I wish I knew him well enough as to tell you more about his antecedence. This does not mean nothing should be written about him on account of the reason. The material you have started to read is not in defence of former Head of State, General Yakubu Jack Gowon who has been accused as can be seen from the statement below:

“Now, some people will remember when General Gowon left Nigeria with half of the Central Bank, so it was said, and moved to London….”- Tom Tugendhat, MP for Tonbridge, Edenbridge and Malling, Chairman, Foreign Relations Committee, House of Commons.

Let me state from the onset that General Gowon is able to defend himself beyond the point I may take my argument. If he doesn’t, there are in fact more people that are able to procure more reasons on why the accusation of Tom Tugendhat may not stand the test of time. 

Speaking on Nigerian government’s response to youth protest against police brutality at a meeting of the Petitions Committee of the UK Parliament on Monday, November 23, 2020, Tugendhat was reported to have spoken ‘broadly and knowledgeably about the problem of bad governance and corruption in Nigeria and even paid a great tribute to Chinua Achebe for writing “the greatest book in English” in Things Fall Apart’.

I have listened to the remark of the conservative parliamentarian, what more, I have tried to understand why he picked on General Yakubu Gowon as ‘his notorious example of a Nigerian leader stripping the nation of its wealth and carting it abroad’.

General Gowon was overthrown in a military coup in 1975, clear 45 years after he left office while attending a meeting of the OAU in Addis Ababa. One would have been emotional about it given the fact that, he is from Plateau State, where I come from. To attempt that would remove the essence of the garlands he has received and make our study of him local.

Such men who have occupied positions of authority in their countries may have passed through different forms of ridicule accusations and other forms of indictments in forms that may have reduced their services to such nations as ordinary. Such is not unusual coming from these parts.

To have come from an institution which Tugendhat represents is perhaps sufficient reason to want to investigate the authenticity of the accusation and for what purpose that would serve. Several comments have been made on the subject matter.

‘Mr. Tugendhat’s comment implies two things – one, that Gowon stole half of Nigeria’s national wealth at the time and two, that people he’s addressing (the British, Nigerian and international publics) know this. And the latter is the problem most Nigerians challenging Mr. Tugendhat have with his talk.

‘We do not remember what he’s talking about. In what universe did this happen? Nigerians have never heard anyone say it until Mr. Tugendhat said it. We have never read any record of the corruption under Gowon (and there is a lot of that) that says Gowon moved money to London during his time at the helms or when he left office.

‘Those who overthrew him in a coup did not accuse him of that and when they indicted him in absentia over the February 13 1976 abortive coup that killed Murtala Muhammed and they threw everything, including the kitchen sink at him, no one mentioned him stealing Nigeria’s money and stashing it away anywhere abroad.

‘What we have in the public record is a Gowon who was outside Nigeria at an OAU Summit in Kampala when he was overthrown and who became a charity case right there with the Nigerian delegation with him tearfully contributing about 3000 pounds for him to start his new life in exile. Add to that 10,000 pounds given to him by Gnassingbe Eyadema, the then Togolese leader and the accommodation given to him in London by one Mr Emmanuel Otti and that’s about all what Gowon was worth’.

Do we need a British parliamentarian to tell us how corruption Gowon is or not. Don’t we have institutions whose schedules are meant to do that? If we indeed him for that would it not be good if he gave the country evidence he is privy to?

‘The problem with those who are up in arms against Gowon because of this new “revelation” is that they are not interested in facts. They are plain sensationalists who confuse conflation for conviction. They are those who in response to this news declare that Gowon is guilty because he’s a mass murderer for his role in the Nigerian Civil War. They are the ones saying he must have indeed taken half of Nigeria’s Central Bank to London because he served the “Northern oligarchy” and has always supported any government in power. Indeed, they have a litany of many supposed Gowon sins that have fully convicted him on the charges leveled against him by Tom Tugendhat. But where is the sense in using the platform of an unfounded allegation to raise other extraneous issues to justify the same unfounded accusation? Of course, our focus should be on the specific accusation and whether or not it’s true and, in this case, it is evidently not true.

‘If Tugendhat needed a real example of a ruler who looted the Nigerian nation with evidence abundant in public space internationally, he should have looked no further than General Sani Abacha. But he chose to accuse General Gowon of taking half of our Central Bank to London, an accusation no one has ever made against Gowon in more than 45 years since he left office. Tugendhat who just celebrated his second birthday when Gowon was supposed to have engaged in this heist couldn’t have known anything the rest of the world didn’t know about Gowon until now. Whatever he knows could only have been told to him or researched. So, where did he get this information because we know as a matter of fact that there is nothing on this in any public record anywhere?

‘Gowon has actually spoken for himself. He has since described Mr Tugendhat’s claims as “rubbish”, insisting his record is there for all to see. The onus is now on Mr Tugendhat to bring evidence to support his claim. Mr Tugendhat used his privilege as an MP to speak on the floor of parliament against Gowon, so he should not expect any legal consequences because there would be none.

‘But he must also not hide under parliamentary privilege to perpetrate a smear on a Nigerian citizen. If indeed he believes his accusation against Gowon is true, he now has to present evidence in public space to back up his talk. Gowon does not have to do more than he has done, which is deny the accusation.

‘Tugendhat is the one with the responsibility to prove his assertion. This is important, so we know the international fight against corruption and his willingness to help join the fight against the perfidy of Nigerian leaders are not predicated on lies and prejudices as well. Everyone, be they accused and accuser, deserves justice and truth is the bedrock of true justice.

‘If Mr. Tugendhat cannot find evidence to support his claim, he should apologize to General Gowon and get on with his mission to help Nigeria and Nigerians fight the scourge of bad leadership and corruption. If he does this, he will continue to have the full support of a grateful Nigerian nation’.

Nothing can be better than to have evidences of the record of the service of former leaders. The fact of the matter is for leaders to know and I agree with Kennedy Emetulu in Tom Tugendhat: How Not To Fight A Good Fight captures the essence of how we can look at the scenario before us.

Leaders have a responsibility to the nation and to the people who elected them—even if they are civilians or soldiers. We desire responsibility and accountability of the nation’s resources from the people put in authority. But truly we can’t live with accusations that may not be substantiated, proven enough for the same people to demand for justice.

Gowon may not be a saint; something has always told me he laid a good foundation which should be impregnable. If he had destroyed it, we may not be where we are today and asking other larders, who came after him to watch where they are taking us to.