The crisis in the New Nigeria Peoples Party, NNPP, has escalated with some aggrieved state party chairmen accusing the party’s presidential candidate Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, of using the party for political trading.

They accused the former Defence Minister of using the National Working Committee, NWC, to victimise people that were against his style of leadership even as they passed a vote of no confidence in him.

They rejected their suspension by the NWC and advised Kwankwaso to stop parading himself as the national Leader of the NNPP as they will no longer recognise him.

The crisis in the party began following opposition by some state chairmen to Kwankwaso’s political romance with the ruling All Progressives Congress, APC.

They had warned that the manifestos of both the APC and NNPP were different and that the initial agreement to go to court against the declared winner of the 2023 presidential election, Bola Tinubu, failed because of Kwankwaso’s antics and ulterior motive of extracting personal benefits to the detriment of the party and the collective will of members.

Recall Kwankwaso who came a distant fourth in the February 25 presidential election quickly established political relationship with Tinubu, whom he visited at the presidential villa and led his loyalists to France when Tinubu, then president-elect was in France.

It was reported that Kwankwaso’s role in the election was to weaken opposition parties, a development he did not deny.

His association with Tinubu equally caused ripples in the Kano State chapter of the APC and almost ruined the relationship between Tinubu and one of his closest political allies, Abdullahi Umar Ganduje, the immediate Governor of Kano State.

Ganduje warned Tinubu that Kwankwaso could not be trusted as it appeared the former governor and minister was aiming to be appointed as a minister in the current government.

Kwankwaso failed to make the cut and his associate, whom he named in the ministerial list sent to the Senate for screening was later found out and removed.

The state chairmen whose opposition to Kwankwaso has led to their suspension are accusing Kwankwaso of not having the interest of the party at heart even as they are contesting the legality of their suspension.

A statement issued by the affected Chairmen from Ogun, Niger, Rivers, Katsina, Zamfara, Lagos, Oyo, Kaduna, Sokoto and Ekiti States said their suspension which was announced by the National Publicity Secretary, Major Agbo, was null and void as it flouted the clear provisions of the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act 2022.

They argued that the real anti-party activity is being perpetrated by Kwankwaso who is usually “seen fraternising with candidates of other political parties in his desperate attempt to buy undue favour”.

They reckoned that, “the illegal NWC is now being used to witch hunt loyal party members who have no established record of anti-party activities

“We wonder why a disciplinary committee would sit without showing those alleged anti-party activities a copy of the petition written against them. How can the committee conclude without revealing the petitioners and their status in the party?

“Again, Article 39 Subsection 6 of the NNPP constitution states; Where it is proposed to expel a member of the Executive Committee from membership of the Party, such a proposal shall be submitted to the National Executive Committee…

“Where then did NWC derive its power to unilaterally expel the Chairman of Ogun State, Comrade Oginni Olaposi Sunday? Isn’t this a gross violation of Article 39(6) of the NNPP Constitution? Any act that violates the Constitution is to the extent of its inconsistency null and void.

“Slandering the hard-earned image of everyone who for many years have sacrificed their resources, time, and properties in building the party for the very offence the former presidential candidate openly committed is an indication that the illegally constituted NWC is being used to achieve a sinister motive of hijacking the party in continuance of political trading which characterised Kwankwaso’s participation in the 2023 Presidential election.”

The International Monetary Fund has said that Nigeria’s fiscal and monetary policies are too weak to stimulate the value of the Naira in the foreign exchange market.

It said the country’s economic policies have been creating excess liquidity,which is making it difficult for the naira to stabilize against the dollar.

The IMF position is coming two months after President Bola Tinubu allowed the currency to trade freely.

The Central Bank of Nigeria ended the regime of regulated exchange rates on June 14, prompting a rapid devaluation of the currency.

The new policy responds to president Tinubu’s call for exchange rate liberalisation in his May 29 inaugural address.

It also came less than a week after Tinubu suspended central bank governor Godwin Emefiele from office.

Emefiele, who had been governor since 2014, was closely associated with the elaborate fixed-rate regime, which was part of a wider industrial

Speaking on the development, Ari Aisen, a resident representative for the IMF in Nigeria said the Central Bank transfers to the government are increasing the naira in circulation, depressing interest rates, discouraging savings and deterring the dollar inflows that could boost naira stability,

About N22.7 trillion was borrowed by the federal government from the CBN, through the “ways and means advances. “

Aisen said at a conference in Lagos that, “There are too many naira running after insufficient foreign exchange, The supply of foreign exchange may take some time [to build up].

“Nigeria’s central bank eased foreign exchange controls in mid-June as it sought to simplify its exchange-rate regime and kick-start dollar flows.

“That led to a 40% plunge in the official rate and persistent volatility, with the naira trading between about 750 and 800 a dollar over the last month. What’s more, the spread between the official and black market rates has widened again, reaching 18%, the highest since mid-June when the currency was allowed to trade more freely.

“The volatility seen in the naira is likely to continue for a longer period.”

Even though the Abuja-based Central Bank of Nigeria has implemented the longest cycle of monetary tightening in years, he said raising the benchmark monetary policy rate by more than 700 basis points since May, interest rates still need to go higher.

“Take the treasury bill rates, take all the other rates, it’s very difficult to give the naira a fighting chance,” he said.

Michelle Chinwendu Alozie, defender for the Nigerian Super Falcons and Houston Dash, has revealed her crush on Super Eagles player Alex Iwobi.

The American born revealed this during a virtual interview with Pulse after being asked which male footballer on the Nigeria Super Eagles team she admires.

A photo of Super Falcons defender, Chinwendu Alozie, credit ; Aloziee/Instagram
The interviewer asked:

“I’ll ask you this question, but you can decide to waive it; just as we’ve got some tempting, beautiful, good-looking ladies in the national team, we’ve got the same thing when it comes to the Super Eagles of Nigeria. Have you got any crush among those players?”

She replied:

“I will say Alex Iwobi”

The 26-year-old rose to fame in the FIFA Women’s World Cup in Australia and New Zealand in 2023.

Her response has however sparked reactions among Netizens

One uthredofmercia wrote: “with the thunderbolt speed she use answer that question pretty sure something must have been cooking behind the scenes ,I no trust this girl she too fine abeg?”

Ohams4PeterObi reacted: “End of discussion.

@alexiwobi come and carry your property.”

Chidubem_OH said: “She didn’t even waste time ??”

Froblematichild wrote: “The swiftness in her response ??, Michelle alozie don break plenty people hearts now.”

Watch the video below:

Former heavyweight champion, Anthony Joshua has defeated Robert Helenius in a seventh-round knockout.

This serves as a huge boost for the Nigerian ahead of his fight with Deontay Wilder in Saudi Arabia next year.

Helenius dragged the match to the seventh round before Joshua won through a Knock Out.

In the round, as soon as Joshua landed the knockout punch, he immediately jumped out of the ring.

Conor McGregor hugged him and poured some Guinness down his neck.

Hopes of seeing the Nigerian-born British boxer reclaim his lost heavyweight boxing titles against Ukrainian boxer Oleksandr Usyk was dashed after he lost to the Ukrainian in August 2022.

Anyone who still wonders why Nigeria and its citizens have become mendicants in spite of their rich natural endowments should take another look at the number of manufacturing companies that have gone under or relocated from the country in the last five decades.

In the 70s and 80s, Nigeria-made goods were the gold standard in the West African market — from automobiles to tyres, to batteries, to household toiletries. From Lagos to Abidjan, our companies had a captive market for their products. Companies competed for freshly minted graduates to fill their ever increasing vacancies as they expanded to meet up with market demands. Final year university and polytechnic students were spoilt for choices between competing companies scouting for fresh blood.

Those were the days! Gradually, we were afflicted by the importation bug. Our rulers, intoxicated by the newfound wealth occasioned by petrodollars, abandoned the ‘Buy Nigeria’ mantra, and started showing signs that, as far as they were concerned, charity began abroad. Afrobeat superstar, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti, criticised the burgeoning insanity at the time in his album titled “Buy Africa”:

Se tiwa ni o, mi o fe (Is that our product? I reject it)

Se tiwa ni o, mi o ra (Is that our product? I won’t buy)

Ta lo ma ba wa je? (Who’s going to eat this with us?)

Ta lo ma ba wa je? (Who’s going to eat this with us?)

Afi ta ba ra tiwa o (If we don’t patronise our own)

Ki la se ma l’owo l’Africa? (How can Africa prosper)

Afi ta ba ra tiwa o (If we don’t patronise our own)

We didn’t listen to Fela. We watched as one iconic manufacturing concern died after another.

Just as the death of any human being diminishes the rest of humanity, the demise of any corporate entity is a source of distress for its surviving peers. In many parts of the world, when successful corporate players who have become household names succumb to the economic variant of the grim reaper, the funeral train stretches from the location of the company to the rest of the country.

In Nigeria, we have become so used to erstwhile manufacturing giants biting the dust that it is no longer news. In a sense, one can say that the general attitude is to ask, who next?

Many manufacturing companies have died over the years. Last week, it was the turn of GlaxoSmithKline, GSK, to announce its own obituary after 51 years in Nigeria. The company is well known for its pharmaceutical products, especially household brands like Panadol and Sensodyne. (“If it is not Panadol…”)

In a corporate filing, the pharmaceutical giant said it would now adopt a distributor-led model to supply the country with its products.

“In our published Q2 results we disclosed that the GSK UK Group has informed GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Nigeria PLC of its strategic intent to cease commercialisation of its prescription medicines and vaccines in Nigeria through the GSK local operating companies and transition to a third-party direct distribution model for its pharmaceutical products,” the company said.

“For the above reasons, and having, together with GSK UK, evaluated various other options, the board of GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Nigeria Plc has concluded that there is no alternative but to cease operations.”

GSK Nigeria’s sales in the first half (H1) of 2023 dropped to N7.75 billion from N14.8 billion in the same period a year ago. In its 2023 H1 report, the company lamented that the business environment continued to be very challenging with foreign exchange (FX) availability affecting its ability to settle foreign currency-denominated trade payables with product suppliers. The company made more money from the sale of its consumer healthcare brands than its pharmaceutical brands (N2.49 billion).

It made more sense to simply import and sell finished products than to manufacture goods in an environment where every manufacturing firm has to generate about 70 percent of its power requirements, depend on black market operators for foreign exchange to import raw materials, contend with multiple taxation and inadequate municipal infrastructure, tiptoe around corporate landmines planted by corrupt government officials, and compete with smugglers and importers of competing Asian brands dumped in the market.

In an interview with The Cable, Ade Popoola, managing director of Reals Pharmaceuticals, described the situation thus: “It’s like being in the middle of an expressway. When you have too much traffic, the rate at which you will progress will be difficult no matter how good your car is,” Popoola explained.

“The look-alike from India crowded them (GSK) out. You find out that if you have been selling 250,000 units per year, when cheaper alternatives come in, it will first of all reduce to 200,000, and subsequently to 150,000, and 100,000.

“Later you will find yourself struggling to sell 50,000 because the hospital buying from you prefers alternatives because the other companies too may be quality. Once they crowd you out, you find it difficult to maintain your volume, and when you can’t maintain your volume, you cannot pay your cost. The Indian will sell at 20 percent of your price. It has happened to me, so I know what I am saying.”

Eleven years ago, the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA)  raised an alarm that at least 800 companies had closed shop in Nigeria between 2009 and 2011 due to the harsh business environment. It warned that half of those remaining were ailing  and that capacity utilisation in industries hovered around 30 per cent and 45 per cent on the average. Successive governments did not solve the problems; they introduced complexities of their own.

Nigerian manufacturers self-generate 13,22 million 3.67 mega MW of electricity, according to a survey carried out by the Nigerian Energy Support Programme and Deutsche Zusammenarbeit (GZ) in 2015.

In 2014, Procter & Gamble set up a $300 million diaper plant in Agbara Estate, Ogun State. It was celebrated by the government, being the United States’ biggest non-oil investment in the country.

However, four years later, the company announced its decision to quit production. An insider revealed that apart from problems associated with electricity generation and inadequate infrastructure, the company’s refusal to bribe customs officers and other revenue agencies led to perennial frustration, making the management decide to beat a retreat.

Apparently, the business climate of Ghana is considered more clement. That is the only reason that could account for the relocation of some of the businesses that left Nigeria for Ghana. Among such firms are Berec Batteries; Exide Batteries; Okin Biscuits; Osogbo Steel Rolling Mills; Nigeria Sugar Company; Bacita; Tate and Lyle Sugar Company; Matches Manufacturing Company, Ilorin; Nigeria Paper Mill Limited located in Jebba, Kwara State; Nigerian Newsprint Manufacturing Company Limited, Oku-Iboku, among many others.

Elsewhere, responsible governments move mountains to keep the wheels of manufacturing firms rolling as both Presidents Bush and Obama did across two administrations (Republican and Democrat) to save the automobile industry in the United States. The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections,

Critics of the bailout at the time had argued the companies should be allowed to fail and the industry that resulted from the aftermath would be stronger. Treasury officials had repeatedly said the bailout was not an investment meant to turn a profit, but a move to save US jobs.

Now, who is to save Nigerian jobs being shipped away to other climes while we stand akimbo and continue to wallow in our regression? At this rate, Nigerians may soon have to buy commonplace items such as toothpaste and methyl balms from neighbouring countries. I have seen how some of them bend over backwards to accommodate foreign manufacturing firms. The fact that the level of corruption in many of those countries is of kindergarten proportions compared to ours, makes their terrain even more attractive.

It is not just GlaxoSmithKline that is leaving Nigeria, it is Nigerian jobs that are growing wings! Do we love our country enough to staunch this economic haemorrhage?

If we continue to lose the capacity to produce and instead throw more people into the unemployment market, the requiem won’t just be for the manufacturers who have bitten the dust but for the whole country of economic bystanders who cannot produce what they consume.

Congratulations, Prof Okojie

Hearty congratulations to Emeritus Professor Julius Okojie, former Executive Secretary of the National Universities Commission, (NUC) on the Inaugural edition of his annual Speaker Series and the launch of his Taco Charity Foundation.  I’m convinced, more than ever before, that living for others is an investment in immortality. Happy 75th birthday, Prof.

 “When you were born, you cried while the world rejoiced. Live your life in such a way that when you die, the world cries while you rejoice.”― Ancient Sanskrit saying

The word on marble above shows the organic source of the topic. It is from a classic from Robin Sharma, the original ‘Monk Who Sold His Ferrari’. The topic derives from his book, “Who Will Cry When You Die?” It is a time to resort to motivational writing for our leaders who don’t seem to be listening to what oracles and sages in the civil society including the media have been saying and writing. Our leaders appear to have missed the road again. They hate media reports of their listless activities. They don’t like the constitutional role of the media – monitoring governance and holding government to account. They lean only on their understanding through their friends and relations who pose as consultants and experts. They don’t want to respect even the organic law of the land, the constitution, let alone public service rules and regulation. They don’t like to comply with treasury rules as encapsulated in the financial instructions. They drop the appropriation acts as soon as the executive ink on the documents dry up.. They don’t study editorials and commentaries as warning signals and writings on the walls anymore. After all, our leaders have invested heavily in the multi-media business. They don’t need the ‘irritation’ of independent media anymore. After all, the political economy of a free press is quite toxic and complicated at this time.

Our leaders can afford to recruit even media executives to do even dirty jobs for them. They can pay hack writers to publish what they would like to read. They now pay dubious ‘media entrepreneurs’ to monitor adversarial reports about them. They constantly receive awards from such artful ‘media entrepreneurs’ who have polluted the media space. They have assisted in diminishing the influence and agenda-setting role of the media. Our leaders don’t listen to what the people are saying through the media anymore. Sadly, they don’t understand the times. We have written and written, spoken and spoken million truths to their power. They pretend to be deaf and dumb. They are even specialising in denying reports they regret giving out. They engage lawyers to write to the editors to remove even authentic stories from digital portals. They don’t want anybody’s voices of reason and wisdom. They don’t want the law to rule them. They are the law. They are the lords. It is rule of lords, not the rule of law. They don’t care about features that after elections, there should be governance.

They don’t care about the implications of winning elections and losing the people. They don’t listen to commentators who warn daily about the danger of ignoring civic competence in governance. They celebrate mediocrity as long as the mediocrities and neophytes they recruit are loyal and useful for tomorrow’s political engagements. They employ mercenaries daily to appear on early-hour television shows to deceive the people. They don’t know about the power of the truth they daily bury in the grave. They haven’t read in their classics that you can bury truth in a grave but it wont stay there. Yes, our leaders lean only on their understanding. They can’t understand why Authur Miller once warned leaders to note that, “a good newspaper… is a nation talking to itself”’. They don’t know why a leader of leaders once preferred a newspaper without government to a government without newspaper. They want to kill the independent media. 

But we will not give up the fight for a new Nigeria that works for all. That is why I would like to resort to motivational talks to our leaders. May be that will make them listen. Let’s share some tested words of life with them. I would like to encourage our leaders to get some soft power from words of grace from the masters such as Robin Sharma, among others who have been motivating successful business and political leaders who care to listen to what the civil society, including the media is saying to them. I mean leaders who will not bury the truth told to their power in the grave. And so let me introduce some wisdom nuggets from the classics of Sharma, “The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari”. It isn’t a compilation of editorials. It is a compact and useful book our leaders should read too. But they should also ask their political consultants and aides to buy for them the one that inspires today’s topic: ‘Who Will Cry When You Die?’
 
We are unarguably passing through an area of turbulence and our pilot, the commander-in-chief, is supposed to tell us that there is nothing to fear. But we the citizens in the flight can’t believe the hubris from our pilot that we have nothing to fear now. This is therefore a time to motivate our leaders at all levels that they need to do some introspection on who will genuinely cry in this country if they die today. We may even extend it to them to reflect well on ‘who will cry if their regime, sorry government dies today?’. That is the motivational message here today. It is also a time to stir their conscience about what another author and inspirational writer, David McRaney calls  “the public goods game”.  

“When you were born, you cried while the world rejoiced. Live your life in such a way that when you die, the world cries while you rejoice.”― Ancient Sanskrit saying

Does the gem of wisdom quoted above strike a chord deep within our leaders? Do they often feel that life is slipping by so fast that they just might never get the chance to live with the meaning, happiness and joy they think they deserve? If so, then this very special book (‘Who Will Cry When You Die?’) by leadership guru Robin S. Sharma, that has transformed the lives of thousands, will be the guiding light that can lead them to a brilliant new way of living and governance. 
 
In this easy-to-read yet wisdom-rich manual, Sharma offers more than 100 simple solutions to life’s most complex problems, ranging from a little-known method for beating stress and worry to a powerful way to enjoy the journey through life while creating a legacy that lasts. When our leaders are finally ready to move beyond a life spent chasing wealth and popularity through media from pages and prime time without life-changing projects, to one of deep significance, this is the ideal manual for them. They need to reflect today on a life of significance, Rick Warren, another purpose-driven author has written extensively about. 
 
Our leaders who keep recycling themselves from commissioner to governor and from governor to senator and from governor to minister should look into the seed of time and ask themselves: Who will cry when you die? If this set of dealers, sorry leaders feels that few people will miss them, it may be a time to make some changes. To give your best and to enrich other people’s lives takes a bit of effort, but it’s worth it. All these never-do- well leaders should aim to find personal fulfillment and live their lives to their full value. They can make an active change by using their time productively and recognising what is most important to the people. They will then realise that the best version of them is one that will surely be missed by others.

In ‘Who Will Cry When You Die?, Sharma offers advice on overcoming the difficulties of life while developing personality and skills. 
Our leaders, once again, ask yourself:  Who will care about you when you die? Have you ever thought about who will attend your funeral? Who will speak? Who will cry? And who will still be loving you? Asking ourselves questions like these can bring peace and calm to our daily life. These questions help remind us that we are human. We are not robots, and our days do not have to be repetitive. 

Similarly, the Sharma’s manual urges us to schedule our daily life tasks. This is what will make our leaders to think more about accountability and servant leadership. We should pay attention to this schedule and identify when we are not spending enough time being human.  We must allocate time for our loved ones, family, friends, and nature. We must also allocate time to being alone. Being alone allows us to think about life and the communities we serve. We should do what we love to do. Scheduling, passion, and self-discipline are ideas that consistently arise throughout the self-development manual. Scheduling is an important art that everyone needs to master to become highly effective and successful. Our leaders who daily make mistakes even on simple governance issues need to take the basic lessons seriously. We should make a to-do list to be significant in office and power every day.
The real secret to getting things done is to know what things need to be left undone. Our leaders appear disorganised and disoriented every day. That is why we are not making progress. An ancient word of life teaches us that we should let things be done properly and in order. I learned from a Middle-East ancient journal that being organised and orderly, is a national culture that is driving development in the United Arabs Emirates (UAE) an indeed most parts of the oil –producing and prosperous Middle East.   
 
Studying ‘Who Will Cry When You Die? can help leaders live life to the fullest. People dying is a tragedy but often people’s lives are a greater tragedy. This is because they are wasting their time on frivolities on earth. We all want to leave a legacy when we die. We all want people to remember us forever. Let our leaders talk of life’s concept remarkably without losing its very essence. Our leaders should work to show themselves approved by the people they govern. Let’s look at some of our past leaders we cried for when they died. Most southwest political leaders like to don the famous Awolowo cap. But how many of them can be cried for as we continue to do for the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo who died since 1987 at the age of 78? The iconic Awolowo, an uncommon strategic thinker and planner who was once referred to as “the best president Nigeria never had” introduced a free and compulsory basic education policy as fundamental objective and directive principle od state policy in Western Nigeria. He established a world-class regional university as a ‘glocal’ centre of research for tropical agriculture and medicine. Another leader, Sir Ahmadu Bello in the North also established another world-class university, Almadu Bello University in Zaria. In the same c0mpetitive federalism spirit, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe established another remarkable University in Nsukka. Inexplicably, a federal military government seized all the three centres of excellence in 1975 without paying compensation to the regions. But then, before we debate their return to the owners someday, let our leaders of today note that when the three leaders, (Awo, Bello and Azikiwe) died, we all cried for them. And so our leaders should ask themselves today: who will cry when they die?

Let us start our discussion today by considering a few quotes. “Our country! In her intercourse with foreign nations may she always be in the right; but right or wrong, our country!” – Stephen Decatur.  “My country, right or wrong” has gone down in history as an expression of patriotism but what is patriotism? Patriotism is defined as the quality of being patriotic; devotion to and vigorous support for one’s country. Put in another way, it is the love for or devotion to one’s country, if I may add, with unquestioning submission. This must have been what propelled a one-time president of the United States of America, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, to make his famous call to duty to his fellow Americans: “Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country”; that was in his inaugural speech on 20 January, 1961. That speech resonated with Americans not only on the occasion it was made but also unto this day; and not only with Americans but it is quoted the world over as the benchmark for patriotism. Compare Kennedy’s inaugural speech, which fired the patriotism of Americans to a new high, with the “fuel subsidy is gone” inaugural speech of our own brand new president, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, made on 29 May, 2023, which deflated the citizenry and cast a deep pall of gloom across the land. Yet, the two inaugural speeches are similar in intention and purpose but delivery and choice of words set them poles apart.

“There are no permanent enemies, and no permanent friends, only permanent interests” has been described by a writer as “a notorious quote used in the world of politics”. Politics can be local politics played within nations, countries and States and within these, there is another saying – I would not know whether this is native to Nigeria – that all politics is local. There is international politics, also often called international relations or international diplomacy. The textbook definition of politics differs significantly from the way our politicians understand and or play politics here. According to David Easton, politics is the “authoritative allocation of values” Harold Lasswell defined politics as “Who gets what, when, and how” Politics exists where people interact with one another to make decisions that affect them collectively and the vehicle for this collective association for the purpose of playing politics is the political party; the congregation of like-minds, according to A. A. Appadorai, which pursues the common goal of capturing State or political power to execute agreed policies and programmes for the common good of society. But here, politicians congregate and defect at will to capture power to serve self and selfish interests: Which is why the Tinubu administration could allocate humongous sums to the National Assembly for the purchase of bulletproof cars in a comatose economy while no palliative is yet made available to the citizenry! Which is also why the Senate president could “dash” each senator N17 Million to enjoy a holiday; and the fact that none of the senators elected on different platforms raised an eyebrow is clear indication that they are all united in their compulsive greed and selfish, as against, the national interest!

International politics or international relations, on the other hand, has been variously defined as “those aspects of interactions and relations of independent political communities in which some element of opposition, resistance or conflict of purpose or interest is present” It has to do with “the world we live in, the challenges we face, power and struggles, and the opportunities and obstacles for relations among peoples, societies, states and organisations” Hans Morgenthau defines it as “the struggle for power between states in the international system”; it can also be defined to include the conflicts and controversies at the international level and their resolution. Diplomacy is usually employed to resolve these conflicts and disputes; therefore, every country maintains a rich repertoire of diplomats trained in the art and skill of diplomacy. Diplomacy on its own is “the art and science, first, of maintaining peaceful relationships between nations, groups, or individuals” and where conflicts or ruptures in relations occur, to enter into discussions and negotiations to peacefully resolve the issues in contention; but where this fails, war may be the last resort, depending on how important the issues in contention are to the parties concerned; for instance, the ongoing Russia/Ukraine war. Otto von Clausewitz says “war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, a carrying out of the same by other means” It need be stated, however, that even when wars are fought, the parties still end upon the negotiation table to agree and draw up terms of settlement  – e.g. the Versailles treaty after the First World War (1914 – 1919) and the agreement establishing the United Nations Organization at the end of the Second World War (1939 – 1945). Whether the terms of agreement are agreeable to all the parties or are deemed a “diktat” (dictated peace) as Adolf Hitler and most Germans were to describe Versailles, is a different ball game entirely. Where a war ends without an agreement being reached, as was the case between North Korea and South Korea, the two countries are said to still be technically at war. Armistice or truce is an agreement made by opposing sides in a war to stop fighting for a certain time. Experience has shown that this is usually whimsically broken by one or both parties without any notice given!

Now to Niger Republic: A military coup took place there on 26 July, 2023 which toppled the elected president, Mohamed Bazoum. Heads of government within the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) met speedily and not only took serious exception to the coup but also handed out a one-week ultimatum to the coup leaders to retrace their steps or face stringent sanctions, which include isolation, barricade on land and air, freezing of assets and other crippling economic sanctions and, in addition – especially if all else fails – military action to forcibly eject the coup leaders from power and return Bazoum to power. Rather than panic and cut-and-run, the coupists have snubbed ECOWAS and its leaders and have proceeded to set up a government. Not ready to give up and lose face, ECOWAS has reiterated its resolve to have the coupists ejected from power and have given marching orders to the ECOWAS military to get ready for war. With the outcry from right, left and centre against war and the late realization that it had, in its undue haste, overlooked what should have been its first option in this matter, ECOWAS belatedly added diplomacy to the options available to it to get out of the quagmire. But the coupists, rather than being impressed by the ECOWAS volte-face, may have interpreted it as a sign of weakness and have, therefore, decided to dig in. Should ECOWAS still go ahead and invade, the coupist are said to have threatened to kill Bazoum and my mind immediately went to what happened here when MKO Abiola died in detention in controversial circumstances. That effectively put paid to the struggle to have the annulled June 12, 1993 election won by him but annulled by the military junta of Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, revalidated. If the Nigerien coupists kill Bazoum, which is in their power to do, what again will ECOWAS fight for?

Nigerians from all walks of life and across diverse political persuasion and spectrums have been upbeat in their opposition to Nigeria going to war in Niger Republic and over a coup for that matter. How many of our own coups have we had, if I may ask, but who ever threatened us with war? Besides, the dangers of this particular war are clear for all to see. First, it will break up ECOWAS. With at least two other ECOWAS members, Mali and Burkina Faso, themselves under military rule, not only opposed to ECOWAS military action against their neighbour and like-minds, but also declaring that an injury to one is an injury to all, Niger is not in this alone. Two other neighbours of Niger, Chad and Algeria, have also voiced their opposition to war. So, if ECOWAS goes to war, it is likely going to chew more than it can bite and Niger Republic will most likely not fight the war alone but will have the sympathy and, possibly, the support of its neighbours. On account of the above and the huge home support the coup appears to enjoy in Niger, while it may be easy for ECOWAS to quickly overrun the coupists, to hold down the country will be a Herculean task. The ousted president was reportedly unpopular, his election, like the election of many African leaders, was said to have been tainted; besides, he is said to come not just from a minority but a minute ethnic group. With Richard Johnson’s theory of prebendal politics that plays out in Africa, that is a big minus for the ousted president.  More than half of the population of Niger Republic is said to be Hausa and Niger’s ousted president is not Hausa. War in the Niger Republic could also spill over into Nigeria since that country shares borders with seven northern Nigeria states: Kebbi, Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, Jigawa, Yobe and Borno.

With war in Niger Republic, the insurgency in parts of the North will receive a boost; what with the support voiced by Mali and Burkina Faso for the coupists; the opposition of Algeria and Chad to war and the open sesame of insurgency and instability in post-Gaddafi Libya, which also shares borders with Niger Republic! More frightening, however, is that the coupists have asked for military assistance from the Russian mercenary group Wagner, which gave the Russian leader, Vladmir Putin, a fright some weeks ago. More of such alliances may be in the offing.

In the face of such intimidating odds, what are the benefits of our intervention in the Niger Republic? Which overriding national interest are we pursuing or defending, since Africa as the centerpiece of our foreign policy appears to have receded to the background?  One: Our president is the chairman of ECOWAS and is duty bound to lead the organisation and implement its resolutions. Two: Nigeria’s commitment to democracy places the obligation on us to see to the promotion, defence and propagation of democracy in the sub-region. Three: To prevent the contagious disease of coups from spreading to Nigeria. Four: The ousted Nigerien president and our immediate past president, Muhammadu Buhari, were chummy. That country was where Buhari had boasted he would run should Nigerians disturb his peace after retirement. So, do this one for Buhari! Five: Buhari poured Nigeria’s resources into Niger; we must act to defend our investments there. Six: There is a new wave of anti-neo-colonial sentiments sweeping through West Africa and the West and their institutions of capitalist oppression are aghast. To nip it in the bud becomes, therefore, a task that must be done. Of all these reasons, the one that many people think is uppermost in the mind of ECOWAS leaders, and which they are using Nigeria to execute, is to send jitters down the spine of would-be coup plotters in the sub-region. While this may be beneficial to the other ECOWAS leaders, it has no value for Nigeria. It is only Nigeria that can mobilize troops and resources to stall or foil coups or arrest instability in any country in the region, as was the case in Liberia and Sierra Leone; but all the other West African countries put together cannot similarly act were the shoe to be in Nigeria’s leg. The antidote to military coups is good governance with regular free and fair elections.

Nigerian citizens who may not have fully followed the tense political situation in neighbouring Niger may have been misled into thinking that for once, their federal legislators are no longer disposed to playing their rubber-stamp role towards the executive branch of government. But we can hardly know if they are really set to act as a check on the executive.

First, has President Tinubu actually asked for approval from them to militarily coerce the Nigerien army to restore democracy to Niger? Some say Tinubu merely informed the legislators of the prevailing viewpoint of ECOWAS on the situation in that country. Consequently, the senate could not have rejected a request which had not been made. To the onlooker therefore, both the president and the senate have been imitating our colonial officers of old. 

What the posture suggests is that Tinubu has deftly informed his senate-friends to expect a possible request for their approval for deployment of Nigerian troops to Niger while his friends have skilfully informed him to expect a likely rejection of any such request. No matter from what angle any analyst perceives the dialogue, it is premature to imagine a change of behaviour of the senators or to think that their current posture will last. If the token sent by the clerk of the legislature to each of them last week to enjoy their recess is tripled by adding the prayers of several well-meaning religious leaders to that of the senate president to enable the holiday makers have a safe trip, the multiplier effect will be too huge to resist. 

As to what truly motivates our legislators, history is our guide. During President Olusegun Obasanjo’s administration, the much talked about plan for tenure elongation failed woefully and many legislators took credit for it by successfully documenting their rejection of advances allegedly made to them by the presidency. But no one told us what our courageous legislators garnered from the leading opponents of the third term bid. There were pieces of evidence at the time that the bid would have sailed through if the offers made by those in support had surpassed what their opponents provided.  We can only hope that future researchers would stumble on ample literature that would illuminate Obasanjo’s revelation that the tenure elongation would have worked if the originators of the bid were actually able to persuade him on it.    

Nigerians need to note the unusual conciliatory diction of our current senators who rather than reject a request that was not made recommended other options to the one they imagined the president had in mind. It would thus appear too early to begin to rejoice that we now have a group of courageous senators who may at appropriate intervals serve as a check on the executive as it ought to be. It is by far too early to think that the average Nigerian legislator would put aside his personal benefit as a contribution to the emergence of a viable nation. No Nigerian politician relishes opposition; instead, everyone wants to be in power, hence legislators supposedly elected by majority of their people to the senate, the highest law-making body of the nation do not leave anyone in doubt that they prefer the executive branch where contracts are awarded.

From the storyline so far, how easy would it be to change the public perception of legislators as lovers of materialism? Many legislators especially those at the federal level are very well educated and fast at getting the thrust of any argument. Some of them are also quite eloquent and pragmatic in making a case for or against any subject which is why this column and others constantly focus on them. Our belief is that with the quality of our federal legislators, no one is better positioned than them to alter the trend of the nation’s stunted growth. In other words, weekly and indeed daily criticisms of our legislators are borne out of frustration that help is not forthcoming from the most expected segment of society. In which case, lack of faith in our legislators is likely to evaporate when they begin to champion the public good.

Many people no doubt love the proactive approach the legislature adopts whenever lapses or corruption in any government agency are uncovered. The rot in the federal character commission in which citizens are made to pay huge sums into private accounts to secure employment may end with the huge publicity the on-going probe into the subject has received.  In the past, the legislature adopted same approach to dirty reports in several sectors; but to the chagrin of many, such probes ended with accused persons getting-off the hook after parting with a huge percentage of their loot. The power probe which ended with the conviction of the chairman of relevant committee of the House of Representatives was a public embarrassment.

The case of citizen Arunma Oteh, director general of the security exchange commission SEC who was being blackmailed during president Goodluck Jonathan’s administration to bribe the chairman of the committee on capital market was more annoying. Painfully, the senate supported the house of representatives to resolve that it would not appropriate funds to SEC for as long as Oteh remained in office notwithstanding that it was their member that transparently abused his office. Last year, the report of the auditor-general of the federation highlighted shortcomings in several public organizations. The legislators promptly set up panels to investigate all indicted organizations but remained silent on aspects of the report which exposed huge corrupt practices in their own abode.  

It is not impossible for our legislators to reverse the negative brand with which they have painted themselves. To start with, they have to stop behaving like a secret cult whose members swear to keep the group’s secret from outsiders.  Not many have forgotten the draconian measures such as suspension of accused members from the relevant chamber for as long as 180 days. Senator Ali Ndume was dealt with for venturing to call for the investigation of certain allegations against the senate leadership while Representative Abdulmumini Jibrin (Kiru/Bebeji, federal constituency, Kano) was greatly sanctioned for exposing budget padding. Interestingly, despite the public interest the subjects generated, no effort was made to disprove the allegations. What mattered was that the group’s secrets were exposed. 

Perhaps what upsets everyone the most is the consistent policy of deceiving the public concerning the exorbitant take-home pay of our legislators which numerous sources say is the highest in the world. It is more annoying that the figure is different from what was approved by the revenue mobilisation and fiscal allocation commission (RMFAC) whose duty it is to fix the remuneration package of legislators. Although the commission fixed recess allowance at about N200,000 per annum, senators last week reportedly got N2million each as token/prayer for one recess break less than 2months of their inauguration. Apart from the unacceptable high figure, it has been difficult to understand the nature of the workload of legislators who are entitled to several intervals of one-month recess. 

In a democracy, the legislature is crucial because governance cannot be premised on the rule of law where the law-making organ does not exist. The implication of this is that Nigeria cannot do without the legislature. It is perhaps this idea of indispensability that has translated our legislators to problems rather than solution to the task of nation building. At the same time, we can also not do with timid or house-boy legislators such as exist at state level where the functions of the executive and the legislature are under the control of governors. The way forward therefore is for civil society groups to begin to interrogate the nature of the legislature that can best serve the nation. Here, several options are available. 

To start with, Nigerians can vigorously agitate for a one-chamber federal legislature as is currently the practice in the states. This option will drastically reduce the huge expenditure on the legislature. In addition, Nigeria can opt for part-time legislators which is what we have in practice now that our legislators are spending more time on recess than law-making.  It is therefore time for Nigerian legislators to engage in introspection before they lose every iota of public respect. 

We worked hard, took many bullets and took great risks to put this Government in place and we not only have a big stake in it but we must also ensure that it succeeds.

Apart from our unalloyed loyalty and unflinching support and our commitment to assist him in weathering every storm and stabilising the country there is only one thing we owe the President and that is to always tell him the plain truth.

Today that truth is that the pending attack on Niger Republic is unpopular at home and, if unleashed, would be a monumental error.

If ECOWAS must go into Niger in the name of wanting to restore constitutional order so be it but let them do so without any Nigerian troops.

Let the French and their Franco-phone allies in our sub-region, with American intelligence and logistical support, do the job on their own and leave us out of it.

It is only if our nation is attacked or our sovereignty violated that we should get into the fray.

Outside of that and until then we should use only diplomatic means to setttle the issue and not allow ourselves to be drawn into an unecessary and bloody regional war the end of which no-one knows.

To the Ivory Coast's President Alhassan Outarra, who has said that this is not a Nigeria versus Niger conflict but rather an ECOWAS versus Niger one, I respectfully ask the following questions: who will contribute 90% of the troops and foot almost all the bills of this force? Is it not Nigeria?

Whose military hardware and assets will be deployed, mobilised and utilised more than any other? Is it not Nigeria?

Who shares her Northern border with Niger and whose northern civilian population are bound to suffer the most hardship, the greatest degree of collateral damage, the highest number of casualties and accommodate the highest number of displaced people and refugees? Is it not Nigeria?

We have trod this path before and we know where it ended. We cannot be fooled again.

If any force is deployed and Nigeria opts to participate we will pay more than all the other ECOWAS nations put together in terms of the loss of civilian and military lives and in blood and treasure.

Apart from that the ECOWAS force and their military capability is nothing without Nigeria and our troops.

To say that this would be an ECOWAS versus Niger war as opposed to a de facto Nigeria versus Niger one is misleading and disingenuous.

Such a war would be fought, prosecuted and won by primarily Nigerian forces even though there may be a sprinkling of a few others just for show and for the record.

All the French and Cote D'ivorien sophistry, propaganda and delusion in the world cannot change that.

If and when the whole thing goes down and we get involved militarily, you can bet your bottom dollar that it won't just be a Nigeria versus Niger war but it would also end up being a Nigeria versus Niger, Mali, Burkina Faso and Wagner one.

Worse still involvement in such a military conflict may tear our country apart along ethnic, regional and religious lines. This must be avoided at all costs.

To add to this complex mix the wife of General Abdourahman Tiani, the head of the military junta in Niger, is actually a Nigerian from Kangiwa in Kebbi state whilst his Emir, the Emir of Dosso in Niger, owes allegience and pays homage to the Emir of Argungu in Nigeria.

That is how connected our two countries are.

The truth is that there is hardly any family in the core north that does not have relatives from and in Niger.

Can they be expected to sit by idly and applaud us whilst we kill their brothers and sisters across the border for no just cause even when our nation has not been attacked and our territorial integrity has not been violated? Methinks not!

As I wrote elsewhere, outside of any diplomatic initiatives, let the French clean up their own self-inflicted mess and fight for their hegemonist and parasitic neo-colonial interests and uranium supplies in Niger and let us stay out of our poor and beleaguered neighbour's internal affairs.

On a final note permit me to share the following exchange.

On hearing of my stiff opposition to deploying our troops into Niger my dear friend Umaru Farouk offered the following rationalisation to me.

He wrote, "the decision to place the troops on standby force is to force the junta to comply with the charter of demands from the regional and other international institutions via diplomatic channels. Also to actionably deploy the troops in case of any future coup attempt anywhere in the territory of ECOWAS".

My response to him was as follows.

"You and I know that this threat of the use of force will not work and that it will not result in their stepping down.

It will rather harden their hearts and eventually lead to a military conflict.

You do not place your armed forces on alert unless you intend to deploy. It is only a question of time.

Methinks that it is a very bad step, it is ill-timed and it is ill-advised.

It is bad for our country, bad for our people and bad for our Government.

Finally as regards your suggestion that the force can be used and deployed in case of any future coup anywhere in ECOWAS I ask, why should Nigeria be the policeman of the West African sub-region?

Why should we be used to protect oftentimes corrupt, dictatorial and illegitimate civilian sit-tight rulers and puppet regimes in other parts of West Africa?

Out of all the leaders in the15 countries that make up the ECOWAS sub-region I can only vouch for the legitimacy, integrity and democratic credentials of the Presidents of Nigeria, Ghana, Benin, Senegal, Sierra Leonne and Liberia.

I cannot vouch for ANY of the others and I have little respect for them.

In any case don't we have enough problems of our own?

Let others deal with their internal issues and let us deal with ours.

Nigerian blood must never be spilt or shed for the sake of some of these Frano-phone rulers who have sold their souls to the devil and their people to France and who have been turned into errand boys abd grovelling slaves by their former colonial masters.

For example is it President Paul Biya of the Cameroons, who has been in power in that country for the last 41 years, that our soldiers should protect and die for?

Is it President Faure Eyadema of Togo who, in classic North Korean-style, is operating and nurturing a system of dynastic rule in his nation and who, between him and his late father Gnassibe Eyadema, have ruled their country for the past 61 years?

Is it President Alhassan Outarra of La Cote D'Ivoure who is prepared to do ANYTHING for the French, who suppresses and persecutes his opponents and who had his predecessor in office President Laurant Gbabo bundled off to the International Court at the Hague at the behest of their former colonial masters simply because he dared to question the legitimacy and sought to break the yoke of French domination and bondage and restore the self-respect and dignity of his people by coming up with the noble and patriotic concept of "Ivoritie" (meaning "Ivorians first").

If anyone really wants to know what the French do to their Franco-phone subjects through the auspices of their pliant and servile local "democratically-elected" African leaders they should listen to the explosive and utterly outstanding speech, delivered just over a year ago, by the beautiful, passionate and fiery Italian Prime Minister, Giorgia Meloni, who lambasted President Emmanuel Macron of France and the French people for enslaving, persecuting and cruelly exploiting the people of Africa.

Are these the sort of leaders we should protect and vouch for and are we supposed to send our soldiers to die in order to perpetuate French hegemony in these nation's? Surely not!

Unless our country is attacked I do not see any sense in using our military for anything outside our shores other than for peace-keeping".

May God open our eyes and guide our leaders before it is too late.