OR is there? I am afraid that in the case of Nigeria, once you find a solution, you very often have trigger off new complications. Anyone who has followed the affair of Ngige and Anambra will have realised by now that the end-game for that beleaguered governor was not actually played out, owing to a number of fortuitous factors, unforeseen by his abductors. Going by the various commentaries on this episode, I am not alone in believing that Ngige, by the time we read about it, would have signed his last billion-naira cheque, presided over his very last cabinet and instead have joined the ranks of those who have been violently discounted from the living world. The signals are that stark, and my fear is that the perpetrators would have got away with it. Now why should anyone in this nation entertain such a fear? That question brings us to the second part of this address.

The answer to that question is that we live in a lawless nation. If anyone was in any doubt about it, the Ngige affair should have settled such doubts by now. I shall not come to the actual event of the murder of Bola Ige just yet. Suffice it to say that we live in a nation where the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice is assaulted in broad daylight, then his assailant is absorbed into the party that controls the very government he has been serving dutifully as Minister. However, his sponsors do not stop there. An event of earth-shaking proportions follows, an event that created ripples around the world, for the victim of that event" we come now to the actual murder" that victim once served on several international bodies and was most recently a member of the United Nations Judicial Commission, a position to which he had been sponsored by the very incumbent government of which he was Minister of Justice. His death brought messages of condolence, as well as mourners from every part of the world. The nation stood still in tribute to him and eulogies poured on his absence like torrential rain. So much for the passing of that individual.

Now, I wish to pause and return to the beginning. The second part of this address is the direct result of a private exchange of letters with some powerful individuals in government. There exist prickly individuals in this nation, some of them occupying quite exalted positions, who believe that every remark that implies a negative against a serving government is personally addressed to them. They have reached a stage of paranoia where they believe that if, today, one were to indict Nigeria as a refuge for 419 scam artists, they have been personally indicted as fraudsters in their very individual capacities. Take your mind back to the remark I made at the beginning" this is not an issue of declaring one's confidence in this or that individual or one's loss of faith in another's integrity. We are speaking of a collapse of a system, a collapse of values, a collapse of sensibilities, indeed a collective blunting of a sense of obligations not only to the living but to the memory of the dead. And once again, let me emphasise this, we are not even touching upon the question of guilt or innocence.

Why is it necessary to make such an obvious statement? Simply because there exist those to whom this is not so obvious. Since the publication of my article, Dancing on Ige's Grave, I have received some truly scabrous letters from these highly placed individuals, the contents of which, frankly, still churn my stomach even as I speak. Here is one sample. The letter urges me to desist from:

'...sensationalism triviality and playing to the public gallery over an issue that is extremely sensitive, serious and volatile. This attitude which you continue to manifest in respect of this matter and which was well reflected in your recently published article titled 'Dancing on Bola Ige's Grave' is, to say the least, most uncharitable and unfair....'

That is a mild sampling. I am accused f triviality and sensationalism. But there is worse. In that same letter, motivations, such as failure to obtain craved favours from the government, are actually attributed to my pronouncements over this and other issues I have touched on in recent times. Well, perhaps it was in order to stuff my mouth with favours that my daughter was recommended for and given the position of Special Assistant to this government, I do not know. In this connection, may I appeal to the media to desist from writing such untenable rubbish as 'Professor Soyinka also benefited from this policy etc. etc. through the appointment of his daughter.'

One moment please, does that journal know the meaning of 'benefited'? Is the implication here that I have been jobless and starving and would now be fed by my daughter? Or perhaps that I would now have access to the loftier circles of government? Does it bestow on me some further national or international accolade? Could it be that perhaps, at long last, I can secure any contract I want? Just what benefit is this supposed to be? I find such expressions either careless or mischievous, in any case totally mindless and presumptuous. Such commentary constitutes a gratuitous act of public disinformation or deliberate manipulation, and redounds negatively to the professional integrity of the journal. After 21, and even often before then, any offspring who has been given a solid basis in mental application has a responsibility to himself or herself and must never be inhibited by the already established path of a parent.

To return to the exchange of letters however, the letter writers in question simply do not understand a thing about what motivates individuals. They also underestimate one's sensibilities to the impact of certain forms of conduct both within this nation and outside - internally, there is the sense of an erosion of a sense of security, internationally, a contempt for the many missteps that have followed this tragedy. Permit me to lay out that last statement in the clearest terms.

I do not expect miracles in any quest to seek what truth lies behind a well-hatched conspiracy. We can only try, and be seen to try our hardest. Months ago, I had cause to remind the public, in a published interview, that a number of high-profile assassinations, even in nations with some of the most tested crime detection experience, have simply never been solved - the John F. Kennedy murder being one of the best known. Tomes have been written, numerous theories propagated. Witnesses disappeared, one accused was shot in full glare of television cameras as he was led from prison to court, and the murderer himself later died mysteriously.

Indeed, so many deaths followed that assassination that I sometimes felt that they should have treated Kennedy like one of those ancient potentates in some cultures who were buried with a number of slaves, retainers, even spouses, then the spate of bloodshed would have been satisfied once for all. Till today, a new theory arises, a few thousand books are sold, and yet again, there remain so many gaps, so many unresolved details, that there exists no unanimity about the truth of that assassination, who were behind it, how high up it went, what international connections were involved etc. etc. It is possible that ours may be no different, but we dare not give up.

What we can confidently discuss, what we are duty bound to comment upon, if we cherish any social values that make us decent beings and members of the human community, is any form of conduct that impinges on our search for the truth, and our respect for the memory of the slain. This makes a demand on the way that we respond to those who are involved, or accused of being involved in the crime, never mind what the ultimate outcome of the investigations or trial. That is the issue. That is the heart of the matter. It touches not only on ethical sensibilities but on the very real probabilities regarding zones of culpability. If any individual, an association or indeed any entity is seen to exert itself to an abnormal extent in providing even a semblance of immunity to the accused, mere curiosity impels us to wonder: what is the reason behind it?

These are abnormal times where events that no one would ever have contemplated 10 years ago are fast becoming commonplace. Before our skin becomes innured to abnormality, let us continue to ask questions and issue challenges to conscience. And, praise be, these questions are coming in fast and furious, they are unrelenting. They come from individuals right across the social spectrum - from clerics, students, businessmen and women, young and old, workers and farmers, trade unionists and journalists, in markets, hairdressing salons, in motor parks, in bars, hotel lobbies, in offices and sports fields" they are all asking this simple question that I posed in Dancing on Ige's Grave: what is so special about the accused that he is not only sprung from gaol, not only sworn into office as a member of the highest legislative body in the land, but even made a chairman of a prestigious Senate committee?

Wada Nas, as you may all surmise, is not my favourite character. He was not only the late Sani Abacha's mouthpiece, he was that dictator's self-appointed stalking horse, who made this present speaker his personal responsibility. Wada Nas was the man who announced to the world that I was holding a meeting in next door Benin Republic where we completed military plans to invade this country and overthrow the regime of Abacha. He was precise as to the date, time and venue of that meeting. As it happened, I was actually in wintry Davos, Switzerland, together with Heads of States, at least one European queen, industrial magnates, Microsoft billionaires, a Nobel laureate for peace etc. etc. One does not amass an alibi as well attested as that. The most dangerous person at that meeting was Yasser Arafat, and the most lethal weapon around was a purely defensive one - Vodka, a protection against the cold of the Swiss mountain, less cumbersome than a hot water bottle under one's coat. Yet I was supposed to be in the Republic of Benin with a batch of guerillas. No matter, that was Nada Was of the Abacha days. I reminded you of this history only so you would understand that when Nada Was and I find ourselves on the same side of the barricade, it is time to sit up and take notice. In an interview with TELL magazine, published only a few days ago for the week July 28, in which, quite deliberately I am sure, my own article Dancing on Ige's Grave was re-published, Wada Nas had the following to say, in answer to a question on implications of the bail granted to Omisore, and I quote extensively.

'It is a bizarre testimony. It is a mockery of our court system.

The judiciary is being ridiculed and our confidence is being shaken in the system. As far as we are concerned, Omisore is guiltier than Bamaiyi, Mustapha and the rest combined, and is the least qualified morally to make laws for Nigeria. Any law made with the input of Omisore would have the imprint of blood. We are more convinced than ever before that Omisore may have after all killed on behalf of the powers that be and he is adequately being rewarded by being shielded from the law and made a senator...'

That is the crux of the matter: the 'imprint of blood.' Wada Nas and I part company on the issue of innocence or guilt. Not yet proven, that is my position. What Wada Nas says however, namely, that Omisore, at this point in his career, is 'least qualified morally to make laws for Nigeria' cannot be faulted. This is the truth, and we have a right to ask, and we shall continue to insist on a satisfactory answer that does not insult common intelligence: 'why is he being rewarded'? What or who is the compelling force behind this anomalous conduct of 'being rewarded' or indeed, 'being shielded'? If we persist in our question, if we succeed in penetrating their inner caucus of the ruling party, we may have found the answers to the larger question that is agitating all our minds.

Even if Omisore has no criminal case to answer, the PDP does have a moral case to answer. And that moral question will persist until it has the courage to do to this suspect what that body did to yet another senator during the last government" Senator Nzeribe who was suspended for a far lesser crime, one of inappropriate conduct. No one is witch-hunting the PDP, let me make that clear. As a matter of fact, I clearly envy the PDP - who would not love to be in the party whose initials actualise the goal of political contest" Party De Power. So we are only out to sanitise this party that is so nationally beloved that it sweeps the polls even where it has no candidates. And in this instance, we insist that the presence of Omisore in the hallowed halls of the Senate is an embarrassment to that party, to all notions of equitable dealing, and to the nation.

 To be continued

 Professor Soyinka is a Nobel Laureate in Literature