KEMI BADENOCH: The hidden Fears of the reactionary Caliphate and their paid agents

Kperogi and his Fulani revisionist actors

By
Nwankwo T. Nwaezeigwe, PhD
Metro-Manila, Philippines

Let me begin by stating ipso facto that Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch did not invent the idea of the Yoruba declaring the Fulani their Northern enemies. Hugh Clapperton, the 19th century British explorer of River Niger noted the inveterate hatred the Yoruba of Oyo had for the Fulani during his visit to the Alafin of Oyo shortly before the destruction of the old Capital Oyo-Ile (Katunga). This was expressly stated by E. N. Bovil (See E. N. Bovil The Niger Explored London: Oxford University Press, 1968, 198):
“All Clapperton wanted of the Alafin was his help in reaching Sokoto but he could not say so because the Fulani were hated enemies who were at this time raiding Yoruba almost up to the walls of Katunga.”

I just read a rejoinder to my essay on Prof Farooq Adamu Kperogi by one Ismail Misbahu  who describes himself as a postgraduate student of history at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, titled “Badenoch in the Midst of Kperogi and Nwankwo:  An Account of Intellectual Partisanship”, published January 17, 2025 by Opinion Nigeria online news media. 
  

One can rightly say that the piece was quite encouraging, especially coming from a professional historian-in-training. Although he tried spiritedly to impress his teachers as well as Farooq Kparogi that he is capable of putting Odogwu Dr. Nwankwo Tony Nwaezeigwe down on his intellectual knees, but as a student which he is, there is the limit to which he can undertake such fortuitous intellectual promenade. 

Indeed, if I were still at University of Nigeria, Nsukka, judging from the below average standard of the essay I would have assigned one of my average undergraduate students to undertake the rejoinder on my behalf. On the other hand, if I decide to ignore him, it would amount to Palestinian victory for the Palestinians. At any rate, I will use the standard of his logical presentation to assess the standard of those who teacher him at Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

 
For people like Farooq Adamu Kperogi and Ismail Misbahu, Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch will continue remain a nightmare to them, as David Foster Wallace rightly put it, “The truth will set you free. But not until it is finished with you.” Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch raised hypothetical issues on Nigerian nationality question which many people know but have refused to address, and which neither Farooq Adamu Kperogi nor his surrogate defender Ismail Misbahu attempted to address, but instead engaged themselves in peripatetic limbless intellectual pugilism driven by obdurate ignorance of Nigerian history.  Like his kinsman Farooq Kperogi, Misbahu still went off-track dancing around the settled matter of Yoruba etymology, abandoning the substance of the discourse which is anchored on the three ethno-historical variables of ethnicity, enmity, and geopolitics of the Nigerian nation.

Ismaila Misbahu in his intoxicated infantile enthusiasm, instead of addressing the facts as were hypothetically presented by Rt. Hon Kemi Badenoch, and historically diluted by me, spent the greater part of his paper in constructing a non-existent historical myth round the then well-known Marxist historian Yusufu Bala Usman of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, another scion of Sokoto Caliphate like Farooq Adamu Kperogi. Deceptively seeing Farooq Adamu Kperogi through intellectual spectacle of Bala Usman, Ismaila Misbahu amusingly titled the section “Kperogi in Bala Usman.” One could not however fathom the intellectual basis of the comparison between the renowned critical thinker cum historian Yusufu Usman Bala and the presumptuous intellectual popinjay called Farooq Adamu Kperogi.

While as a student of history I admired Bala Usman for his rugged intellectual Protestantism from Marxist stand-point, his historical contraptions still remained Fulani feudalist-driven, bearing in mind that he was a scion of Katsina Fulani royal family, while his mother was a scion of Kano Fulani royal family, precisely the daughter of Emir Ado Bayero. 

 Moreover, much of the Marxist utopian ideas propounded by the likes of Yusufu Bala Usman, Esko Toyo and Okwudiba Nnoli no longer apply in contemporary historical prognosis outside their utility as comparative references. So bringing up Bala Usman’s utopian historical exegesis as panoply of the height of Fulani intellectual attainment is not only pitiable but a functional evidence of the poverty of Fulani historicism within the comity of Nigerian historians. The point is that were Ismail Misbahu’s rejoinder answer to an examination question from me, he would have failed woefully. I will prove this assertion of Ismail Misbau’s intellectual Lilliputism seriatim in situ.

Referring to the background of his rejoinder, Ismail Misbau ignorantly stated:

“The second was in the form of diatribe by Dr. Nwankwo T. Nwaezeigwe, attacking the intellectual maturity, capacity and of course, the personality of professor Kperogi. While Kperogi’s delving into history clearly demonstrates his sincere commitment to love and unity of Nigeria, Nwankwo’s historical profession is but a partisan display of intellectual dishonesty and arrogance. No doubt he ended orating histories that have no concrete basis in history—some of which he cited without any tangible evidence—a tell-tales he’s been hearing from his vehement, unfriendly religious and ethnic atmosphere. At some instances, both Nwankwo and Kperogi patronise selectivity of sources, normal as it is, but also neglecting other relevant authorities.”

I will take the above wobbly verbosity sentence by sentence.

First, my response to Farooq Kparogi was not a “form” of diatribe but a clear diatribe rebutting Farooq Kperogi’s supposed intellectual maturity because he wrote like an intellectual minion in the subject matter of history; he also lacked the capacity of moral judgment anchored on critical application of historical facts; moreover, if he actually has a personality that is worth noticing, then he should have been reminded that Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch occupies a position no Fulani in history nah the late Sardauna of Sokoto Sir Ahmadu Bello had attained and as such deserves better respect than what exhumed from his leprous-mouth. 

Does Ismaila Misbahu compare the psycho-politically redundant Deputy Secretary General of the United Nations, Alhaja Amina Mohammed who was foisted as Nigeria’s representative by the prodigal misuse of Nigeria’s oil money for lobby, to Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch who rose to power by the sheer mark of merit through the popular will of British people?

When Ismail Misbahu wrote, “While Kperogi’s delving into history clearly demonstrates his sincere commitment to love and unity of Nigeria, Nwankwo’s historical profession is but a partisan display of intellectual dishonesty and arrogance”, it reminds me of Prof M. G. Smith’s statement in his article titled, “The Jihad of Shehu Dan Fodio: some problems”, published as a chapter in Prof I. M. Lewis’ edited book, Islam in Tropical Africa:  “There is no doubt that the ruling Fulani, particularly in Sokoto Province, have actively nourished and reinterpreted the memory of this jihad, and especially the charisma of Shehu dan Fodio in ways politically serviceable to their rule.”

Here one can rightly say that Kperogi’s sense of commitment to love and unity of Nigeria as claimed by Ismail Misbahu cannot be different from his subterranean mission to reinforce the memory of Usman dan Fodio’s jihad, as Prof Smith puts it, in ways politically serviceable to their rule.” 

If one might ask Ismail Masbahu, does this Farooq Adamu Kperogi’s “commitment to love and unity of Nigeria” include those instances of heinous killing of Yoruba people in their homeland by Fulani people of Northern Nigeria as I enumerated previously, which he deliberately shoved away in his pitiable rejoinder by? 

Does this same Farooq Adamu Kperogi’s “commitment to love and unity of Nigeria” include the ongoing slaughter of defenseless non-Fulani indigenes of Benue, Kogi, Taraba, Nasarawa, Plateau, Kaduna, Niger, Zamfara, Kebbi, and Sokoto States? Does it also include the ongoing deadly unstoppable jihad activities of Boko Haram, ISWAP, Fulani Herdsmen, and criminal Fulani bandits? 

One can accept the assumption of arrogance which is a subjective matter; but for dishonesty, how does it ally with the incontrovertible examples of killings in Yorubaland by Muslim Fulani jihadists masquerading as Herdsmen and bandits which I briefly enumerated but which the same Ismail Misbahu did not dispute with a single phrase of irrefutable evidence? Or does Ismail Misbahu copy and paste words more for their highfalutin sound than applicability in meaning? This was the same copy and paste style that dominated Farooq Kperogi’s exegesis of historical confusion.

The third sentence stated inter alia, “No doubt he ended orating histories that have no concrete basis in history—some of which he cited without any tangible evidence—a tell-tales he’s been hearing from his vehement, unfriendly religious and ethnic atmosphere.” My response in this case is that in due course we will know those histories I cited without concrete basis in history or without tangible evidence, which he describes as “a tell-tales” from “vehement, unfriendly religious and ethnic atmosphere.” Unfortunately, Ismail Misbahu failed to inform us who created his “vehement, unfriendly religious and ethnic atmosphere” in Nigeria today.

Misbahu’s fourth and last statement, “At some instances, both Nwankwo and Kperogi patronise selectivity of sources, normal as it is, but also neglecting other relevant authorities”, is nothing but the cacophonic display of hankering studentism. What does MIsbahu understand by “selectivity of sources?” Were both essays research articles? What were those relevant authorities neglected by Nwankwo Nwaezeigwe that were relevant to the issues raised? 

If at all historical sources were cited, they were done as a matter of courtesy of reference to substantiate certain commanding arguments. Were Yusufu Bala Usman and Elizabeth Isichei those authorities considered neglected? I think Ismail Misbahu still needs some tutorials on introductory historiography to properly understand what is meant by relevant authority in historical research.

In his section titled “Nwankwo’s Misrepresentation of History” Ismail Misbahu set out his rickety promenade of attempting to construct a mountain of intellectual self-importance from a molehill of Fulani historical obscurantism in the following words:

“His 4,360 words attack, of which about 2,500 words were but a muddiest, mismatched and confused response to Kperogi, with about 930 words of flattering ignorance about the complex nature of Nigeria’s insecurity while 255 words ended in praise-singing, must stand the chance of winning the 2025 Badanoch’s Award of Ethnic Champion!”

So far, Ismaila Misbahu did not in one phrase contradict any part of the 2,500 words of “muddiest, mismatched and confused response to Kperogi.” Does Ismail Misbahu also claim the Owo Church massacre, the killing of three Ekiti monarchs in their State, the frequent kidnapping, raping and killing of innocent people by his Fulani jihadist herdsmen and bandits part of the “930 words of flattering ignorance about the complex nature of Nigeria’s insecurity?” For the 255 words praise-singing for the Rt. Hon Kemi Badenoch, there is doubting the fact that by the current state of her political attainment she’s worth thousands of words of praise-singing and not a paltry 255 words. I only stopped at 255-word praise-singing for that indomitable Oduduwa Lioness and political goddess of Nigerian Christendom just for want of space.

Writing in a manner that clearly defines historical sheepism, or better still historical herdology; that is interpreting history with the linear mentality of sheep following the other without looking beyond or, cattle following a Fulani herdsman without independent thinking faculty, Ismail Misbahu yawed in the following words:
Unfortunately for Nwankwo, Kperogi is not an ethnic champion and that is why he devoted attention to various historical accounts—those of Professor Biodun Adediran and Dr. Hussaini Abdu especially—to speak of the fact that ‘Yoruba’ was, in fact, a word first used for Oyo people by ‘Northerners’ and also relate well with the name’s association with Baatonu, all in his attempt to demonstrate how various historical accounts suggest that there’s SOMETHING as opposed to Badenoch’s claiming of having NOTHING in common, with the North.

Is Ismail Misbahu telling us by the above words that just in order not to be called an ethnic champion Prof Farooq Kperogi with all his assumed celebrated intellectual height decided to abandon the substance of Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch‘s assertion and pursued the shadow of the substance in the name arguing over the already known facts of Yoruba etymology? Is it not intellectually pitiable that an intellectually unstable postgraduate student of history will be pleading alibi for such a reputable scholar as Prof Farooq Adamu kperogi for the blunder of presumptuous historical misrepresentation?

Ismail Misbahu goes further in this dismal alibi to state in defense of Farooq kperogi that “there’s SOMETHING as opposed to Badenoch’s claiming of having NOTHING in common, with the North,” without logically defining the character of that something in common between the Yoruba and Fulani outside centuries war, destruction, killing, enslavement, banditry, kidnapping and deceit by the Fulani against the Yoruba, from the era of Old Oyo Kingdom at Oyo-Ile to present-day Nigeria. 

Did Ismail Misbahu contradict the above proven instances of the heinous character of Yoruba-Fulani relations as I earlier pointed out? The answer is no. Is it not therefore a case of poverty of Fulani historicism that a postgraduate student of history like Ismail Misbahu should sheepishly follow Farooq Adamu Kperogi in the same journey of illogical obscurantism?  What can be more historically dishonest than this?

Reveling in the same Farooq Kperogi’s presumptuous spirit of knowing more than every other person, the little-brained historian-in-training goes further to hypothesize in much a befuddled manner that, “It seems Kperogi understands history better than the person who pseudofiles historical professionalism.” In an attempt to substantiate the above assumption superiority Ismaila Misbahu wrote quoting from my previous essay: 
“Historically, the North by British colonial delineation is ethnographically made up of no less than two hundred and fifty ethnic groups of which the Yoruba form a part in the present Kwara and Kogi States.” [Emphasis emboldened]. The North and Yoruba of Kwara and Kogi were not made up of 250 ethnic groups. The myth of 250 ethnic groups has already been resolved by the likes of scholars Nwankwo will not love to hear from.”
 

The foregoing display of Ismaila Misbahu’s naked ignorance clearly explains the low standard of historical research in Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria and the intellectual qualities of his lecturers. It further explains why I noted earlier that this is a rejoinder I could have entrusted to one of my average undergraduate students of the Department of History and International Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka to undertake as an assignment. Indeed Ismail Misbahu failed in both the understanding of simple English grammar, and elementary quantitative history.

Does the statement “Historically, the North by British colonial delineation is ethnographically made up of no less than two hundred and fifty ethnic groups of which the Yoruba form a part in the present Kwara and Kogi States” mean that Northern Nigeria is made up of two hundred and fifty ethnic groups, or that the Yoruba of Kwara and Kogi States are made up of two hundred and fifty ethnic groups? For Ismail Misbahu’s proper understanding of elementary quantitative history, “no less than two hundred and fifty” stands for two hundred and fifty and above, and it does not matter if such number exceeds one thousand, provided it is not below two hundred and fifty.

I believe if Ismail Misbahu’s lecturers had taught him well, he should have known that enumeration of ethnicity in Nigeria does not come with exactitude of number but approximation, often with such words as “below”, “about”, “approximately”, “above”, “More than”, and “less than”, as the case may be. The reason is that there are always constant fission and fusion of different ethnic groups to either seek separate ethnic identity or adopt common ethnic identity. This is further factored by the interchangeability of the three variables of ethnic group, tribe, and language group. For instance in Nigeria, the once popular Hausa-Fulani has given room to separate Hausa and Fulani identities. 

In Southern Nigeria for instance, the 1926 Percy Amoury Talbot’s classification of the Igbo consisting 23 tribes gave way to Forde and Jones’ 1950 classification of the Igbo into six sub-ethnic groups. The Ibibio that were once classified by Forde and Jones as one ethnic group are now made up of four distinct ethnic groups—Ibibio proper, Annang, Oron, and Efik. Referencing Yusuf Bala Usman to counter my view in this subject matter with the proceedings of a Workshop paper in Kaduna titled, “The Formation of the Nigerian Economy and Polity” is an insult more than many. What has Nigerian economy and polity to do with ethnic characterization? I think Ismail MIsbahu’s lecturers need to train him better.

Both Richard Sklar and James S. Coleman mentioned like Bala Usman were mere secondly sources. None of them were ethnographers, anthropologists or ethnolinguists. Even Joseph Greenberg’s The Languages of Africa deals with language classification and not ethnic definition. If Ismail Misbau’s teachers were actually dedicated or are well grounded in their subjects of history like their colleagues in University of Nigeria, Nsukka, he should have been informed that there is a distinction between a linguistic group and an ethnic group. For serious students of history unlike the type of Ismail Misbahu, the primary references to understanding the ethnic configurations of the present Northern Nigeria before the later 1940s International African Institute’s army of anthropologists were Charles Lindsay Temple and C. K. Meek.

You can’t be classed among experts in any sub-field of history without proven researched published works either in the form of scholarly journals or mainline books. I can boast today as an expert historian in the areas of Igbo history and ethno-religious conflicts because I can be accessed and proven with my publications. May be Ismail Misbahu thinks he’s debating with his fellow postgraduate student of history. 

At this point let me refer Ismail Misbahu to my two books titled respectively, THE AFRICAN THEATER OF THE MIDDLE EAST CONFLICT: Studies in Arab Neo-Colonialism in Black Africa Washington DC: Academica Press Inc., 2019 and, FULANI ETHNO-ISLAMIC CONSPIRACY AND YORUBA SUBJUGATION—From Aare Afonja to Asiwaju Tinubu, published in Lagos by Masterbuilder Communications in 2022, for him to understand that Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch’s assertiveness goes beyond the musings and presumptuous public intellectual showmanship of such Fulani braggarts as Farooq Adamu Kperogi and his intellectual midget Ismail Misbahu.

Still confused with the distinction between language and ethnicity, the postgraduate student of history of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, still goes further to expose, in the manner of the wind blowing open the buttocks of the fowl, the poverty of historical studies in Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, in the following intellectual incongruity:
 
“The latest available list of Nigerian languages by Keir Hansford, John Bendor and K. Stanford, updated to May 2004 by the more recent scholarly researches including those of D. Crozier, R. Blench, B. Connel and U. Siebert, published in Ethnolougue:  Languages of the World, 14th Edition of 2004, as “Languages of Nigeria”, have identified 505 living languages in the country as shown in fig.8.”

This is what we call off-point. The fundamental question to Ismail Misbahu at this stage is did either Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch or Nwankwo Nwaezeigwe speak about languages? Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch was emphatic in her pronouncement of the phrase “our ethnic enemies”, and when I did not in any form mention languages. For the educative information of the Ahmadu Bello University postgraduate student of history Mr. Ismail Misbahu, language group is distinct from ethnic group. A group could lose their original language and still maintain its distinct identity.
 

An example under my historical research watch are the Ngoni ethnic group of Malawi, Mozambique and Tanzania who lost their Nguni language of South Africa and adopted the languages of their host ethnic groups, (See Nwankwo T. Nwaezeigwe, Ngoni (A Historical Survey of the Ngoni People of Malawi) New York: The Rosen Publishing Inc., 1997). In the same fashion, the Edo-Speaking people which extend from Northern Edo State to Southern Delta State are made up of many distinct ethnic groups.
 

The Tukolor ethnic group represented by the Sultan of Sokoto and the Bororo represented by Muhammadu Buhari are two distinct ethnic groups sharing the same Fulbe language. Similarly, the Hutu and Tutsi of both Burundi and Rwanda share common language but belong to distinct ethnic groups. Just tell me why Ismail Misbahu shouldn’t have failed if this paper were an examination especially under my watch? I still believe with what I am seeing that an average undergraduate student of the Department of History and International Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka will do better than this postgraduate student of Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria.

In his section titled, “Confused Tautologies: Nwankwo’s ‘Drip Strategy”, Ismail Misbahu again showcases the poverty of his historical instruction in his Ahmadu Bello University in the following highfalutin demonstration of acute ignorance of Nigerian history:
 
“Interestingly, the same etymological approach Kperogi employed to show there’s something in common between Yoruba and Northern Nigeria, also employed by his critique, Nwankwo, using the name ‘Nigeria’ to show that it was a British exonym first ‘intended’ to be assigned to ‘Muhammedan Habe (the Hausa-Fulani)’, which according to Nwankwo justifies the Awolowo’s claim that ‘Nigeria is a mere geographical expression.’ Yes, it is true that the name ‘Nigeria’ was intended to be applied to the northern parts of the country, in order to distinguish them from the rest of the Lagos Colony and Niger Coast Protectorate as expressed in a letter wrote by Lugard’s wife, Flora Show, dated 8th January, 1897 and published in The Times of London.”

The foregoing grandiose exposition of ignorance is another reason why Ismail Misbahu should have failed this paper woefully if it were an examination paper under my watch. First before debunking the above misrepresentation let me refer him to my research article titled, “FEMINISM, POWER, AND NIGER EXPLORATION: Accounts of memorable confrontations between the African woman and the Nineteenth Century European Explorer Mungo Park” Integrity Journal of Arts and Humanities Vol. 4 (2) April, 2023, https://integrityresjournals.org/journal/IJAH/edition/30_Apr_2023 

First, the term “Nigeria” was not invented by Flora Shaw (Not Show as stated above) who later became Lord Lugard’s wife. She only lifted it from an already existing source as journalists like Farooq Adamu Kperogi often do. This is a privileged source of information none of Ismail Misbahu’s lecturers in the Department of History, Ahmadu University Zaria would have known before now. The name “Nigeria” was coined by William Cole of Liverpool in his book, Life In The Niger or, the Journal of an African Trader, published in 1862 in London, by Saunders, Otley, and Co of 66 Brook Street, Hanover Square. The term came from the sentence, “This is the general mode in which the Nigerians make known their loses.”  

Moreover, it was not a letter that was published by Flora Shaw but an article. Flora Shaw was also not married to Frederick Lugard at the time of the publication. Ismail Hisbahu should therefore go back to the classroom and be properly tutored as a student of history before coming out to demonstrate the intellectual deficiencies of Department of History, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria. 

The second historical blunder co mitted by Ismail Misbahu was the claim that the name “Nigeria” was originally intended to be used exclusively for Awolowo’s Muhammedan Habe. To put the records straight if his lecturers did not properly inform him; by 1897 when Flora Shaw mentioned Nigeria in her London Times article, there were three and not two independent British colonial territories in the present Southern Nigeria. These were the Colony and Protectorate of Lagos, the Niger Coast Protectorate with Capital in Calabar and, Royal Niger Protectorate with its Capital at Asaba, which extended to Lokoja and Bida, up to the banks of River Benue. Lagos Colony and 

It is equally instructive to state that at this point of Nigeria’s history Awolowo’s Muhammadan Habe defined by Sokoto Caliphate was not yet on the map of British colonial possessions. So how could the British have reserved a name for a non-existent territory? In fact as at 1900 when the amalgamation of Niger Coast Protectorate and Royal Niger Protectorate was implemented to create the Protectorate of Southern Nigeria, the present Sokoto Caliphate except Ilorin and Bida was outside the control of the British in what is known today as Northern Nigeria. 

Indeed the French right from the border town of Birnin Konni in the present Niger Republic were already stepping into Sokoto when the British crown mandated Lord Lugard to conquer them. This conquest eventually took place in 1903 when the whole Sokoko Caliphate collapsed like packs of wood before the approaching British maxim-gun. It’s unfortunate that Ismail Mishbahu’s lecturers at Department of History, Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria did not know enough history of Northern Nigeria to properly teach him.

Ismail Misbahu also wants me to provide him with references to substantiate my assertion that Usman dan Fodio was not a proper Fulani but a Tukulor and that the Hausa see the Fulani from two identity perspectives of Bororo and the triple names of Torodbe, Torodo and Toronkawa. This is unfortunate for a postgraduate student of history from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria, and equally a Fulani, or may be Tukolor. Indeed, this is a perfect example of poor teachers producing poor students.

Let me refer Ismail to what Prof B. G. Martin said in his book, Muslim Brotherhoods in Nineteenth Century Africa Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976, page 15, in reference to Shehu Usman dan Fodio, his brother Abdullahi, and his son Muhammad Bello:

“All three men had been educated in the traditional Torodbe…. The Torodbe lived lives in many ways indistinguishable from those of the surrounding Fulani normads. The Torodbe teaching clans were mostly settled, but they occasionally lived among their cattle during periods of good pastorage. To the surrounding Hausa population, then, the words Torodbe, Toronkawa and Torode were virtually identical with Fula.”

Even Shehu Usman dan Fodio and his second son and successor Muhammad Bello did not consider themselves as Fulani but Torobe. Quoting Muhammad Bello in his description of how he mobilized his Senegalese Futa Toro kinsmen to conquer the Hausa, Professor M.G. Smith in article, “The Jihad of Shehu dan Fodio: some problems”, in I. M. Lewis (ed) Islam in Tropical Africa London: Oxford University Press, 1966, page 417, wrote:

 “But in most areas as well as Katsina some of their Fulani kindred (the pagan nomads) joined our folk, the followers of the Faith’. From Futa Toro, Sidi al-Mukhtar al-kunti, the Qadirigya Sufi, sent others, Fulani and Torobe to swell Shehu’s jihad.”

This same addle-brained postgraduate student of history from Ahmadu Bello University, Zaria called Ismail Misbahu even went further to question my assertion that the word “Fulani” was alien to pre-colonial Nigeria. In his often instinctive portrayal of acute ignorance of Nigerian history, he stated, “The term ‘Fulani’ Nwankwo ‘tells’ without citing any evidence “was alien to pre-colonial Nigeria.” 

Well if Nwankwo did not cite any evidence previously, here is the evidence uprooted right from page 69 of William Balfour Baikie’s book titled, Narratives of an Exploring Voyage up the Rivers Kwora and Binue Commonly Known as the Niger and Tshadda in 1854 London: Frank Cass, 1966: 
“The enemy they said, did not come on openly; but for several days many of them have been arriving at Panda in small bands, apparently for trade, when suddenly one morning they arose and assaulted the place, so unexpectedly that but little resistance was made Few were killed, but numbers were made captives, the king being among the former. The city was then burnt, after which most of Fulatas retired towards the town of Toto, about which spot they were supposed to still be lingering.”

This was the description by Dr. William Baikie in company of the later Bishop Samuel Ajayi Crowther of the Fulata (Fulani) destruction of the Ebira town of Panda in 1854; yet scions of jihadists like Farooq Adamu Kperogi and Ismail Misbahu will be concocting unproven love and unity of Nigeria under treacherous Fulani arrogance. It is only a questionable Yoruba patriot that will not ally with Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch in her untainted description of the North defined in this case as the Fulani, as their ethnic enemies. Even Shehu Usman dan Fodio long ago defined the Yoruba as his eternal enemies. Does Ismail Misbahu still need citation to confirm this historical truism? Here is the citation then.

The following statement by Shehu Usman dan Fodio in which he described the Yoruba and their Kings as unbelievers who deserved to be conquered was made in his book published in Arabic titled, Bayan wujub al-hijira (See M. G. Smith, “The Jihad of Shehu dan Fodio: some problems”, in I. M. Lewis (ed) Islam in Tropical Africa London: Oxford University Press, 1966, 413):
“Withdrawal from the towns of the heathen is an essential duty, both in the Koran and the traditions, and in the consensus of the learned…. Now the capital cities of the Sudan are included in the heathen; …these cities fall into three classes…. In one class of these towns, paganism predominates and Islam is very weak, for instance…, Mossi, Gurma, Bussa, Borgu, Dagomba, Yoruba… and Gombe….. The rulers of these countries are all heathen, and so too …their subjects….” 

From the foregoing, it is clear to those Yoruba Muslims who ignorantly pride themselves as Islamic brothers of the Fulani that Shehu Usman dan Fodio did not recognize them as true Muslims. So what kind of relationship between the Yoruba and Fulani are Farooq Adamu Kperogi and his intellectual minion kinsman Ismail Misbahu talking about?

In 1902 the Sultan of Sokoto, Abdul‘Rahman ibn Atiku made it known to Lord Lugard in the following words that unless you are a Muslim, any relationship with the Fulani must be ddefined by war (See Sir Charles Orr, The Making of Northern Nigeria London: Frank Cass, 1965, 291):
“From us to you: I do not consent that any one from you should ever dwell with us. I will never agree with you. I will have nothing ever to do with you. Between us and you there is no dealing except as between Musulmans and unbelievers. (‘Kafiri’) – War, as God Almighty has enjoined on us. There is no power or strength safe on high. This with salutations!”

The question to both Farooq Adamu Kperogi and Ismail Misbahu is, are Nigerian Christians and even some unfortunate non-Fulani Muslims not facing the same war levied against them by Sultan Abdul‘Rahman ibn Atiku in 1902 into the present 21st century?  So where did Rt. Hon. Kemi Badenoch go wrong? 

Even Lord Lugard the architect of modern-day Fulani jihad and political banditry in Nigeria did not hide his express confirmation that the Fulani are enemies of not only the Yoruba but the entire Nigerian Christians when he stated (See Lord Fredrick Lugard The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa London: Frank Cass, 1965, 198):
“We are dealing with the same generation and in many cases with the identical rulers, who were responsible for the misrule and tyranny which we found in 1902. The subject races near the capital were the serfs, and the victims of constant extortion. Those dwelling at a distance were raided for slaves, and could not count their women, their cattle, or their crops their own. Punishments were most barbarous, and included impalement, mutilation, and burying alive.”

The question again to Farooq Adamu Kperogi and Ismail Misbau is did Lord Lugard equally lie by the foregoing statements, and how can the present situation be differentiated from the above statement?  

The renowned Yoruba historian, Prof S. A. Akintoye aptly stated (See Revolution and Power Politics in Yorubaland 1840–1893 London: Longman, 1971, 95), “The Fulani strategy of expansion was always to cause division among a people, ally themselves with the weaker to destroy the stronger and then subdue the former….” 

This is what the Fulani are doing today in their unhealthy alliance with some disgruntled and ethnically questionable Yoruba Muslims to alienate and eventually destroy the Igbo and the entire Nigerian Christians in their journey to achieve their 19th century jihad objectives.

 Let me just conclude here for want of space since this is not a research article; but not without informing Ismail Misbahu that from the foregoing it is obvious that he is a very weak postgraduate student of history at Ahmadu Bello University, not even qualified to compete with the least intelligent of my former undergraduate students at the Department of History and International Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka. His abysmal low level of comprehension of elementary logics of historical analysis not only portrays him as a very poor student of history but aptly describes the poor quality of his teachers.

Dr. Nwankwo Tony Nwaezeigwe was formerly Director, Centre for Igbo Studies, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and presently Odogwu of Ibusa and President.