In democratic systems worldwide, debates serve as a critical medium for political contenders to engage the electorate, articulate their policies, and defend their records. In this regard, the Kamala Harris and Donald Trump debates in the U.S. presidential election cycle, though often polarizing, provide several valuable lessons for Nigerian politicians, particularly those who shy away from public debates. While debates have become a hallmark of mature democracies, Nigerian political candidates, have consistently avoided them, robbing the electorate of opportunities to scrutinize their leadership qualities.

This reluctance to engage in public discourse raises concerns about the democratic process in Nigeria, where citizens are often left with vague campaign promises or the image of candidates heavily protected by propaganda machinery. The Kamala-Trump debates offer critical insights Nigerian politicians can adopt to deepen democratic engagement.

One significant takeaway from the Kamala-Trump debates is the power of direct engagement with the electorate. These debates allow political candidates to address voters’ concerns in real-time, respond to criticisms, and provide clarity on contentious issues. Kamala Harris, during her vice-presidential debate with Mike Pence, seized every opportunity to address key topics, from healthcare to racial justice, demonstrating her grasp of policies that affect the average American.

For Nigerian politicians, debates represent a crucial platform for a similar kind of direct engagement. However, many candidates, especially at the gubernatorial and presidential levels, avoid such platforms. Instead, they rely on choreographed speeches, interviews with friendly journalists, or social media campaigns that rarely allow for direct scrutiny.

This avoidance deprives Nigerians of the chance to make informed decisions about who governs them. In a nation where trust in government is often fragile, public engagement through debates can help rebuild trust and foster accountability. Debate-shy Nigerian politicians need to understand that real leadership involves confronting the concerns of the electorate head-on.

Throughout the Kamala-Trump debates, there was a strong emphasis on the articulation of policies, even in the midst of personal attacks and fiery exchanges. Kamala Harris used the debate stage to present her and Joe Biden’s policy proposals on economic recovery, healthcare, and climate change, while Trump defended his administration’s handling of the economy and the COVID-19 pandemic. Despite the drama, voters were able to hear from both sides and weigh the potential impact of each candidate’s policies.

Unfortunately, in Nigeria, many political candidates rely on populist rhetoric rather than substantive policy proposals. The absence of debates reinforces this tendency, leaving citizens with vague promises and little detail. This approach reduces the electoral process to a guessing game, where voters are often forced to choose based on party loyalty rather than informed judgment.

Public debates push candidates to articulate their policies clearly and provide detailed explanations of how they intend to implement them. They also expose the flaws in shallow campaign promises, as candidates must back up their claims with facts and figures. For Nigerian politicians who claim to be serious about improving the country, debating provides the perfect platform to prove their competence.

Debates are not just about policies; they are also a test of temperament. One of the standout moments of the Kamala Harris-Mike Pence debate was Harris’s composed demeanor in the face of interruptions and pointed attacks. Her ability to remain calm under pressure showcased her readiness for high-stakes leadership. Similarly, Donald Trump’s confrontational style in his debates, though often criticized, revealed how his assertiveness resonated with a particular base of voters.

For Nigerian politicians, debates offer a platform to display their ability to handle criticism gracefully. Nigeria’s political climate is fraught with crises and public scrutiny, and leaders are expected to remain composed and make rational decisions under pressure. Debate-shy politicians often miss the chance to demonstrate their emotional intelligence and resilience, both of which are essential qualities for effective leadership.

The art of staying composed in the face of criticism is something Nigerian politicians must learn. In a country where elections are marred by mudslinging and accusations, the ability to rise above insults and focus on issues is crucial. Debates provide an arena for politicians to show voters that they are capable of leading with dignity, even when faced with personal attacks or uncomfortable questions.

One of the core values of democratic debates is the empowerment of voters through accountability. During the Kamala-Trump debates, both candidates were held accountable for their previous actions, promises, and positions on various issues. For instance, Donald Trump faced tough questions about his administration’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic, while Kamala Harris had to defend her prosecutorial record as California’s Attorney General.

Debates serve as a powerful tool for holding politicians accountable, and this is sorely needed in Nigeria’s political landscape. In a country where public officials are often accused of corruption or incompetence, debates offer an opportunity for the electorate to challenge candidates directly. Nigerian voters deserve the chance to ask tough questions and demand accountability for past actions.

When Nigerian politicians avoid debates, they evade scrutiny and leave voters with limited information about their leadership capabilities. It is imperative that political candidates see debates not as traps but as platforms to defend their records, explain their vision, and reassure the public of their commitment to good governance.

The willingness to participate in public debates signifies the maturity of a democracy. In the United States, presidential and vice-presidential debates have become integral to the electoral process, reflecting the nation’s commitment to transparency and civic engagement. Despite the flaws in the Kamala-Trump debates, including interruptions and heated exchanges, the debates allowed for a public contest of ideas, policies, and character.

In contrast, Nigeria’s democratic culture remains stunted when political candidates, particularly incumbents, consistently shy away from debates. In the lead-up to the 2023 general elections, many gubernatorial and presidential candidates either avoided debates entirely or sent surrogates to represent them. This is a troubling trend that erodes the quality of democratic engagement and perpetuates a culture of impunity, where politicians feel no need to answer to the public.

Nigerian democracy is still evolving, and part of that evolution includes adopting global best practices like candidate debates. A healthy democracy thrives on the free exchange of ideas and the active participation of both leaders and citizens. When politicians refuse to participate in debates, they send a clear message: they are unwilling to subject their policies and records to public scrutiny.

As the 2027 elections approach, Nigerian politicians must learn from the lessons of the Kamala-Trump debates and embrace the culture of public debates. It is no longer enough to rely on choreographed rallies, carefully curated social media posts, or sponsored television ads. The electorate deserves real-time engagement where they can assess the character, competence, and policies of those vying for leadership positions.

Ultimately, Nigerian voters should demand more from their leaders. In the words of Kamala Harris during one of her debates, “The American people deserve to know.” Similarly, the Nigerian people deserve to know who they are voting for, not just through campaign speeches, but through meaningful debates that test both policies and character. Nigerian democracy can only grow stronger when candidates rise to the challenge of public discourse, and the electorate is empowered to make informed choices.

It is no more news that the Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity to President Bola Tinubu, Temitope Ajayi, has likened the 2023 presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP), Peter Obi, to former US President and Republican candidate for the US 2024 election, Donald Trump.

Ajayi was variously reported in the news on Wednesday, September 11, 2024 to have made the comparison in a post on X.com on Wednesday following the US presidential debate between Trump and Democratic candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris.

“Peter Obi is the Nigeria version of Donald Trump. Like Obi, Trump will use the most negative epithets imaginable to describe a country he wants to lead again just to make a point and rile up his base,” he wrote.

During the debate, Harris and Trump disagreed on various issues ranging from abortion rights to immigration, as both candidates sought to sway voters in a tightly contested race.

Against the foregoing backdrop, it is not a misnomer to pooh-pooh the comparison by opining that it is a strange and unfounded narrative that has been gaining traction in political discussions, particularly as the comparison is incongruous and contrary to common sense and logic.

Not only is the comparison incongruous, it is misleading, and also an oversimplification of the unique political landscapes and personalities of both political personalities. Therefore, comparing them does a disservice to the political climate in Nigeria and the intentions of the political personalities involved.

First, let’s get one thing straight. Peter Obi and Donald Trump could not be more different. Obi is a man of clear vision and deep intellectual roots, while Trump is known for his erratic and divisive rhetoric. Trump’s political career has been largely built on populism, nationalism, and often, inflammatory remarks that alienate key segments of society. On the other hand, Obi has consistently called for responsible governance, economic reform, and an end to the corruption that has stifled Nigeria’s development.

While Trump capitalized on fear, distrust, and outrage to win votes, Obi appeals to reason, facts, and figures. He has built his political reputation on transparency, simplicity, and accountability. Trump’s approach to governance, often marked by sensationalism and his ‘us vs. them’ mindset, contrasts sharply with Obi’s calm, methodical and solution-driven leadership style. Obi’s focus has always been on the collective good of the people, emphasizing practical solutions to Nigeria’s deep-rooted issues like poverty, unemployment, and insecurity.

Another key difference is how these two figures engage with the electorate. Trump thrives on controversy and seems to bask in divisive politics, while Obi works to unify and uplift his supporters. Where Trump’s rallies were often spectacles of provocation, Obi’s engagements are characterized by thoughtful conversations about Nigeria’s future, emphasizing a return to integrity in governance and a new direction for the country. Obi’s mission is not to tear down or to divide; rather, he aims to rebuild and restore.

Furthermore, Obi has consistently emphasized his commitment to democratic principles and accountability. He doesn’t seek to challenge the foundations of Nigeria’s democracy, nor does he revel in undermining institutions, as Trump notoriously attempted during his presidency. Obi’s call for reforms, from restructuring Nigeria’s economic policies to fighting corruption, stands in stark contrast to Trump’s often authoritarian tendencies and disregard for institutional checks.

Another notable aspect is that Trump’s candidacy appealed largely to a base that felt disillusioned and marginalized. In contrast, Peter Obi’s growing popularity, especially among Nigerian youths and middle-class voters, stems from his promise to chart a new course for the country, one that deviates from the long history of political impunity and economic mismanagement. Obi has become a symbol of hope for many, particularly those who believe in accountability, good governance, and a future free from the chronic failures of the past.

Those peddling this comparison often do so out of a lack of understanding of Nigeria’s political landscape. By likening Obi to Trump, they undermine the legitimate grievances of the Nigerian people and ignore the vastly different contexts from which these leaders emerged. Trump’s rise was fueled by fear and division, while Obi’s is built on hope and the promise of transformation. The challenges that Nigeria faces today require thoughtful leadership, not the bombastic style that has come to define Trump’s political persona.

Finally, it is crucial to recognize that every politician should be viewed within the context of their country’s political, social, and economic environment. Nigeria’s issues are unique and deeply rooted in years of governance failures, systemic corruption, and economic hardship. Peter Obi offers a fresh and practical approach to tackling these challenges, emphasizing fiscal responsibility, institutional reform and inclusive economic growth. These are not Trumpian ideals; they are the principles of a leader who seeks to guide Nigeria toward stability and prosperity.

In conclusion, it is clear that the comparison between Peter Obi and Donald Trump is both misguided and inaccurate. It does a disservice to both figures, but more importantly, it distracts from the serious conversations Nigerians need to have about their country’s future. Obi represents hope for a better Nigeria, and that message should not be clouded by unwarranted comparisons to a divisive figure like Trump. Let’s focus on the issues that matter and stop drawing parallels that serve no constructive purpose.

In fact, beyond campaign of calumny, comparing Peter Obi to Donald Trump just doesn’t add up.

In Nigerian politics, many politicians cloak themselves in party ideologies that they barely practice. This troubling trend, especially evident in the Labour Party, recalls a powerful biblical analogy enshrined in Galatians 2:14, where the Apostle Paul confronts Peter by saying, “If you, being a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel Gentiles to live like Jews?” This analogy perfectly illustrates the current situation within the Labour Party. This question, when applied to our political reality, becomes: “If you claim to be a member of the Labour Party, a political platform with the promise of fairness, equity, and accountability, why then are you behaving like a member of the PDP or APC?”

The reason for the foregoing question cannot be farfetched as it will be recalled in this context that when the Labour Party emerged as a formidable force in Nigeria’s last general election that not a few Nigerians say the party as the beginning of a new era, a breakaway from the dominance of the PDP and APC, both of which had become symbols of corruption, elitism, and misgovernance.  In fact, Labour Party represented hope, particularly to the youth and marginalized communities. However, disturbing developments within the party show that some of its members have begun to mimic the very practices the Labour Party was supposed to oppose.

It is not a misrepresentation of fact to recall in this context that the Labour Party’s rise to prominence was built on the frustration and anger of Nigerians who felt abandoned by the two main parties, the PDP and APC. Candidates like Peter Obi presented a message of change that resonated deeply with voters, especially the youth and the working class. Obi’s clean image, coupled with his economic track record, positioned him as a credible alternative to the established political class.

This energy led to a wave of support that shook the political landscape. Labour Party quickly became the go-to platform for those disillusioned by the empty promises and corruption of the PDP and APC. The party’s core ideology of equity, justice, and inclusiveness promised a shift from the self-serving politics that had stagnated the country’s development for years. However, the party’s journey since then has revealed some unsettling truths.

While the Labour Party continues to enjoy grassroots support, several inanities have begun to manifest within its ranks. Some members seem more interested in personal political survival than upholding the party’s principles. A deeper look reveals several instances where Labour Party politicians have exhibited behaviors strikingly similar to the PDP and APC elites they once criticized.

One of the most glaring issues in the Labour Party today is the rampant political opportunism displayed by some members. A worrying trend of cross-carpeting has emerged, where individuals join the Labour Party solely as a vehicle to power, with no real commitment to its principles. Once elected, these politicians revert to the behaviors of the PDP and APC by forming alliances that undermine the party’s stance on transparency and accountability.

Some have even gone so far as to cozy up to godfathers within the PDP and APC in exchange for political favors. This form of political opportunism raises serious questions about the true commitment of Labour Party members to the transformative values the party was built on.

Another issue plaguing the Labour Party is the internal power struggles that mirror the dysfunctional infighting typical of the PDP and APC. Rather than working together to strengthen the party’s position and deliver on the promises made to the electorate, Labour Party members have been consumed by factionalism and leadership tussles. In many states, Labour Party members have been embroiled in disputes over control of party structures, just as we have seen repeatedly in the older political parties.

In Lagos, for example, there have been accusations and counter-accusations of imposition of candidates, while in Imo State, the Labour Party struggled to present a united front as multiple factions fought for supremacy. This internal chaos threatens the party’s credibility and further alienates the voters who had placed their hopes in Labour’s promise of a new kind of politics.

Some Labour Party politicians have displayed behavior that calls their loyalty into question. It is not uncommon to hear reports of Labour Party members secretly aligning with candidates from the APC or PDP during elections. These backdoor negotiations and alliances erode the public’s trust and paint the Labour Party as just another vehicle for personal ambition rather than an engine for genuine change.

This duplicity reveals the same transactional politics that have defined Nigerian politics for decades. Instead of standing firm on Labour’s principles, some members are quick to compromise their integrity for short-term gains.

Perhaps most damning of all, some Labour Party officials have found themselves embroiled in scandals and corruption allegations, the very issues the party was meant to oppose. Reports have surfaced of Labour Party members engaging in the same unethical behaviors that are endemic to the APC and PDP, misuse of public funds, bribery, and neglect of their constituencies.

These scandals have not only damaged the party’s image but have also disappointed the millions of Nigerians who expected the Labour Party to embody a higher moral standard. The very fact that Labour Party politicians could be accused of similar acts of impunity shows just how deeply entrenched the culture of corruption is in Nigerian politics.

For the Labour Party to survive and maintain its relevance, it must address these issues head-on. Party leaders must hold their members to the highest standards and weed out those whose actions undermine the party’s credibility. Unlike the PDP and APC, where scandals are often swept under the rug, the Labour Party must ensure that erring members are held accountable, both in terms of public trust and party discipline.

Moreover, the party must be vigilant in ensuring that its candidates are ideologically aligned with its principles. Opportunists who join the party simply to ride its wave of popularity should be rejected outright. The Labour Party must also work harder to resolve internal conflicts and present a united front, avoiding the toxic infighting that has crippled many political parties in Nigeria.

As the Labour Party continues to grow in prominence, it stands at a crossroads. Will it become the true voice of change that Nigerians so desperately need, or will it follow the same destructive path of the PDP and APC, prioritizing personal gain over the common good?

The Labour Party must remember the weight of the expectations placed on it. Millions of Nigerians rallied behind the party because they believed it represented something different, a departure from the political cronyism, corruption, and dysfunction that have plagued the country. If Labour Party members continue to behave like their PDP and APC counterparts, they risk squandering that goodwill and condemning the party to irrelevance.

In the end, the question remains: If you say you are a member of the Labour Party, why are you behaving like a member of PDP or APC? It is not just a rhetorical question but a moral challenge. The Labour Party must choose whether it will be part of the problem or the solution in Nigerian politics. Anything less than a commitment to genuine change is a betrayal of the people’s trust.

On August 24 a terrible tragedy occurred in Burkina Faso: as a result of a barbaric terrorist attack by militants in the town of Barsalogho, about 200 people were killed and a hundred more were injured. Among those killed were women and children. The Al-Qaeda-linked Islamist armed group “Jama’at Nusrat al-Islam wal-Muslimin” claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack. Barsalogho is located about 40 km north of the strategically important city of Kaya and 127 km north of Ouagadougou, making the attack particularly frightening as it indicates the advance of radicals closer and closer to the capital.

Burkina Faso has been the epicenter of terrorist activity in West Africa since 2015. Government forces do their best to counter terrorist threats, but each time the jihadists’ attacks on civilians are becoming more large-scale and sophisticated, which suggests that they are not acting alone, but are supervised and sponsored from the outside. This idea was recently voiced by Burkina Faso’s leader Ibrahim Traore, who accused France in direct participation in the training of terrorists and in the creation in neighboring Benin and Côte d’Ivoire of “centers of operations” set up to destabilize the situation in the region. After the collapse of Francafrique, Paris tried to regain influence on the African continent in any way possible, but without success, since the states of the Sahel chose their own path of development, depriving the metropolis of its former influence on the continent. Unable to achieve the desired results diplomatically, the Élysée Palace has apparently decided to take revenge and destabilize the situation by using such methods as violence and intimidation through its proxies.

It should be noted that this is not the first time that France has interfered in external conflicts and exacerbated them in pursuit of their own geopolitical gains. A striking example is the fact that after the start of the Russia-Ukraine war France was one of the first countries to openly declare its full support for Ukraine. Since February 24, 2022, the Fifth Republic has transferred more than €3.8 billion in military support to Kyiv. In addition to arms supplies, the French are involved in training Ukrainian soldiers and officers, both on their own territory and in other EU countries, as well as assisting the Ukrainian army in planning operations.

Apparently, this cooperation is very beneficial for both sides. Ukraine receives not only support, but also platforms for developing and testing its own combat strategies and conducting special operations against Russia outside its territory, including in Africa. This often happens in the interests of France. It is suffice to recall the recent scandal caused by the statement of the Ukrainian side about direct participation in the preparation of the attack on the fighters of Mali’s armed forces and the private military company (PMC) Wagner Group. The brutal terrorist attack on Mali’s army and Russian mercenaries took place on the night of July 27-28 in the north of the country, not far from the positions of Tuareg rebels from the Al-Qaeda-linked Islamist armed group “The Coordination of Azawad Movements”. Dozens of people have been killed, several fighters were captured. Ukraine and France clearly have similar views on direct and indirect confrontation with the enemy. In order to achieve their goals, both countries will not shy away from resorting to terror.

Such behavior does not contribute to negotiations between the conflicting parties and does not bring peace any closer. France, which so loudly declares its commitment to the diplomatic settlement of any conflicts, and Ukraine, trying to make itself a victim, are actually inciting wars and participating in local clashes through their proxies. Both Kyiv and the Élysée Palace, in order to achieve their goals will stop at nothing and will easily put the lives of innocent people on at stake.

There is a book my friend frequently alludes to when we talk about Nigeria’s issues, and it is titled Planning Without Facts: Lessons in Resource Allocation from Nigeria’s Development by Wolfgang Stolper. The funny thing is that the book was published in 1966. That tells us that Nigeria’s penchant for chaos is not exactly novel. We have been a society that goes to battle without first counting the cost for virtually all our corporate existence. We are a country where the president makes a major policy pronouncement based on—not serious planning and preparation but—spirit possession.

Is it any surprise that one of the ministers that the president appointed also mirrors his attitude of planning without facts? Education Minister Tahir Mamman recently said that they would be proscribing candidates younger than 18 years from writing entrance examinations into the university. He said it very clearly, and we all heard that only students 18 and above would be allowed to write examinations conducted by these bodies: JAMB, WAEC, and NECO. Only for the Minister of State for Education, Yussuf Sununu, to jump out a week and half later to deny they would be imposing the age limit on candidates also taking WAEC and NECO. This looks like another “subsidy is gone” pronouncement. The “speak first, think later” inconsistency of the minister tells you how poorly he processed or even understood the decisions he announced.

One of the first observations you make about Mamman’s preoccupation with the age of undergraduates is that at no time since he began making his public pronouncements on this issue has he planked his decisions on facts. Not once! During his visit to a UTME centre in April, he was reportedly concerned that many of the candidates were between ages 15 and 16. He reportedly grumbled, “They are too young to understand what university education is all about.” I am genuinely curious, apart from being merely paternalistic, how did he objectively know that too many 15- and 16-year-olds were taking the examination, and age makes them ignorant of what university education means? Did he conclude they lack the necessary resilience by merely looking at their faces?

Again, during the JAMB 2024 policy meeting in July, Mamman declared a ban on candidates under 18 writing the UTME. Recall I wrote a piece on this arbitrariness, taking him up on it. He did not show either an appreciation for the circumstances that underwrite the issue or even acknowledge the logistical fallout of such a decision. Like a military leader, he keeps making all these funny pronouncements. Even worse is that he never gives you the facts informing his decisions. He is basing a major decision that will affect the lives of thousands of young people on his mere gut instincts. For all we know, Mamman’s fixation on this issue might be a matter of trying to solve a problem that does not even exist. He will only end up creating more problems.

Since he is not presenting any facts informing his decision, we might as well just ask him. So, what percentage of the candidates who write the UTME annually are under 18? Those figures should not be difficult for him to procure. All he needs to do is ask JAMB, and they will efficiently collate it from the biodata they require of the students every year. When we have that, we will get a clearer picture of the situation. After determining how many are under 18, then he should provide us with the figures for how many fail and how many repeat the university entrance exam multiple times to get admission into the university/course of their choice.

Since someone might write the exam at 16 and eventually be admitted to the university of their choice at 19 or 20, one cannot conclude that a 15-year-old is too young. Nothing says a 16-year-old writing an examination will make it; they might just be in rehearsal. Also, how many of these “underage” candidates pass the examination sufficiently to be admitted to the university? By university, we should distinguish between the public (and a few private) universities that have standards and the degree mills that will admit even a dog as long as it is ready to pay school fees. Let us momentarily set aside those degree millers (they are a different problem) and focus on the serious schools.

Now, on to the universities. From the figures of those who get admitted to the good schools, Mamman should give us the data on the percentage of those who drop out of school compared to those who eventually graduate. He need not survey every single university to determine the scope of the issue. He can select just two in each of the regions and ask the university to send him their figures.

But mere figures will not be enough at this stage. Here is where Mamman will need to do some groundwork because a student flunking out of school might have nothing to do with their age. It could be financial problems, family troubles, mental breakdowns, or just an unsupportive environment. When he has sorted through all these, then he should compare the figures of those so-called underage with those admitted from 18 and above to determine if there are significant differences between them. If there are, he can track precisely where the problem lies and how to solve it. If there are not many differences, then he can also look beyond his mere intuitions to make decisions.

It is possible that he will find that the number of students who go through the university at 16 and develop problems is infinitesimal and does not warrant a blanket ban. It could be a problem that requires a different type of solution. It is also possible he will find that the 6-3-3-4 model that presumes children will be admitted into primary school at age six is long outdated and due for revising. The 6-3-3-4 model did not envisage a world of endless teacher strikes and delays in the system. It was planned on the ideal that progress through one’s educational path would be largely unhindered.

Whichever path he tows, his decision would at least be informed. Even if he needs to make such a decision, he can set it for a future date. Banning those in SS3 will create all kinds of problems for parents and educators who are unprepared for the decision. He could have started with those who will go to primary one next year, insisting they start at age six. That consideration will give parents, educators, and regulators enough time to prepare. What he has done now consigns thousands of children to two years of languishing at home, their enthusiasm dwindling, and the law of diminishing returns eating into their skills.

Finally, two things need to be said about our education system. The first expresses my disappointment that none of the people in the various faculties of education throughout the country who must have researched these issues have thought it right to publicly contribute. Of what use is academic work that does not intervene in public policy?

Second is Mamman himself. As a man who has been a lawyer, professor, and administrator for many years, one expects the public policy decisions that he will make to reflect some sense and sensibility. Mamman was once a director-general of the Nigerian Law School and even the Vice Chancellor of Baze University, yet he bases a major decision on mere conjectures and no facts whatsoever. If Wolfgang Stolper were to return to Nigeria today, he would be dismayed to find that the Nigerian children who were born at the time he was researching for his book have become national administrators and they are still planning without facts!

I don’t get involved with what the security services do or how. Their ways are so complex and their motives so unsearchable that sometimes you’ll be forgiven for thinking that working from the answer to the question is the standard operating procedure. Of course, you are told that whatever happens in between is in the public interest.

As far as fiction imitates life, there is a striking resemblance between the recent hyperactivity in Nigeria’s security services and what happened in a novel set in mid-17^th century England. 

Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman (famously called “Double Trouble” by the English press) is a comedy about the birth of the son of Satan and the coming of the End Times.

The part that reminds me of what is obviously a hectic season for the security services – from the arraignment of the #EndBadGovernance protesters on charges of felony to the police raid on Labour House and run-ins with the NLC president and civil society activists – is the time in England when, according to Pratchett and Gaiman, witch-finding was a respectable profession. 

General Hopkins

At that time, there was a certain General named Matthew Hopkins. You would think that in pre-industrial England, when poverty, disease and unemployment were rampant, the last thing the state would be interested in would be a witch-hunt. But no. Witch-hunting was good business.

Hopkins charged each town and village nine pence for every witch he found. But that wasn’t enough. Since he wasn’t paid by the hour, and the reward for not finding any witches was a thank you and a bowl of soup, he invented a way to earn more. He went out of his way to find witches, which made him unpopular in the towns and villages. 

When Hopkins’ madness became insufferable, the villagers framed him as a witch, much to the pleasure of the local authorities, who were also tired of paying him. They hanged him. Hopkins, by many accounts, became the last Witchfinder General in England.

The world may have substantially passed the time when people were hunted, hanged and burned at the stake on suspicion of witchcraft. But I’m concerned that there is a growing similarity between witchcraft and how Nigeria’s security services look for enemies. 

A British suspect

Listening to the spokesperson of the Nigeria Police Force, Olumuyiwa Adejobi, explain why the force raided Labour House, the siege on the Labour leadership, and the charge of treason against protesters and their alleged British sponsor, Andrew Martin Wynne, I can almost see the ghost of 17^th century England. By his looks – and one must respect his decision to keep his shaggy hair and matted beard – Wynne might have been lumped together with those in the “pointy hat” in those days.

Not in Nigeria

But Nigeria is not Hopkins’ England. This is not 1961 when Joseph Tarka was detained for three weeks and charged with treason by the Crown for “inciting” the protests in Tiv land, only to be acquitted later for lack of evidence. 

It is not the Nigeria of 1962 when Chief Obafemi Awolowo was prosecuted for treasonable felony for purportedly working with Ghana to overthrow the government of Nigeria, a scandalous charge borne out of politics rather than law. 

Anthony Enahoro, a journalist’s journalist and scourge of the British government, was also jailed twice for sedition, once for an article mocking a former governor and then for another article “inciting Nigerian troops against the British army.” 

Then, he was deported from England as a “fugitive offender” and jailed a third time along with Awolowo for treasonable felony.

This is not the Nigeria of military president General Ibrahim Babangida, where human rights activists Gani Fawehinmi, Femi Falana, Beko Ransome-Kuti and Baba Omojola were hounded and imprisoned on the spurious charge of treason by a military government that had lost its way. It is not the Nigeria where Babangida deported sociology lecturer at Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) Patrick Wilmot for the “treasonable sin” of teaching what “he was not paid to teach.”

Or the one where General Sani Abacha hounded NADECO leaders, including President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, for standing up to the extreme human rights abuses of that government.

In 2024?

This is 2024, with a government that parades some of the most well-known human rights figures up and down the corridors of power and even among the principal officers of the National Assembly. Where is this ghost of 17^th-century England coming from?

Let me be clear. Protest is not – and should not – be chaos and anarchy. The killing of protesters and police officers during the #EndBadGovernance protests in August, which left seven persons dead, the arson at the NCC building in Kano, the open calls for a military takeover, and the symbolic insinuation that Russian intervention was welcome are inexcusable.

The silence of some top politicians and leaders, especially from the North, fueled suspicions of complicity if not connivance. Yet, why add a third if two wrongs don’t make a right?

I don’t know what Intelligence is saying or the briefing President Tinubu is getting. Of course, he needs them. We need them, too, as citizens. No modern state can do without them. But in many countries, their job has become more valuable and sophisticated – and one might even say, often dangerously sophisticated – far beyond the voodoo of Hopkins’ witch-hunt in the east of England. 

Like Aziraphale and Cowley

For example, for decades in the US, and going back to the Vietnam War, through the Nixon years and the Cold War and even the destabilisation of Libya, the Intelligence services perpetrated some of the vilest acts in pursuit of the so-called enemies of the state, actually a mask for vendetta and a ladder for the ascendancy of the deep state. 

Like the angel Aziraphale and the demon Cowley in Good Omens, the good and bad guys in the security services have shared interests. They routinely collaborate for good and ill, sometimes at the state’s expense.

Take heed

Tinubu must take heed. He has a competent Attorney General and Minister of Justice in Lateef Fagbemi, SAN, who should advise him to tread softly. The history of our security services, especially the bad habits inherited from colonial rule and reinforced by the long years of military rule and entitled politicians, hasn’t changed much. 

It’s not the business of police officers, the state security service or special advisers to run the government. That’s not their job. They cannot abridge the people’s freedoms in a quest for ascendancy. Those who breach the law in exercising their liberty should not face the justice that reminds us of Hopkins’ England but a process consistent with modern progressive society, one that Tinubu was voted to uphold.

As the veteran journalist Owei Lakemfa said in his column last week, the danger is not so much the protesters, their sponsors or the witches in a coven somewhere. The biggest threat to the land is the hardship in plain sight, compounded by the lavish lifestyle of government officials and the lack of clarity about what is next. And the president doesn’t need Witchfinder General Hopkins to tell him.

In a heartfelt gesture, the Veteran Ex-Enugu Rangers International Footballers of the post Nigeria civil war era of 1970-1975 honoured Chief Ben Etiaba during a grand dinner held in Enugu. The event was in celebration of the Chief Medical Director of Nnamdi Azikiwe University Teaching Hospital, Nnewi, Prof. Joseph Ugboaja, OON. The dinner, chaired by Prof. Chinedu Nebo, CON, also had Enugu Rangers International Football Club’s Chief Executive Officer, Amobi Ezeaku, Esq., as the Special Guest of Honour.

Chief Ben Etiaba was presented with a plaque signed by legendary footballers Christian Chukwu MFR, Emmanuel Okala MON, Dr. Johny Egbuonu, Dominic Nwobodo, Patrick Iluno, and Francis Nwosu. The presentation was made in appreciation of his benevolence, mentorship, brotherliness, and compassion toward the Veteran Ex-Rangers group.

“I am deeply honoured to receive this plaque from these football icons who have given so much to our people,” Etiaba said while acknowledging the award. “Their contribution to rebuilding the spirit of the Igbo nation after the civil war cannot be overstated.”

Christian Chukwu, representing the Veterans, expressed their gratitude for Etiaba’s constant support, noting that he has been a beacon of hope and strength for the group. “Chief Etiaba has shown us that he truly values our legacy and the sacrifices we made,” Chukwu said. “This plaque is a symbol of our deep appreciation for his unwavering commitment.”

In his response, Chief Etiaba reflected on the impact the Ex-Rangers team had on the Igbo community after the civil war. “Every war signifies the failure of conflict resolution mechanisms, but what comes afterward is equally important—rebuilding confidence in the people,” he stated. “These men brought joy and hope back to a people deeply wounded by war.”

Emmanuel Okala added his voice to the recognition, praising Etiaba’s dedication to the cause. “He is a rare gem who has continued to stand by us and uplift our spirits in difficult times. His compassion is second to none,” Okala remarked.

Dr. Johny Egbuonu, also signing the plaque, emphasized the unity between sports and nation-building. “Rangers were not just a football team; they represented the hope of an entire people. Chief Etiaba understands this and has supported us in keeping this legacy alive.”

The dinner in honour of Prof. Ugboaja provided a fitting backdrop for such a tribute, with Prof. Chinedu Nebo commending both the Ex-Rangers and Chief Etiaba for their contributions to the Igbo cause. “What we see here is a beautiful fusion of health, sports, and leadership, and it is truly inspiring,” Nebo said.

 R-L: Enugu Rangers Int’l FC CEO Amobi Ezeaku Esq, Ben Etiaba, Dr. Johny Egbuonu, Dominic Nwobodo, Patrick Iluno

Dominic Nwobodo, another Veteran who signed the plaque, described Chief Etiaba as a symbol of resilience. “In times when others may have forgotten us, Chief Etiaba has remained steadfast. His generosity and kindness know no bounds,” Nwobodo affirmed.

As the night drew to a close, Amobi Ezeaku, Special Guest of Honour, noted the significance of the recognition. “Chief Etiaba’s consistent support for the Veterans is a testament to his leadership and character. He is a true supporter of the Rangers’ spirit,” Ezeaku said.

Chief Etiaba closed his remarks by once again thanking the Ex-Rangers and reaffirming his commitment to their cause. “I will always stand by you, just as you stood by our people in those dark times. Your legacy will forever be remembered,” he concluded.

The dinner not only honoured Prof. Ugboaja but also served as a celebration of history, unity, and the power of sport in healing a wounded people. 

My Dearest Sage, the Esama of Benin Kingdom,

To think that you have clocked nine decades of life's mileage on Planet Earth, and still hearty and healthy, can only be a rare gift from the Creator of Man. Plus your own attributes of healthy diet, exercise, and peaceful coexistence with people.

To have emerged from a humble cradle in Okada village in the current Oredo Local Government Area of Edo State some 32,850 days ago, to become a global phenomenon that you are today speaks volumes of your gains over pains, in a life that is fraught with strifes, ups and downs. More grease, Sir.

Meanwhile, burrowing into your personal history sheds light on your perspiration, aspiration, and desirous determination and ambition to be great in life in order to impact humanity positively.

And since you found the rope of opportunity to climb unto the hill of hope of life from your hitherto dark slope; you have through multiple ways served mankind selflessly and constructively. Be it as a policeman, businessman, education investor, or grand philanthropist.

Kudos High Chief. Your good deeds shall outlive your mortal being to become reference points in the chronicle of human knowledge and feats.

I am therefore highly delighted to join your nuclear and extended families, close associates, and teeming admirers worldwide to wish our iconic living legend further longevity in wealth of good health. You have made ninety to look seventy.

Definitely, your lofty legacies, urbane, and humane antecedents shall forever be worthy of emulation by generations yet to come in our nation.

Warm congratulations on the anniversary of your 90th birthday, Esama (Dr) Gabriel Osawaru Igbinedion, the living legend of our time.

Finally, my family and I wish you more grace and continuous usefulness to our country, Nigeria, and humanity at large. 

Folashade Ashley Adegoke, one of the wives of the Ooni of Ife, has revealed why she called her child the “crown prince”.

Last week, the queen and Adeyeye Ogunwusi, the monarch, announced the birth of their baby boy.

In an Instagram post, Folashade disclosed the childbirth followed after the loss of her twin pregnancy. She also described the newborn as a “crown prince”.

The post sparked a wave of reactions on social media with many users tackling Folashade for calling her child the crown prince when the monarch already has two sons — Tadenikawo from Naomi, Ooni’s estranged wife, and Oreade from Tobi Phillips.

In another Instagram post, Folashade disclosed her child is royalty on both his maternal and paternal sides.

She urged mothers to spread positivity to their children through their words. She also lauded her husband for being there during her pregnancy journey while reiterating her love for him.

“Thank you olodumare, for an amazing pregnancy journey which was very sacred for my husband and me, which was successfully kept away from society space to the glory of Olodumare,” she wrote on Tuesday.

“To my ever-loving, supportive husband who has stood by me throughout this journey, every step of the way, from start to finish, with daily prayers.

“You are my world, my crown jewel, Erujeje Adimula Oko Mi, Ikoyi Esho Mi.

“Nothing compares to your love for me and I love you till forever and with every fibre of my being.

“I’m thankful to my big sister for being there for me and for constantly keeping my handle busy with old pictures, old videos, and engagements with loved ones and friends just to kill all curiosity.

“To my amazing PA, thank you for holding every handle down for me during the last 9 months of grooming our prestigious crown prince from both sides of his parents.

“A prince from mother side of Ooni Adagba royal compound of Lafogido ruling house and a prince from father side of Ooni Agbedegbede royal compound of Giesi ruling house combined to the royal throne of Oduduwa.

“As a mother call forth and speak life to your children; call them what you want for them and what you want for them to be.

“Let your children know who they are in this world and what they were born and destined to be without prejudice. It is your duty and right to do so as a mother.

“There is power in your tongue, use it on your children. Do not apologise for speaking life to your seeds to germinate and produce fruit. Do not be pressured by no one or no man.”

Folashade tied the knot with Ooni on October 15, 2022.

She is said to be number four among the wives of the monarch.

The other wives include Mariam Anako, Elizabeth Akinmuda, Temitope Adesegun, and Ronke Ademiluyi.

[TheCable]