Vigils in memory of executed dissident

This weekend, the thoughts of Western liberals will be focused on Ken Saro-Wiwa, the Nigerian dissident who was executed a year ago.

In Dublin Sinead O'Connor is giving a concert in his memory, silent vigils will take place in London, and every petrol station in Slovakia will be subjected to picketing by protesters.

The anger of Saro-Wiwa's supporters has been fuelled by a controversial essay written by Richard D North, an environmental journalist, who accused the activist of supporting violent protest and "feathering his own nest" with oil profits.

In Mr North's essay, published by The Independent yesterday, Mr Saro- Wiwa was accused of using the campaign of the Ogoni people to stop oil exploration by Shell in the Niger delta as "a useful route to fame and wealth".

He said that the Movement for the Survival of the Ogoni People (Mosop), which Mr Saro-Wiwa founded, had an "element of scam" and had led to violence by young followers against moderate Ogoni politicians who did not support its agenda.

The accusation was flatly rejected yesterday by Ledum Mitee, the British- based acting president of Mosop, who shared a prison cell with Mr Saro- Wiwa for more than a year.

Mr Mitee defended himself before the Nigerian military-appointed tribunal and was acquitted. Nine other Ogoni activists, including Mr Saro-Wiwa, were convicted and hanged.

Mr Mitee said he was "terribly outraged" by the description of his friend.

"The suggestion that he tried to feather his nest is completely not true. All the while of his public life he did not have any property in Nigeria or anywhere else.

"It was not until later in life when he left the government and went into trade that he was able to make decent money with which he was able to get the property that he owned. Ken was a very highly-principled person who hated the whole idea of corruption in public and private life. He has demonstrated that in his plays.

"The importance of this weekend is to draw attention to the sacrifice that Ken and the others have made and to ensure that actions are taken so that they did not die in vain."

The controversy over Mr Saro-Wiwa arose as The Body Shop launched a global weekend of protest in support of the continued struggle of the Ogoni people.

Campaigners are concerned for the safety of 19 Ogoni activists being held in jail in Nigeria. Yesterday it was revealed that relatives of Mr Saro-Wiwa and John Kpuinen, an Ogoni youth leader who was hanged with him, had filed a federal lawsuit in New York against Royal Dutch Petroleum and Shell Transport and Trading.

The lawsuit alleges that the oil companies played a role in the detention and subsequent hanging of the two men.

A Shell spokesman denied that the company had caused environmental harm but said that the company was now looking for "reconciliation" with the Ogoni people.

Why I can't agree with this tainted account of my father's life

Ken Wiwa

I have three main complaints about Richard D North's article in yesterday's Independent. They are serious enough for me to demand a substantial retraction or seek legal action if I am not satisfied that my father's reputation is not stained by unfounded allegations contained in the piece.

The main thrust of my grievance is as follows:

Mr North alludes to the "large house in Surrey" owned by my late father. The definition of large here is highly contentious, and a simple check on the location, value - at time of purchase and current - will only lead your readers to the conclusion that not many, if any, residents of the area could afford to send a child to Eton.

The implication is that my father was very wealthy, but by Nigerian and British standards and the evidence supplied in your piece, he was not. Rather, he falls into the sector of population who invest their hard- earned fortune in their children's future, not on ostentatious living.

Second, Mr North asserts that "within Nigeria he is widely believed to have feathered his nest when managing the Niger Delta oil port of Bonny during the civil war. It would certainly explain his sudden affluence at that time. If he was a crook, it is no more than Nigerians expect of each other."

Widely believed by whom? As a journalist, I am shocked that such a crucial part underlying the central theme of Mr North's article is not backed by any statement in fact.

For argument's sake, let me put my father's side of the story to you: after the civil war, he worked in the River State government before resigning to go into business in 1973. We continued to live in the spacious former colonial house that came with his government post even after he left office; he rented the property from the government. In 1977, four years after leaving government, having achieved success in his trading business - fuelled by the buoyant economy after the hike in oil prices - my father bought his first house.

Mr North could easily have checked his version of events by picking up the phone and calling me at The Guardian. Or he would have done even better by reading any one of my father's 50 books, where he expounds at considerable length, and at personal cost, on the lack of financial probity in Nigeria. And in this he was forever answering the suspicion of journalists like Mr North by challenging anyone who asked to lay their accounts side-by- side with him and establishing who was the more honest man.

I challenge Mr North to do the same. My father's financial affairs are still there for everyone to inspect. He has nothing to fear on that score.

Finally, Donu Kogbara's quote accusing "Ken of incitement to murder". It is amazing that Mr North does not point out that the tribunal which "tried and sentenced" my father and the others found no evidence to back the "incitement to murder" charge.

This is the same tribunal which was condemned universally - by John Major as "judicial murder", by Michael Birnbaum, a British barrister present at a portion of the trial, and by a UN investigation into the case.

Perhaps Donu Kogbara, The Independent and Mr North should read the judges' final summing-up in the flawed case. They might find their comments at best ignorant.

Finally, on a more philosophical note, I resent the spin put on the piece.

Surely, as the title of your paper suggests, journalists are instructed to form an opinion without undue influence by interested parties. Yet Mr North flew in Shell helicopters and was shown around by the company.

For an independent assessment of Shell's record in Delta, he might, in passing, have mentioned Shell's own environmentalist, Bopp Van Sessel, who resigned in protest at the company's record in the region.

Is this piece fact or Shell's version of events? Why do you not make this distinction clear? By the methods which Mr North employs to inform your readers, I am sure he could no doubt find a conflicting view of life at The Ridings School,

Ultimately, by trying to taint my father with the same brush as the so- called "leaders" who have reduced one of the world's largest oil-producing countries to one of the poorest in the world, Mr North displays a meanness of thought of the worst kind.

There are many well-meaning people in Nigeria, those who work hard to try to alleviate the crushing inequalities and mean- spiritedness in the society. As my father once said about Nigeria, "the only wrong-doers are those who do no wrong".

It is sad that Mr North cannot recognise the spirit of a man. Yes, my father was no saint. That much I have admitted in many interviews.

Perhaps your readers would be more likely to believe this coming from his son than from the daughter of a man who is a sworn enemy of my father? (But if you believe a man's private life is any indication of his contribution to a society, then at least in your piece you may want to balance Shell's claims by looking into the private morals of former and current Shell executives.)

Finally, my father could hardly be described as "poshly spoken." He spoke with a heavy Nigerian accent, as anyone who knew him or who has heard his comments on Channel 4 documentaries might attest.

It is a small point, but testimony to the blatant bias of Mr North's article.