Peter Ihaza's Clever By Half Rejoinder By Hakeem Babalola

Date Published: 09/18/09

"The maxims of men reveal their characters."

Peter Ihaza's Clever By Half Rejoinder By Hakeem Babalola

advertisement

The rejoinder by Mr. Peter Ihaza to the article, "How the Nigerian Union Hungary Is Being Managed" is welcome. It provides further information about the union in question, and especially about the character of the writer who happens to be the ex-union president.

Even though he descended so low in his use of un-inspiring allegory, it is still a free world - of course I found it both repugnant and silly. And I may pay him back in his own coin before the end of this article depending on my mood, but largely depending on the fact at hand.

Still, the rejoinder would have probably carried weight but for the writer's rush attempt to discredit me and the article in its entirety. But of course it is not unexpected. And of course such is the way most people, who hold small or big positions usually react to any story they consider not in their favour.

In haste to further distort the public, the first thing that usually comes to their mind is to disgrace the messenger and, or his message. Psychologists have helped us find a name for such rash reaction: emotional guilt they call it.

In the said rejoinder, Ihaza uses misinformation, insinuation, even rascal before he could explain himself. Perhaps there's no other way of expression considering the situation he found himself. He must employ every noun and, or adjective to bail himself out.

To further twist things, Ihaza uses what I shall call smart arrogance, slippery flattery, double talk, vagueness and denial to chew what he termed posterity.

It seems he was quite satisfied with his emotional state after LYNCHING (capital mine)) someone who dared write about his union. At the end of it all, he succeeded being half smart, for the rocket he launched failed to move upward but downward to hit him - not sure if it knocked him down though.

In essence Ihaza is guilty of all the allegations he levelled against me. For now, hypocrisy is not in my mind but pity. I may change my position later on though.

Before I go in perspective, I would like to say that I take full responsibility for the content of the article, including any part that might have confused and angered the former union president.

Meanwhile, one would have expected him to use his rejoinder to highlight some of his achievements but instead he went berserk, attacking the credibility of my sources, and picking for me what, how, who and when to quote.

If Ihaza thinks his seven-year reign produced the best for the union, then good luck to him, but he should also note that someone else think otherwise. Of course, I subscribe to the axiom: no one is perfect.

When he called me to say he had just read my article and that it was at least balanced saying, "I don't have problem with the article" except where one of my sources said that "no penny was given to them"; I thought he meant his words.

Perhaps he did not give himself enough time to understand and think about the content before rushing to comment on it, a character that speaks volume. Perhaps he was panic. But why was he thrown into a state of intense fear or desperation?

It was not and will never be my intention to disparage anyone or organisation in my writings but then the story of Nigerian Union Hungary must be told for the same posterity Ihaza keeps chewing like kola-nut in his rejoinder.

So if at all there is any factual error in my article, I regret it. For instance, where I wrote that only three were present during the handing over whereas Ihaza insists there were more people present.

Having said this, it is also imperative to mention the fact that there are many important issues contained in my report about the union, but Ihaza chose to respond to the ones germane to his survival.

If I had written to praise him, I guess he would be satisfied. I mean even where I quote him to neutralise other sources’ comments, he still screamed misinformation and insinuation in his rejoinder. This kind of clumsy reaction makes one wonder what the trouble really is.

As I said somewhere else, leadership is not about being nice, but about doing the right thing. This is a useful hint for anyone who might be nursing the ambition to become a leader.

It seems to me that Ihaza in his rejoinder was particularly fixated with himself rather than the union in general. For instance, his use of "my administration" instead of our administration! But of course, it is an open secret that the union was his administration.

This might be the main reason why some people conclude that he is obsessed with being the Nigerian Union Hungary president. Subconsciously, Ihaza further demonstrates this obsession by still referring to himself as "immediate past President of the Nigerian Union, Hungary ".

After how many years and after how many elections supposed to have been conducted? And did he resign voluntarily or after much pressure? Ihaza should purge himself of self-denial or aggrandizement for him to correctly assess his tenure and that of the union.

Compulsive preoccupation with something is unhealthy. Anyone suffering from this disease is often quick to label others mischievous.

Ihaza pudding headed rejoinder shows he is willing to hawk down anyone or anything he feels questions his authority as the Nigerian Union president Hungary. It is not the first time he would exhibit this opprobrious character.

In his "Resignation Speech" for example, Ihaza injected tribalism, ethnicity and religion to discredit those who reminded him that he had stayed too long as the union president.

Here is a young man who surreptitiously believes there can never be a Nigerian Union in Hungary without him. He may want a formidable union as he sarcastically says in his rejoinder, but not without him at the elm of affairs.

As a reminder, Ihaza occupied the position for seven years irrespective of what the Constitution stipulates. Yet he has the audacity to quote the Constitution as the “guiding principle during my 7 seven-year tenure”.

Whilst my article may have the overall impression that things are not going well with the union, it does not suggest that one person is responsible. After all, we all know how difficult we Nigerians can be when it comes to things of this nature. Besides, we know there are some people who do not want the success of the union but pretending otherwise. All these things could mar the leadership of even a well organised mind.

I believe every Nigerian knows this fact except perhaps Ihaza who thinks the election he won in 2001 was so perfect that there could be no controversy and, or scepticism. Where was he during the meeting held in anticipation of his hero, the one and only malicious dictator, Olusegun Obasanjo? It was right there that many people expressed their doubts.

For one example, a member even stated categorically that, although he was not a soothsayer, he believed that the gathering was jammed parked not because of the union, but because of the visiting Nigerian president to Hungary.

Although Ihaza wonders "what the scepticism and controversy were about the outcome of the election in which I got more than 75% of the votes", yet he admits there are naysayers; and those according to him, who used tribalism and religion to destabilise the progress of the union. It is pertinent to state here that even the fairest and freest elections are often surrounded by controversy and scepticism.

One example will suffice here. The Nigerian presidential election in 1992 in which late MKO Abiola was widely believed to have won in a landslide. What followed was more than controversy. It is perhaps the nature of elections - whether local or national or international.

It is also interesting to see how Ihaza speaks from both side of his mouth. In one breathe he says:
"All the officials in my administration (note my administration please) are university graduates with four holding master's degrees from Hungarian universities.

In another instance he says:
"For the Union to continue to survive, from my experience in Office, those elected to lead should be able to at least, READ, WRITE, SPEAK AND COMPREHEND ENGLISH to avoid a situation where the constitution is read upside down or duty and privilege are misunderstood and (leads to the arrogation of undue powers)".

Thus one is constrained to ask:wasIhaza being annoyingly playful when hesaid the second statement?For a discerning mind would think that a Nigerian with a master degree should be able to read, write, speak and comprehend English.Or was he floating his own ego when he said the first statement?

In anyway, I apologise for not using titles before their names (i.e. Dr, PHD, MSC, BA, MA, Chief, Alhaji, BA and so on and so on) in the previous article as demanded by Ihaza in his rejoinder. I hope my apology has calmed him down a bit.

Furthermore, Ihaza implies the article accuses "my administration" of financial misappropriation. I am sorry he feels that way. However, he should have used the rejoinder as a vehicle to present the receipts of all that was spent on. After all, he led us to a link belonging to Hungarian tax office in order to show that the members' 1% salary contribution is less than the amount earlier reported.

advertisement

For Ihaza to write that the Financial Secretary, Mr Kingsley Johnson, denied making the call advising him to "render an account" clearly shows how far the former union president is willing to go in order to prevaricate. I want to stick my neck out here that Johnson will never deny this.

Whether he denied it or not, I hereby reiterate that I stand by the quote in question. But suppose the quote is from Johnson, is Ihaza going to eat his words?

Surely the official address of the union - Budapest district X - belongs to Mr Toyin Akinwumi. However, Ihaza presents half truth in his rejoinder by insinuating that the address is still the official union address. In his reckless mood to attack anything, Ihaza forgot or failed to state that he had implied to have changed the address long time ago.

So much for the gentleman preaching posterity and, or morality. Why and when did he change the address? And why did he insist that ( Budapest district X, Halom U) is still the official address? How many member or executive member knew about this development? If he had changed the address, why is the web still carrying the same address? Something is not clear here.

I believe Ihaza needs to reflect on all that transpired during his tenure as the union president. He should be truthful to himself. For instance, he needs to look in retrospect and decide whether the union he left behind is strong or weak, or whether he had actually achieved his goal, or if the goal of the union has been achieved. His honest answer may be a turning point in his life.

Finally, Ihaza talked about his neighbour whom he described as a rascal. I think I know this neighbour of his. But unlike his accuser, this neighbour is neither an apple polisher nor butt licker. This poor neighbour unlike his accuser does not scream in the street by virtue of pretending to have qualities or beliefs that he does not really have.

Postscript: Idream of a union (not necessarily Nigerian Union) which is independent, serious and strong enough to demand accountability from those who matter. And I dream of a union knowledgeable enough to know what is going on in Nigeria, so that all those bald-heads calling themselves leaders will be exposed everywhere. I yearnfor a union that commands respect; one that can even help its embassy in times of need; a union that will not scramble for funds from every Peter and Hakeem.