Prof. S. A. Zuru ( SAN )
I was privileged to watch the fiasco by an outstanding figure in the government, alluding to the fact that raising a Russian flag during a social protest amounted to treason, that allusion was not factual in law.
The world over, from the Russian Revolution of 1917 which swept away the Russian Monarchy to the Chinese Revolution of 1949 led by Chairman Mao Zedong and the populist Cuban Revolution of 1959 led by Fidel Castro which swept away the dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista, wherever and whenever there is an expression of social resistance, people always adopt a quintessential symbolic of social resistance in the forms of a flag or an emblem of any of the revolutionary icons of the 20th century; ie comrade Che guavera, Fidel Castro, Mao Zedong, Amilca Cabral, Nelson Mandel and even Murtala Mohammed during the Students protest of 1976.
WWe have seen that increasingly in recent decades in the conflctual spots of political contestation around the world; in Bolivia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Columbia, Brazil, Syria, Lebanon, Haiti, Mali and Burkina Faso.
Therefore, far from being a symbol of insurrection that could just may be amount to a treasonable offence, the waving of a Russian flag was in simplistic terms an expression of symbolism of belief and faith in the ideological strength of an organized social resistance against perceived economic and political injustice that defined the chemistry and character of political leadership.
Thus, to condemn that as treasonous will amount to a right wing outburst of political correctness that has no grounding in the spirit and logic of the law. I sincerely empathized with the families of those who lost their lives during the protests as well as those hardworking men and women who lost their properties to the protests.
While it could be said that social peaceful protest is a constitutional right, the vagaries of senseless violence that accompanied it leading to organized anarchy cannot be justified in law. Perhaps, that elusive narrow moment of opportunity for an open, unbiased and frank dialogue has come and may both sides have the generosity of wisdom of patriotism to look beyond their obsessions to let the golden moment be lost.
On the part of government, it must admit that the social condition of this country is not sustainable, it must also accept that a hungry man is an angry man, according to Amilca Cabral; Revolution in Guinea, “ the most dangerous persons in the society are those who feel that they have nothing else to loose” For the protesters, you must avoid being captured by the gallery of a moment so much so that you forget what you are fighting for.
Finally, the government must appreciate the grave urgency of this moment.
