ON THE REJOINDER FROM THE GANYE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL

By on in


ON THE REJOINDER FROM THE GANYE TRADITIONAL COUNCIL
The Lutheran Today received with surprise a rejoinder written in reaction to a story in her May/June/July Edition of 2015. The Rejoinder signed by Yahaya Jangawe the Secretary of Ganye Tradition Council (GTC) which was published by Indigo Newspapers of August 11th-20th, 2015. The rejoinder was seen to be a deliberate attack on the Bishop and the Church and clearly defied the focus and aim of our Publication which is to communicate to our readers what goes on in the church and the society as it relates to or affects the church. As a church publication, we publish news and stories for edification of brethren, equipping them with information and the promoting of the Goodnews of Jesus Christ. We are not propaganda medium or a voice of dissention neither are we secular publication that is selfish with the truth. Haven said that, we are up and doing in promoting cultural awareness, social justice and political orderliness in the society. Lutheran Church of Christ in Nigeria (LCCN) a church of over 100 years in Nigeria is known for its role in the promotion of healthcare, education, cultural sustainability and enlightenment especially in and around Adamawa state. Therefore Lutheran Today stands on this established belief.
Ordinarily the Lutheran Today would not have said a word on what the Ganye Traditional Council Secretary wrote. The tune of the write-up has left one to wonder if actually Yahaya Jangawe was directed to write what he wrote as a Secretary of the Chiefdom presenting the position of the Chiefdom. Whether it was the position of the GTC or it was that of an overzealous employee, as long as what was carried in the August 11th -20th rejoinder remains; for some obvious reasons we must put straight thus this writing.
Firstly, as Christians we feel it is objectionable and thoughtless for anyone to label unfounded allegation of corruption against our spiritual father. The allegation published in the rejoinder that the Bishop Rt. Rev Isaiah I. Lerum bribed King-makers to favour a candidate in the choice of who becomes the District Head of Timdore is seen as a deliberate blackmail and ill-will from the GTC, and also a direct attack on the reputation of the church. The rejoinder stated that the Bishop gave “big gifts” to some Kingmakers in order to influence their choice of who becomes the District Head. We wonder if the writer of the rejoinder or his sponsors has any prove to these allegations.
As a result of this, the church (LCCN) should investigate this allegation starting by requesting evidence of the “big gifts” from the GTC. The Secretary of the GTC should provide the church with this prove so that the church will take necessary sanctions on the Bishop as this involves the integrity of the priesthood; or else the Church should demand that where there is no prove to this allegation the GTC must tender a formal apology to the Bishop and to the Church within four weeks and make it public in at list five National Dailies.
 The GTC should be reminded that in the real world of responsible people, the GTC as a responsible Institution as it were, should have tendered an unreserved apology to the Bishop for hastily making assertions that is blackmailing and defaming to the Bishop Isaiah Lerum and the Church as an Institution.
The Bishop as reported by the Lutheran Today did not mention the case of Timdore but the reporter wrote based on further findings, and to have attributed it to the Bishop shows that the GTC has preconceived grievances or hatred for him. Nonetheless, many thanks to the GTC Secretary for vindicating our reporter by telling the world more on that matter and elaborating that among the four contestants of Timdore District Head seat there but only one Christian whom actually was repudiated.
In this enlightened era it is interesting to hear a highly placed person speaking on behalf of a great institution such as the GTC, asking the question why it was only Bishop Isaiah Lerum that could break the uneasy silence over a wrong practice which has gradually metamorphose into a tradition; as if to dodge the reality on ground. But this is a transparent subterfuge attempting to cover the fact that a wrong thing have been going on all this while. While it is hoped that the Bishop has helped the GTC in breaking this silence that would one day have been a catastrophe, however, one should answer according to the rhetorical question raised.
That the Bishop’s predecessors’ never said anything on the matter have not made the wrong practice right or acceptable by the Christians anyway. The Bishop’s predecessors would not have suspected that this wrong practice would eventually be perpetuated; it does not mean that they were totally comfortable with it entirely. If nobody ever sees that keeping silence on the matter was not good for the coexistence of the Chamba society, the Secretary or the GTC should not think that Bishop Isaiah Lerum should not speak out when the uneasy silence has obviously become too loud.
One would therefore be compelled to conclude from the tune of the Secretary’s presentation of this same question that there has been an unspoken embargo that has cunningly been placed on this matter by the GTC, against the unsuspecting Christian Community or its leadership that no one dares raise it or face been labeled a traitor.  
Also, the rejoinder stated that there was a “baseless allegation” which was termed as “unwarranted outburst against the royal father”. This is seen as a direct attack on the personality of His Lordship Bishop Isaiah Lerum and deliberate attempt to join issues that has no bearing on the subject matter. It was further stated that “the reckless and unguarded utterances and activities of the Bishop both within LCCN community and outside are capable of igniting social unrest…” This also is a serious allegation that the church must seek explanation from the GTC. The Council should tell the Church what the so called “activities…both within LCCN community and outside” are. Where particularly would the GTC point at that the Bishop has caused any undue pandemonium in the society? They should be requested to explain.
When the rejoinder stated that the Bishop should be “cautioned and monitored closely” what did the GTC mean? Who is the Council calling upon to caution the Bishop, and scarier is who should monitor him? The Church has to take this matter seriously as well. If someone is calling on whosoever he refers to, to monitor the Bishop, we know that is a red alert. Therefore these words should not be taken for granted. What did the GTC means by monitoring the Bishop? The Church LCCN and the entire Christian body are hereby called upon to have it in record that someone has written a threatening note on His Lordship the Bishop of Bonotem Diocese Rt. Rev Isaiah I. Lerum. By this statement we cannot be sure what they can do to the Bishop.
Another one is the historical explanation the rejoinder tried to give. One wonders if there is any chronology in the history referred to. For Lutheran Today, we would reserve this for the Chamba people to put their History straight. Nonetheless, the rejoinder mentioned that the Church (Both Lutheran and Catholic) frowned at traditional rulership and termed it “retrogressive” but also contradicted that Gang Philip Maken and Gang Paul Hammawa were rulers in Chamba land.  It stated that the indirect rule system gave shape to the “fragmented” Chamba society. So the Chamba people do not have history of organized system until colonialism? In other words Chamba people were stateless! The rejoinder said, “The fact that all the 18 District heads in the Chiefdom are Muslims is not the fault of the Chief as the system was inherited from the British.” The rejoinder also stated that “Bishop Isaiah Lerum should bear in mind the Government law regulating the selection of all traditional rulers in the chiefdom…” Is it government’s law that said one must be Muslim before he is made a District Head or Village head in Chamba land?
All the rulers/District Heads that died recently in Chamba land were they not replaced by their own biological children? Why was the Timdore case different?  The rejoinder refused or avoided to state that Chamba people have a name for King as “Gang” or “Gara” which today the Gangwari and Gara-Donga are bearing. Is it that the writer is so ignorant of the History of the people he is representing or sentiment has impaired his sense of good judgment? The issue of Religion being a factor in Chamba rulership is a contemporary thing and it started with the generation of the present Gangwari whose father became the paramount ruler in Chamba land only lately in 1975. Every student of history knows that he was made to be Gangwari because he is Chamba and of course he represented Chamba Traditional Institution not Islamic Institution. All Chamba people irrespective of religion supported him.
The GTC left their writing so porous that those who would wish to ask questions will have unending questions to ask. What we have is Ganye Traditional Council and not Ganye Emirate Council therefore Bishop Isaiah Lerum the Christian Leader of the Land has every reason to say what he said, “what is good for the gander is also good for the goose.” Was it only the Chamba people that were colonized under the indirect rule? Should one be proud to base his argument on a system that was meant to achieve some limited purposes? Even if there was an arrangement between British and Northern Nigeria obviously it was for the British administrative convenience not for Chamba institutional perpetuation. The GTC surely did not appreciate the antecedence of the indirect rule; may be that is why they are referring to it. The rejoinder also said the word “apostate” was an insult, but haven searched for a word to use to refer to one who renounces his faith we found none other suitable than that. So GTC should know that apostasy is apostasy irrespective of who committed it.
While it is expected that people should be proud of their culture, it shocking and surprising where a throne is called Traditional and yet run based on one particular religion. It is also surprising how Muslim is a man who has lived a greater part of his as a devout Christian and only became a Muslim as prerequisite to ascending a rightful tradition throne. It is perplexing that the Chamba whose recent preceding generation fought for their liberation not along religious line but their ethnic identity, are today seeking relevance in religion which is phenomenon that rather tier than uniting them. If it is true that there was a decided system given down from “British colonial system” one wonders why there was Gang Philip Maken and Gang Paul Hammawa. And the question rises, what exactly is that system “inherited from British” that could be so admirable in the 21st century Nigerian democratic era?
It is obvious the Chamba people unlike their Counterparts Numan, Guyuk and others in the colonial southern Adamawa are in their new era of colonial rule where one has to renounce a religion before ascending a throne. That is a pity in this 21st Century democratic era where fundamental human right cuts across religious barrier.
No one should say that Christians are not sidelined in selection of District Heads and even lower rulers in Chamba land. If the record of the GTC is correct, out the four eligible candidates of Timdore District only one was a Christian. Fairness demands that since all the 17 other District Heads in Chamba land are Muslims this one person who obviously is closer to the late District Head by virtue of being the first Son should have automatically ascended his father’s throne. District Heads, Village Heads and even the Gangwari HRH Alhaji Umaru Adamu Sanda are direct beneficiaries of father-to-son inheritance of the throne; why was the Timdore case different?
 If the Chamba people are running an exclusive “Emirate” system (which of course is the colonial platform) as they seem to assert, let the world know so that the name Traditional Council will be removed and making the setup open to all eligible Muslim. If that is done all Christians will stay away and never would ask further question, because for today’s Christians who know what is right, would rather remain a Christian than being an apostate in order to become a District Head. But before they do that, they should also remember that some notable Chamba Christians have fought (some with their lives) to ensure that a Chamba traditional institution is maintained.
In the LCCN we have first class Chiefs whose area was more directly under British indirect rule system (unlike Chamba land that was annexed from the German colony) and even a District Head who is under an Islamic system like in Borno and was never asked to become Muslim. If Chamba people in recent past have shown lack of will and lack of character, Bishop Isaiah Lerum their kinsman has called them to wake up. In the history of LCCN we have witnessed a number of prominent Lutherans including clergymen of Chamba native whose apostasy did not petrify the church in anyway. If one wants to become a Muslim let him be. After all in Christianity one is shown the way and not forced to be for any kind of earthly gain or benefit. “For what shall it profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul?” (Matt 16:26). Again, for it is shameful to ask someone to convert to another religion simply because there is a traditional stool to inherit!
To this end we therefore wish to tell our Christian brothers in Chamba land to continue to insist on the right thing. They have demonstrated unwavering support for their fatherland and should continue to do so; but must not be relegated to the backseat when it comes to who becomes a leader. This idea of a Christian must become a Muslim before he ascends an inherited throne must STOP! And they should ask where they deserve. Bishop Isaiah Lerum also a Chamba man has not offended anyone and no one should call for his head as some are already doing. Chamba people unite and save your land from decay, protect your heritage and build a strong inter-religious system where the only thing that matters will be Chamba.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)