Why Bishop Akinola is wrong

In a country where more than fifty percent of the population live below the poverty line, and a low-level civil war over resources is brewing the most pressing concerns amongst legislators and the self-appointed moral guardians of the country is the theoretical threat posed by the small and largely powerless homosexual population. It would be funny if it was not tragic. Despite the ridiculousness of it all we must resist the impulse to ask if there are not more important matters to discuss – because this debate exposes the root of Nigeria’s problem – our inability to live side by side to difference and respect it. I won’t get into debating whether same sex marriage or relationships are valid within Christianity and the Anglican Communion - that is an internal matter for members of the Anglican Church, not one that concerns the greater body politic of Nigeria. However, the archbishop of Nigeria, the Most Reverend Peter J. Akinola has issued a position paper on a bill currently before the Nigerian house of legislators to ‘prohibit the marriage between persons of the same gender, solemnization of same and for other matters related therewith’. In this paper, presented to the Nigerian House of Assembly, the good bishop lays out the Church of Nigeria’s support and disagreements with the bill. It is only right that the church have a voice in the direction of the country – freedom of speech is a value we must cherish and uphold even when we disagree with what is being said. Nevertheless, the arguments the church makes in support of the bill; arguments which are in fact the entire basis for this bill can and should be refuted.

In his preamble, Akinola says ‘the present trend in certain quarters to cast the bible aside and foist on the world a religion that does not have god and the bible at the centre was why...the introduction of this bill at this stage of national development is one of the best things to have happened to this nation’ – expressing his joy that the bill will confirm his position on the internal argument he and others are conducting within Anglican church. He goes on to say that that the bill should be upheld because of a number of biblical passages, citing a number of biblical passages, including Leviticus 18:22, Romans 1 26:27, and First Corinthians 6:9. Well, he’s wrong. Nigeria is a secular country, under the rule of a constitution. The church has a legitimate voice but its concerns and guiding principles cannot be the basis of the laws of the country. Akinola continues in a section entitled ‘Marriage is a creation of god between man and woman’, that since marriage was created by God ‘those who argue for the legalization of this unwholesome practice on the claims of human rights must first of all recognize and respect the right of god to order his creation as he wants it. Human Rights therefore should not infringe on the right of God to remain God!’ It beggars belief that God, and especially the Christian God who reputedly flooded the world to maintain its purity needs defending from a small group of human beings. He maintains homosexuality is a threat to procreation. The truth is that the greatest threat to procreation in Africa and elsewhere is the war and famine rampant throughout the world and in Nigeria – a crisis to which the archbishop speaks too little. Globalisation is held up in Archbishop Akinola’s paper as the root of the degradation of Nigerian youth and ergo the ‘rise’ in homosexuality, linking it with the rise of gay churches and fellowships in the country. Last I checked, however imperfectly, Nigeria’s constitution upholds freedom of religion. If certain groups of people interpret the bible to allow same sex marriage, the bishop can disagree to granting them communion within his church but he has no right to infringe on their freedom of belief or practice. He goes on to say individualism is a western influence that threatens an African sense of community. This is the frequent argument that for Africans to be happy we must all agree, a lie that we know all too well leads to war. A sense of community is not fostered when the leaders of any community call for the extermination of any one group or sanction their persecution. The family which Akinola proclaims to be the nucleus of any society is under great strain and threat in Nigeria by the twin evils of corruption and poverty than any group of homosexuals will ever be. For good measure, the bishop says the legalisation of gay marriage will lead to an increase in male prostitution. It is a logic fallacy that is hard to take seriously. Surely if gay men and women are married they would have little cause to prostitute themselves? The institution of marriage so well practiced by Nigerian men has failed to eradicate female prostitution – in fact, the imbalance in power between men and women in society is at the root of this problem, how then will persecuting and prosecuting a small group of men and women who want to get married and live in peace eradicate any social vices?

To ward off those pesky international human rights activists, the bishop invokes the sovereignty of Nigeria to make laws according to the wishes of its citizens - and the good bishop is right. Nigeria is a sovereign nation which has bound itself to the laws of an international system, one of which is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It entitles everyone to freedom from persecution. It is true Nigeria’s legislators can pass this bill, but in doing so, they will be confirming all the worst impressions of Nigeria and Africa as a place of intolerance, persecution and strife. Lastly, the bishop wheels out the shibboleth of the west’s pernicious influence on Africa including the slave trade, the world bank and IMF programmes and all the horrors of our post-colonial history. Yes, we have to acknowledge that very often the west’s influence on Nigeria has often been malevolent - but it is not westerners entering the National Assembly to protest for their rights; it is Nigerians, gay and proud who are affirming their right to exist. It is ironic that the loudest applauders of their persecution are the Church of Nigeria and Muslim leaders, two institutions established in Nigeria by a colonising western nation and Arab invaders respectively,. Now if that isn’t unnatural, unprofitable, unhealthy, un-cultural, un-African and un-Nigerian?

Dele Meiji

Side Business

On a post clubbing bus ride a few days ago, one of my friends told me a story of how he’d arranged to do a bit of business on the side by sending some items to Nigeria to be sold through a very close family relative. We’re talking through the same uterus close’. This close family member executed his duties very well and stood to gain a very handsome commission out of the deal – which said friend hoped to make into a regular sideline that would benefit not only him but also the relative in question.

For whatever reason, the relative managed to spend all the money gained, both his share and my friend’s. The story was told to me in a very downcast and bitter tone, with my friend vowing, more or less between gritted teeth not to trust anyone in Nigeria anymore, not even his own family. It wasn’t the first time I’d heard such a story before, and not I suspect the last. In my own family, there are countless examples of similar heartbreaking experiences. We both wondered how his relative could be so short-term in his thinking, and I recalled some of the stories I’d heard of others killing the ‘goose that lays the golden egg’. Apart from the fact that my friend was hurt, emotionally by the incident, the sad part of this story is the discouragement that it gives to people trying in their own small way, to make a buck and help people along the way.

It seems to me that the ‘extended family’ benefits of the African family that we’re always shouting about, are much less robust than we would like to think, and in fact, is corrupt down to its core – isn’t it just an excuse for family members to take advantage of each other and exploit each other? As to the idea of following the Asian example and building a business empire along family lines, like the Tatas, et al in India, it seems like we might be too selfish to do that. When I was at university, one anecdote that a well-oiled Nigerian (forgive the pun) colleague told me, was that his father had resorted to employing eastern Europeans to mange his farms, such was his distrust of his fellow Nigerians as employees. It’s a disheartening model – not only for job creation but for developing that social element which seems in and among Africans to be in short supply – Trust.