relatively stronger trust level among nongovernmental organisations places a responsibility on NGOs and civil society to mediate between the people and the government. To actively assume such mediatory roles, civil society must not be confrontational only but must be capable of transitioning from the confrontational to the propositional. This is why, in addition to calls for protests, civil society must be ready to present alternative policy propositions. This was the strength of the Save Nigeria Group which successfully organized protests that led to the restoration of constitutional order in 2010 as well as a concessionary reduction of fuel prices in 2012. But Save Nigeria Group did not stop at that. It went further to become a propositional platform, presenting policy propositions such as a Social Contract to Save and Transform Nigeria as well as hosting several conferences in which thought leaders charted the path for Nigeria. An aspect of the Save Nigeria Group that will interest you is the fact that it was back dropped by a series of dialogues, the Dialogue of the Nobles under the platform of its sister organization, the International Centre for Reconstruction and Development. Therefore, with all humility, I can attest to the effectiveness of dialogue in resolving complex national issues.

All parties must approach the dialogue table with open minds, effective communication and empathy. Open and honest communication helps to establish transparency, making intentions and actions clear. When leaders communicate transparently, they demonstrate that they have nothing to hide, which builds trust.
Empathy is the bedrock of dialogue. It requires us to see beyond our own perspectives and seek to comprehend the experiences of others—the ability to feel with others, to share in their joys and sorrows. Empathy does not mean agreeing with all perspectives but recognizing the humanity in those we engage with. It also means sitting where the people sit, feeling their pains and sharing their burdens. An empathetic leader does not feed fat while asking the people to tighten their belts. Nigerian political leaders have mostly not demonstrated empathy. Otherwise, how do you live so large while your people are ravished in anguish?
Furthermore, the government must create accessible and inclusive dialogue platforms and channels, catering to Nigeria’s diverse population, not just urban centers but also in rural areas where access
to communication tools might be limited. This makes necessary the need for effective subnational governments, especially local governments.
To manage disputes before they escalate, Nigeria needs to institutionalize robust mediation and conflict resolution mechanisms.

These bodies should be empowered to address conflicts, facilitate dialogue, and propose fair solutions. In doing so, they provide a formal avenue for grievances to be aired and resolved, reducing the likelihood of conflicts turning violent. This is one of the thrusts of the Presidential Commission for National Reconciliation, Reintegration and Restructuring which I presented to the administration of President Muhammadu Buhari barely two months into his administration but which, however has not been implemented.

Conclusion

In conclusion, as we reflect on the legacy of Rev. Dr. Wilson Badejo and Rev. Mrs. Adeyinka Badejo, let us also commit ourselves to advancing the values they championed—compassion, understanding, and a relentless pursuit of justice and equity. Dialogue is not just a means to an end; it is an end in itself, fostering a world where differences are celebrated rather than feared, and where everyone has a voice.
Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you today. May we all leave here inspired to engage more deeply with those around us, to listen more intently, and to act with greater empathy and understanding. May God bless you all, and may He continue to bless the Wilson & Yinka Badejo Foundation in its noble endeavors.

Pastor Tunde Bakare
Serving Overseer, Citadel Global Community Church (CGCC);
Convener, Save Nigeria Group (SNG);
Founder, International Centre for Reconstruction and Development (ICRD).

¹ Vanguard. “Radio Broadcast by Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu,” September 30, 2010.
https://www.vanguardngr.com/2010/09/radio-broadcast-by-major-chukwuma-kaduna-nzeogwu-%E2%80%93-announcing-nigeria%E2%80%99s-first-military-coup-on-radio-nigeria-kaduna-on-january-15-1966/.
² Amazon. “The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else: Hernando de Soto: 9780465016150: Amazon.com: Books.” Accessed August 4, 2024. https://www.amazon.com/MysteryCapital-Capitalism-Triumphs-Everywhere/dp/0465016154.
³ Green, Mark. “Nigeria Has More than 500 Languages, 300 Ethnic Groups.” www.wilsoncenter.org, February 21, 2023. https://www.wilsoncenter.org/blog-post/nigeria-has-more-500-languages-300-ethnic-groups-andcritically-important-elections.
⁴ Ade, Ade. “A History of Nigeria by Jide Olanrewaju Naij – (an Actualize Production).” www.youtube.com, April 14, 2013. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgrVHrTvxC8.
⁵ Akinbode, Ayomide . “50 Interesting Facts about Ahmadu Bello.” HistoryVille, May 10, 2019.
https://www.thehistoryville.com/ahmadu-bello-interesting-facts/.
⁶ See The Bible, Genesis 41 – 47
⁷ See The Bible, 2 Kings 6:24-7:20
⁸ Edelman Trust Institute. “2024 Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report,” 2024. https://www.edelman.com/sites/g/files/aatuss191/files/2024-02/2024%20Edelman%20Trust%20Barometer%20Global%20Report_FINAL.pdf.