'Buhari' - the dog - and matters arising

‘Buhari’ – the dog – and matters arising

August 26

12:45 2016

Print This Article

BY ONYIORAH CHIDULUEMIJE

“What is wrong in naming a dog Buhari?” Thus goes the question posed by one of the passengers in a vehicle I boarded to Gwagwalada from Kubwa, both of which are towns in Abuja.

The question was asked in the wake of the news reports that a certain man known as Mr. Joe Fortemose Chinakwe (also known as Joachim Iroko) had been arrested and detained by the Nigeria police force, Ogun state command, for naming his dog “Buhari”. Joachim now reportedly faces a one-count charge of indulging in conduct “likely to cause breach of public peace” before a Magistrate Court in Ota, Ogun state.

Though I did initially show a good deal of indifference to this apparently vexed issue when the argument ensued in the course of our journey, I was almost tempted at some point to chip in one or two things as the debate raged. As it were, I was somewhat uncertain about which side of the argument to pitch tent with at the time, perhaps, because I thought I had not comprehensively read or accessed enough on the facts in issue. Nonetheless, I must confess that I am still thrilled by the high level of political consciousness ordinary Nigerians exhibit nowadays.

Meanwhile, for clarity, I am not here to highlight, repeat or revisit the points raised by my co-travellers for or against this subject matter – in the course of our journey. My primary concern on this issue is whether there is indeed any wrong within the ambit of any known culture, tradition or practices, for anybody to choose what he/she wants to name his/her dog or any other animal – be it domestic or wild animal – under his/her care.

And, in the instant case, whether it is the man (the owner of the dog), Mr. Joe Chinakwe, who reportedly named his dog “Buhari” out of his so-called passion for President Muhammadu Buhari, or the Nigeria Police, Ogun state command, that appears to be stoking conduct likely to cause breach of peace and/or sustaining same by its seemingly impetuous decision to prefer a charge against Mr. Chinakwe the owner of “Buhari” – the dog.

To begin with, and taking cognizance of the cultural realities and age-long traditional practices and beliefs of the Igbo people, where incidentally Mr. Chinakwe (the owner of “Buhari” – the dog) hails from, there is obviously nothing in Igbo literature or oral history that shows or suggests (at least to the best of my knowledge) that the Igbo folks are not intrinsically at liberty to choose whatever names they deem fit to bear or be so called and known for that.

This fact in itself is captured both in their world view and in their saying that “afa onye balu onwe ya, ka oga aza”, when translated in English means whatever name one gives him/herself is what he/she will be so called/addressed as.

Incidentally, this appears to lend credence to the fact of the unfettered freedom which the Igbo are wont to enjoy a lot in this regard, but which, unfortunately, their existence within the corporate entity known as Nigeria appears to be in conflict with. Or, any surprise that the late Prof. Chike Obi, the great Mathematician, named one of his sons Mustafa? Or, moreover, could it now appeal to anybody’s good understanding on what appears to have propelled the late Dr. Chuba Okadigbo to express this Igbo world view by his choice of naming one of his sons “Pharaoh” (and I suppose that one to be his first son for that matter).

Viewed from this prism, therefore, it goes without contradiction that the Igbo cultural practices and traditions allow individuals unlimited leeway and inalienable power and liberty to choose whatever names they want to bear, in much the same way the authority to do so is rightly conceived be inherent in nature. In essence, if this Igbo idiosyncrasy could only be well situated in the light of their existential authority to choose names of their choice for either themselves or their offspring – which is an integral part of their cultural heritage (dating back to hundreds of years ago) – then it stands to question (as it seriously boggles one’s mind too) why any Igbo, male and female alike, is not and/or should not be at liberty to name his/her dog or any other animal under his/her care/watch whatever he/she so desires.

Beyond that, it is yet to be seen how the Nigeria police intends to prove before an independent, impartial and unbiased court that the decision of Mr. Chinakwe to name his own dog” Buhari” constitutes “conduct likely to cause breach of public peace”. Somehow, left to common sense, it is rather this allegation being levelled by the police that could be viewed as a serious threat to public peace.

Now come to think of it, if Mr. Chinakwe could name his dog after the name of “our” President due to his reportedly professed affection for the latter, and here we are being told by “our” police that such show of admiration is wrong and, in fact, constitutes a threat to public peace, then one wonders why the police is hell-bent on implicitly saying that Nigerians are no longer free to express their love for their President, as well as enjoy their right to freedom of expression.

By implication, are we now being told by the Nigeria police that all other dogs that bear names like Jack, Jean, Jackson Clinton, etc, do not owe the origins of their names to names of human beings outside our shores? Or, is Nigeria police implying, by the arraignment of Mr. Chinakwe, that people should cease to celebrate President Buhari and, more so, his no-nonsense disposition, the latter (virtue) of which the owner of the dog may have, rightly or wrongly, believed the dog epitomizes?

No doubt, it does appear that the government of the day in Nigeria is gradually stepping up its efforts in competing with the likes of President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey in the area of gross violation of human rights. And like the Erdogans who routinely and arbitrarily arrest and detain their fellow compatriots based on frivolous charges of either insulting the President or attempting to ridicule the personality of the President, their counterparts here seem determined to unleash this same course of action on us all.

But, unfortunately, unlike in Turkey, pursuing this sort of totalitarian regime cause or living out the ideology of a Police state here, in Nigeria, will, definitely, not augur well for the government and the governed alike – let alone the already fragile unity of this “geographical expression”.

Instructively, in the politics of the United States of America, there seems to exist some sort of aberration unknown and unseen in her recent history. Yet, nobody is being reportedly harassed, intimidated, molested, arrested or detained over the naked status of Donald J Trump, the Republican Presidential nominee in the forthcoming election, by the officials of the state. And not even this naked status has been pulled down by Trump’s teaming supporters, much less of resorting to a violent protest.

Indeed, this is not just one aspect of good governance that the Nigerian government has got a good deal of lessons to learn from the United States’ government. It is high time the former stopped constituting itself into threat to public peace and peaceful co-existence by making a fuss over such a frivolous issue of naming a dog Buhari – which will only continue to exacerbate ethnic and religious tension, hatred and killings in the land. Suffice to say at this juncture, that those who have ears should learn to make good use of them, for they are not decoration.

Onyiorah Paschal Chiduluemije is a Journalist writing from Abuja, and can be contacted @[email protected] & phone @ 08052250171