The recent visit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle to Nigeria, ostensibly to promote the Invictus Games, unearthed a familiar strain of commentary in the British media. Kevin O’Sullivan and Christopher Wilson, through their pronouncements, perpetuated a narrative steeped in historical ignorance, racial bias, and a fundamental misunderstanding of contemporary Nigeria.
O’Sullivan, with the finesse of a bull in a china shop, declared Nigeria a nation “not deserving of endorsement by anyone,” particularly royalty. This sweeping generalization, dripping with the stench of the bygone era of the “white man’s burden,” is as offensive as it is nonsensical. Nigeria, a land bestowed with rhythms of diverse cultures, and blessed with a steady flow of human resilience, was reduced to a caricature of chaos and danger by O’Sullivan’s myopic lens.
His bombastic claim that Nigeria “doesn’t deserve endorsement from anyone” is a masterclass in misplaced arrogance. Nigeria, a nation of vibrant culture, rich history, and audacious entrepreneurial spirit, hardly requires the validation of a fading monarchy. O’Sullivan’s pronouncements reek of a colonial hangover, where Africa is perpetually cast as the helpless child in need of guidance from the “enlightened”
The underlying assumption that Nigeria is undeserving of a royal visit exposes the true north of O’Sullivan and Wilson’s compass. It’s a compass that points not to journalistic objectivity, but to a bygone era where Britannia ruled the waves and “natives” were expected to be grateful for the crumbs tossed their way.
These pronouncements are not mere gaffes; they are the putrid echoes of a bygone era. O’Sullivan and Wilson are merely the latest scions of a long lineage of those who view Africa, and by extension, Nigeria, through a distorted lens. Theirs is a lineage that stretches back to the days of explorers who mapped not just landscapes, but also racial hierarchies. It’s the lineage of colonial administrators who saw themselves as civilizing forces, blind to the cultures and traditions they sought to subjugate.
It is therefore gratuitous to remind the duo and their likes that Nigeria is not a supplicant nation, nor is it a museum exhibit of dysfunction waiting to be critiqued by self-appointed arbiters of propriety. It is a nation with a rich history, a complex present, and a future brimming with potential.
O’Sullivan’s guest, Michael Cole, reinforces this narrative by dubbing Nigeria a “dangerous destination.” This sweeping generalization not only ignores the vast swathes of the country where peace prevails, but also conveniently forgets the violent realities that plague many Western nations. Is Europe or America, places O’Sullivan likely considers “safe,” immune to violence?
Furthermore, to suggest that Nigeria vies with Johannesburg for the dubious title of “murder capital” is demonstrably false. Crime statistics paint a more nuanced picture, with several American and Latin American cities topping such lists. This resort to hyperbole betrays a lack of genuine understanding of Nigeria, and a preference for sensationalism over fact.
The not-so-surprising introduction of Meghan Markle into the equation adds another layer of complexity. O’Sullivan’s dismissive term “great weird pretend royal tour” drips with a casual racism that cannot be ignored. One wonders if his critique would have been so readily forthcoming had the couple visiting been a lily-white Duke and Duchess.
This agenda becomes even clearer when we examine the underlying racial and cultural biases against Meghan Markle. Here was a biracial woman, an American divorcee, defying expectations – not simply by marrying a prince, but by daring to exist on the world stage. The British tabloids, with their long history of casual racism, seized the opportunity to paint her as extravagant and out-of-touch.
The vitriol directed at her, exposes a deeper prejudice. Her very presence seems to have ruffled feathers, a stark reminder that for some, the concept of royalty remains stubbornly rooted in notions of racial purity. This undercurrent of racism adds another layer to the narrative dissonance, highlighting the hypocrisy of those who purport to champion a bygone era while simultaneously clinging to outdated and discriminatory views.
However, the criticisms levelled at Meghan Markle are merely the tip of the iceberg. The deeper issue lies in the colonial mentality that continues to colour British perceptions of Africa.
Christopher Wilson’s contribution to this discourse, in a now-deleted tweet that deserves no digital resurrection, plumbed even lower depths, comparing Nigerians to Nazis. This grotesque historical analogy is not just an insult to a nation, it’s a betrayal of the memory of those who perished in the Holocaust. Such pronouncements are not mere gaffes; they are symptoms of a deeper malaise – the lingering belief in Western superiority, a belief that refuses to acknowledge the progress and complexities of the postcolonial world.
As if we haven’t had enough, the recent Daily Mail headline”Meghan and Prince Harry flown around Nigeria for free by airline whose chairman is a fugitive” reeks of sensationalism and thinly veiled racial bias. It’s a concoction designed to outrage, not inform.
Firstly, the very framing of the story hinges on the presence of Meghan Markle. The implication is clear: a biracial Duchess intruding upon a space reserved for lily-white royalty somehow taints the entire visit. This thinly veiled racism is a tired tactic, a desperate attempt to diminish Markle and divert attention from the true story – a nation striving for progress.
Furthermore, the article brands Dr. Onyemaa “fugitive,” but fails to explain how this supposed “fugitive” managed to purchase a new Boeing 777 from the very US authorities who want him apprehended. This glaring absurdity exposes the Daily Mail’s flimsy logic. If Dr. Onyema was truly a high-profile fugitive, wouldn’t Boeing, a US company with stringent compliance procedures, raise red flags before selling him a multi-million dollar aircraft? This inconsistency betrays the shallowness of the accusation.
The unvarnished bias of the Daily Mail, against Air Peace Airlines, a proudly Nigerian carrier, is an extension of the larger narrative at play. More importantly, it serves to diminish a significant achievement – the rise of a successful Nigerian airline. Air Peace, a symbol of Nigerian entrepreneurial spirit, is a testament to the nation’s growing economic clout.Air Peace, a young Nigerian airline, represents a positive development – a local carrier challenging established foreign airlines. The Daily Mail, however, chooses to paint a picture of illegality and chaos, furthering the tired trope of Africa as a land of dysfunction.
To understand the pronouncements of O’Sullivan and Wilson, we must cast our gaze back to the days of the British Raj. The imposition of a foreign system on Nigeria, with its inherent sense of superiority, left a legacy of prejudice. Nigerians were, and to some extent still are, seen as subjects rather than equals. This lingering colonial mentality manifests in pronouncements like O’Sullivan’s, where a nation – a sovereign entity with its own challenges and triumphs – is deemed unfit for royal attention.
The pronouncements of O’Sullivan’s and Wilson have their roots in the colonial project, where the West sought to impose its cultural and racial hegemony on colonized nations. Nigeria, with its rich array of ethnicities and traditions, was no exception. The British, through a divide-and-rule strategy, sowed the seeds of discord that continue to have ramifications today. The frequent policy somersaults of past Nigerian governments, often dictated by self-interest rather than long-term vision, can be partly attributed to this legacy. Decades of unfettered resource extraction and a disregard for infrastructure development hampered genuine progress. Ethnic and religious tensions, masterfully manipulated by the colonial administration, continue to simmer beneath the surface.
Perhaps, ironically, the manufactured outrage surrounding the visit of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle might serve as a catalyst for change. It has exposed the sustained fault lines of prejudice of the British press and their desperate clinging to outdated narratives. The world is watching, and the charade of benevolent paternalism is wearing thin.
Let this be a turning point. Let us move beyond the cheap shots and the petty prejudices. Let us engage in a conversation that acknowledges the complexities of nations, a conversation that paves the way for collaboration and mutual benefit.
Nigeria is not a land to be patronized, but a nation to be engaged with. The future belongs not to those who cling to the ghosts of empire, but to those who dare to build a future based on mutual respect, genuine dialogue, and a recognition of the inherent potential within every nation, including the indomitable Nigeria.
• Kenneth Nkadi O.P. writes from Obosi.nkadi@opshotacademy.com
