There are two countries whose well-being and stability reach into nearly every part of Africa. One is the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), which is nominally in the Central African Region but which shares borders with nine countries extending to all of the continent’s four other regions – Angola, Burundi, the Central African Republic, the Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania, Uganda, and Zambia. Unsurprisingly, the DRC is in the regional organisations of every region of Africa except those of North and West Africa.

The second is Sudan. With a current landmass of 1.886 million km², Sudan is nearly double the size of Nigeria and the third largest country in Africa behind only Algeria and the DRC. Its neighbours include Chad, Central African Republic, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Libya, and South Sudan; and its regional reach extends to the Middle East and North Africa, Central Africa, Eastern Africa, and West Africa. Even more, Sudan’s geo-strategic significance covers nearly all of the continent’s fragilities, including the Congo Basin, the Horn of Africa, the Great Lakes of Africa, the Gulf of Aden, the Maghreb, the Nile Basin, the Sahel, and the Indian Ocean. A popular land route for Muslim pilgrims and a magnet for all manner of irregular hawkers of violence, Sudan holds the key to nearly all of Africa’s significant strategic exposures from governance, through climate change, to international terror.

But Sudan has known little peace since its independence in 1956 as a condominium of Egypt and the United Kingdom. In 67 years of independence, it has seen at least 17 attempted coups, six of which were successful. Two of those successful coups have occurred in the last four years, the first in April 2019 resulting in the overthrow of the 30-year-long rule of General Omar Al-Bashir, and the second in October 2021 resulting in the overthrow of the power-sharing arrangement that was to return the country to civil rule in 2022.

On both occasions, Egypt, itself at once both uneasy neighbour worried about the course of the Nile (which substantially flows through Sudan before emptying in its territory) and former colonial power, was always an enthusiastic business partner with the Armed Forces of Sudan. To many people, General Burhan, who nominally heads the Sovereignty Council, as the ruling military arrangement in Sudan is called, is a client of Egypt.

These two recent coups were a joint enterprise between the two most organised and best-financed entities in the country: Sudan’s armed forces commanded by Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, a four-star General; and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) commanded by Mohammed Hamdan Dagalo, better known by the nom de guerre, Hemedti. The RSF is the new name for an entity that used to be known as the Janjaweed, an expeditionary unit of largely lawless irregulars, to whom the government of Omar Al-Bashir outsourced the violent pacification of Darfur. In many ways, it was an internal mercenary force which fed off its crimes. This arrangement suited all sides; the army could conserve its assets, the regime could deny direct responsibility, and the leadership of the Janjaweed could make a lot of money and political capital too.

In the decade and a half from the beginning of the Darfur campaign around 2004 to the overthrow of the regime of Omar Al-Bashir in 2019, Hemedti, who comes from one of Sudan’s most troubled regions in Darfur, built up considerable personal wealth and strategic capital, and the bandit force which he originally constituted as the Janjaweed emerged to become what Alex de Waal described as “now the real ruling power in Sudan. They are a new kind of regime: a hybrid of ethnic militia and business enterprise, a transnational mercenary force that has captured a state”.

In Darfur, the Janjaweed were responsible for a long and distinguished record of credibly attested atrocities, including crimes against humanity that have since become the subject of investigation and prosecution by the International Criminal Court, ICC. They also managed to export their skills in the deployment of indiscriminate violence to clients in the Gulf States, including Saudi Arabia, who found them useful for outsourcing atrocities in Yemen. From his early origins as a bandit and violence rustler, Hemedti managed through these kinds of arrangements to insinuate himself into respectable company in the region, becoming an almost indispensable factor in the security of arguably the most fragile region in Africa, with support from an assortment of actors including the Gulf States and renegade General Khalifa Haftar in Libya.

The threat posed by the Janjaweed was always very evident even to the uninitiated. Until 2019, they were a kind of iron fist underneath Sudan’s velvet gloves. After the overthrow of Bashir, Hemedti, as the commander of the Janjaweed-in-government nicknamed the RSF, became effectively the power behind the throne. The marriage between him and Burhan always seemed rather convenient. It was only a matter of time before he made his bid for power.

On or around April 15, 2023, Hemedti launched what would effectively become Sudan’s 18th coup attempt by bringing guns and heavy artillery into Khartoum. The build-up to this unfolded almost in slow motion amid the ruins of the effort to integrate the RSF into Sudan’s armed forces. While struggling to retrieve some respectability from that, Hemedti reportedly picked up rumours that the assets of Egypt’s Air Force stationed at the Merowe Air Base in the north-west of the country, including the relatively sophisticated Egyptian MiG-29M medium-weight ‘4+ generation’ fighters, were planning a strike on him. So, he made the first move and attacked.

Whether this could end up as Sudan’s seventh successful coup is presently unclear. The fact that Burhan and Hemedti, both committed Islamists, were too impatient to defer the outbreak of military hostilities until after the end of the Holy Month of Ramadhan is notable. As Muslims all over the world marked the Feast of the Sacrifice this weekend and amidst rising civilian casualties in this most urban of Africa’s recent wars, both sides proclaimed an unconvincing ceasefire, supposedly to enable the victims to mark Eid.

Anyone with even limited knowledge of Sudan may be disappointed but not in any way surprised by this turn of events. Much of the present tragedy was both foreseeable and predictable. The most surprising thing of all is the absence of any effective plan for addressing it. While the people of Sudan are slaughtered by those supposed to protect them, the world and the region carry on in apparent resignation and confusion. Karim Khan, the prosecutor of the ICC, appears so fixated on Ukraine, he cannot find the bandwidth to acknowledge the conflagration in Sudan, where Darfur, itself currently an active case under the watch of both the ICC and the UN, has also degenerated into warfare.

For its part, the United Nations Security Council appears to have outsourced the situation to the African Union which has, in turn, outsourced it to the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), which is chaired by Sudan, whose duelling rulers each seem to believe that they have the military solution to this war. All they can muster at the moment appear to be Zoom meetings.

While regional countries try to scramble, Nigeria, Africa’s self-appointed big brother, has barely noticed. Yet, the links between both countries are beyond geographic. In 1903, Frederick Lugard sacked Sultan Attahiru of Sokoto, who made a last stand at Burmi (now near Bajoga in Funakaye local government area of Gombe state) where he and over 700 of his family and followers were slaughtered nearly 120 years ago in August 1903 in the “destruction of the town by a British force of 30 whites and 500 native rank and file”. His surviving son, Mohammed Bello, led the remainder of Attahiru’s survivors into exile in Sudan where their descendants have lived since then. Above all, the embassy in Sudan is Nigeria’s most lucrative foreign mission.

For Nigeria, the crisis in Sudan is not just a matter of security and geography, it is also inescapable history and economics.

A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu can be reached at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Democracy, by its design, nature, and practice, is not a light toggle switch that is turned on and off. It is not a wall that crumbles in one fell swoop. Democracy is always a process, both in its growth and demise. History is replete with how democracies collapsed in other climes. Disregarding the rule of law is the root of all the cases. The most consequential disregard for the rule of law is the one that affects the entire population, and that is when they lose faith in the electoral process. It often led citizens to conclude that there is no difference between democracy, authoritarian rule, and other forms of government. Using electoral fraud to decimate democracy is far easier than any other means. Every attempt to compromise the electoral process makes it harder for the people to believe in democracy.

In almost all nations where democracy crumbles, they followed the same playbook – whether in Peru under Alberto Fujimori( 1990-1992), Hungary under Viktor Orban, Venezuela under Hugo Chavez or Chile under Salvador Allende/ Augusto Pinochet( 1979). Destroy or compromise the institutions of the state, the police, judiciary, military, security apparatus, parliament, and most importantly -the institution and mechanism of the electoral process and democracy begins to crumble.

The 2023 general election is a watershed in our electoral history, and all see the reverberation of its impact. Never in Nigerian history has the people been highly committed to an election with hope, optimism and great expectations. The final verdict of the outcome of the electoral process is yet out because the process has not concluded, but some came out disappointed in the structures and procedures of the election. Most of the political actors became Machiavellian and threw caution to the winds in their pursuit of electoral victory. Some politicians bought the electoral victories with pain and blood. The strategy was to win at all costs and care less about the consequences on our democracy. Little wonder there is a mixed feeling of progress with our democracy yet high despondency and frustration among many Nigerian post-elections.

Nigerian political class seems unmindful of the consequences of some of its actions and inactions. The politicians who ought to guard democracy are inadvertently investing in destroying the guard rails of democracy. Politicians compromise judges, corrupt electoral officials, buy up security personnel and buy votes. This is after investing in the mass impoverishment of the populace and weaponising poverty.

Our democracy seems to be unravelling in front of us. The gradual dismantling of our democracy is in seemingly random events, sometimes isolated and unrelated, but when pulled together, it shows our descent into anarchy or autocracy. The last general election witnessed three stages of dismantling Nigerian democracy by politicians, political parties, and their sympathisers.

The first stage is known as capturing the referees. If you wanted to rig a football, one of the first things you would do is ‘capture’ the referees and get them to rule in your favour. In the last election, evidence suggests that politicians and their cronies captured INEC officials, and in time we will know whether they captured the judges in the many court cases that are still ongoing.

The second stage is side-lining the opposition players. Their opponents entirely stifled the political opposition in some parts of the country. And not given a level playing field to compete in the elections. They were denied opportunities to campaign in some states and were molested, beaten, and arrested for no just cause. Some politicians told opposition members not to come out and vote unless they wanted to die. Opposition politicians and their supporters were subjected to various inhuman treatment, often in the open and where you have security operatives. They were blackmailed, and their supporters were ethnically profiled and denied their franchises. Unfortunately, society did nothing about it, and the perpetrators have gone without punishment or consequences. They are emboldened by their victory to keep brutally raping our democracy and dismantling it bit by bit.

The third stage of dismantling democracy is disregarding rules—actions and reactions fuel losing faith in democratic institutions. The interpretation and actions of INEC on the position of the Electoral Act on the use of technology, specially Bimodal Voter Accreditation( BVAS) and INEC Results Viewing Portal( IRev) is the core of diminished trust the people have in INEC. It is also the plausible reason we have too many disputes about the declared results. INEC is generally believed not to respect constitutional provisions and its regulations.

The dismantling of our democracy implies that Nigerian voters may have no reason to act rationally but will rely on primordial and survivalist sentiments to deal with future elections. If Nigerians believe their votes do not count, what is the point of elections? If we allow the prevailing feeling of disenfranchisement to continue, our democracy will become a mere nomenclature and not reality. In that case, there is virtually no reason to think our votes will change anything. There is also no reason to behave rationally. We will act emotionally and vote only based on ethnicity, religion, and other base sentiments.

We will disconnect voting and elections from governance since voting does not decide who leads. Therefore, there is no reason to change our beliefs regarding electoral politics. As a result, people will continue to vote for whatever politician or party is closest to their emotionally determined beliefs. In other words, there’s no reason for people to vote rationally; instead, sticking to their biases or emotions is much more comfortable. Understanding this reality is essential since our democratic system assumes that rational voters are in the majority. And this is a danger to our democracy! At the extreme, if we don’t find ways to sanitise the electoral process further and, by extension, democracy, we would incentivise popular revolt to redefine democracy in the image of the people’s wishes.

Suddenly, our democracy is tainted with politicians who reject the rules of democracy. They often are suspicious of elections and their results and sometimes rail against the laws and constitutions of Nigeria for their selfish reasons. They discredited their political opposition and sometimes tagged them as enemies of the state. They tolerate and encourage violence in elections and brag about their link to the mafia, militant groups men of the underworld. They quickly desire to reduce the civil rights of people, institutions, and protesters and actively silence the media.

We have seen too many cases where results were declared under gunpoint, and the opposing parties and INEC appeared helpless. This gave rise to the insertion of Section 65 of the Electoral Act 2022, which stated that: “The commission shall have the power, within seven days, to review the declaration and return where it determines that the said declaration and return was not made voluntarily or made contrary to the provisions of the law, regulations and guidelines, and manual for the election.” Going by what transpired in the March 18 and supplementary elections, this challenge is still very much around.

Two strings of incidents in recent times have raised the red flag on the efficacy of the electoral process. The latest wave of electoral malfeasance is the Adamawa case. Too many inconsistent stories and conjectures are flying around. INEC owes us the obligation of full disclosure of what happened. A situation where the INEC REC, flanked by the commissioner of police in the state, unilaterally declared the APC gubernatorial candidate as the winner, but INEC changed course in a few days to announce the PDP candidate as the winner, leaves a sour taste to most Nigerians. It killed our democracy a little. Interestingly, both INEC and President Buhari have authorised the REC’s suspension from office, his investigation and possible prosecution by the police, but to give confidence to the citizens, it will be imperative to make the findings public.

Another embarrassing interference in the electoral process is what happened in Rivers State during and after the elections. How INEC conducted the governorship and state assembly elections in that state can earn her a spot in the Guinness Book of Records of electoral heist. The orchestrated mob action and drama that followed the attempt by APC to inspect and collect from INEC RVS certified true copies of electoral materials is a big dent in the electoral process. The fact that all the drama happened in the presence of security agencies and INEC officials makes it difficult to dispute the conspiracy theory that followed.

Even the lawyers preparing to fill election appeals were molested, arrested, and manhandled. The supposed guardians of democracy raised no voice to condemn what happened in Rivers State. Although “the protesters” trying to stop opposition parties in Rivers State from inspecting and collecting true certified copies of INEC materials used for the elections were at the INEC office for days, no single arrest was made, nor was anybody invited for questioning. Our democracy is the victim of these shenanigans; we are all casualties. No doubt these anti-democratic forces are emboldened.

These trends are laying the foundation for the complete demise of our democracy. All lovers of democracy must not allow these anomalies to continue unchecked. We must protect our democracy and bequeath it to posterity. We should not take things for granted simply because our democracy has survived the shenanigans so far. Democracy remains the only system of government that will lead our multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-language and heavily diverse country into meaningful growth and prosperity. Let us defend it!

Dr. Peterside is a former Director General of the Nigerian Maritime Administration and Safety Agency (NIMASA)

There is a Peter Obi witch-hunt that is ongoing. Undoubtedly, certain forces are after him. You can call it Obidients-phobia or Obi-phobia. Both are equal in the eyes of the attackers. These sustained attacks on Obi, Datti, his running mate, as well as the Labour Party and the Obidient family, are simply because they have upended the system and are devoted to creating a new Nigeria that would be beneficial to all Nigerians. They hope to overthrow the corrupt system using the ballot and the law because Nigeria, today, solely benefits a small number of kidnappers of state power, and these beneficiaries are resisting the change.

Since Obi filed his petition with the Presidential Election Petitions Tribunal (PEPT), the attacks on him have increased in frequency and complexity. However, two instances stand out as the most puzzling and horrifyingly nasty. A hacked telephone conversation between Peter Obi and respected clergyman David Oyedepo was made public. The LP candidate requested Pastor Oyedepo’s assistance in getting his message out to Christians in the Southwest and some part of the North-central in the doctored audio clip. They added a last twist to the audio to meet their purpose by declaring that the presidential race was a “religious war”.

Discerning minds are aware of what internet tigers and ICT experts have turned the internet tools into, particularly video and audio editing and faking. For this evil use of the internet, the actual conversation between these two eminent Nigerians may never be known and will be forever drowned in perfidy.

However, a few days after the deep fake audio was published, Information Minister Lai Mohammed accused Peter Obi of inciting Nigerians against one another, accusing him of treason. This accusation of treason made by the minister is only one of the numerous desperate, intentional, and dishonest attempts by various people, including officials of the Nigerian government, to denigrate and destroy Peter Obi by falsely portraying him as inciting insurrection.

Unless treason has a different definition, Peter Obi is never known to solicit support for actions that would harm the Nigerian state or to encourage his supporters to take such actions, let alone promote such actions. Therefore, the accusation is one of defaming a dog to hang it. No matter how treason is operationally defined, it will never include a guy who calls for calm and who seeks redress in court for his harm.

Here is the most basic definition of treason, for the avoidance of doubt: “the crime of betraying one’s country, particularly by attempting to assassinate or overthrow the ruler or government”.

Treason in Nigeria can also be held as anyone who declares war on the state to subdue or frighten the president. Treason is viewed as betraying the state also from a biblical standpoint. In Nigeria, treason is a crime. According to the legislation: “Any person who levies war against the state, to intimidate or overawe the president or the governor of a state, is guilty of treason, and is liable to the punishment of death” (L.N. 112 of 1964). That is what Peter Obi’s accusers are fabricating.

According to a proverb, a tsetse fly that lands on the scrotum is dispatched unusually. The scrotum will break if you kill the tsetse fly violently; the tsetse fly will drain the blood if left alone also. When one considers the forces chasing Peter Obi in light of his surprise performance in the presidential election on February 25, one gets the idea that they are in a desperate state. The Peter Obi challenge is a mystery to them. Simply put, the blackmail is not working.

Despite all the abracadabra, INEC nevertheless reported that the presidential candidate of the Labour Party had a lead in 12 states, matching the results of both the incumbent APC’s candidate and the main opposition PDP’s candidate, who both had a lead in 12 states like Obi.

Peter Obi was initially viewed as merely a rabble-rouser running for publicity and to make a point. Former Edo state governor Adams Oshiomhole even dismissed his spectacular social media dominance as “four people tweeting in a room”. However, after the presidential election, this impression has become an apprehension of clear and present danger and a nightmare, in the eyes of the forces who think they control Nigeria.

The general public, especially the young people, responded favourably to Obi’s show of competence, ethics, and straightforward campaign message of switching Nigeria from consumption to production. They were encouraged knowing that at last there is a man who is sincerely dedicated to eradicating poverty and changing the country.
“Don’t vote for me because I’m an Igbo man, a Christian, or because I’m from Southern Nigeria,” Peter Obi urged at the time, further telling Nigerians. “Instead, cast your vote for me since I’m a Nigerian and I’m the candidate with the highest qualifications out of the other 17 candidates”. One of Peter Obi’s messages that threaten and enrages the oligarchs is: “Let’s take back our country”. Within a few months, Obi had amassed a sizable following and became a movement.

His 100-page presidential election petition raised issues that will bewilder any tribunal and rankle any president-elect. INEC has declared Tinubu as president-elect and asked all aggrieved parties and the main contenders – Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar – to go to court. The two leading candidates, Peter Obi, and Atiku Abubakar have both filed petitions. However, the grounds are what the oligarchs are upset about – not the fact that Obi went to court. That is what this witch-hunting is all about.

Peter Obi has consistently pleaded with his supporters to uphold the law and not give up on the country. By working to regain his mandate, Obi is steadfastly devoted to his mission of creating a Nigeria that benefits all Nigerians. He believes that failing to pursue his mandate would be equivalent to betraying the millions of Nigerians who trusted him enough to cast their votes for him. Obi is a humanist who supports peace, social fairness, and human advancement.

During his presidential campaign, Obi demonstrated that he understands the extreme insecurity, poverty, unemployment, and untold miseries that Nigerians experience and informed them that a new Nigeria is achievable and that they should have faith in him.

The defamation of the man and his dream by those opposed to the new Nigeria and worried they are about to lose significance in the new equation has now evolved into actual threats and covert actions against the man and his dream. A few days ago, news of Peter Obi’s identity being stolen also spread from the UK. Right around this time, it was believed that the dark forces’ use of deep false audio tape was coming to an end. They haven’t also revealed their motive for assuming Obi’s identity.

Theft, impersonation, and fighting words, may have been the climax but may not be their final acts. One thing is certain, though: these covert actions were planned and carried out against Obi to weaken his determination and disperse the movement. According to Robert Greene, “Strike the Shepherd and the sheep will scatter” is one of the 48 Laws of Power.

Yes, with Peter Obi’s level of dedication, courage, and inspirational leadership, a new Nigeria that would be safe and secure for all Nigerians is feasible. However, strong opposition exists to this new Nigeria. All advocates for Nigeria’s peace, unity, and development must not only pray for Peter Obi but also collaborate with him to achieve these goals.

Senate President Lawan’s senatorial nomination bid and the earlier Imo State Governorship election are two recent cases whose controversial outcomes have continued to annoy many people including retired and serving judges. A third case that may have such lasting impact is the controversy concerning what a candidate must score in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory as a condition for becoming president.  According to Section 134 of the Nigerian Constitution 1999, a candidate can only win a presidential election in Nigeria if he scores majority of votes at the election which must in addition not be “less than one quarter of the votes cast at the election in each of at least two-thirds of all the states of the Federation and the Federal Capital Territory Abuja.”

Public understanding of the provision has remained contentious. Rather than joining those making premature comments on the subject, this article hypothesizes that head or tail, the electoral importance of Abuja’s hegemony is not one that can easily be discountenanced. If the judiciary decides that it is not mandatory for any candidate to win in the territory, the consequences of the decision may not be less than the impact of a contrary decision. It is therefore a battle that must get to the Supreme Court for the most senior judges of the land to conscientiously examine and interrogate. Thus, efforts must be made to prevent the subject from becoming one of those which erode the integrity of our justice system. For this reason, this is not a subject to be left to judges alone. Civil society groups need to undertake public enlightenment schemes that can prepare citizens to appreciate the rationale for whatever decision is eventually made.

Interestingly, some of the arguments so far canvassed concerning the subject are incorrect. The common belief for instance that the Supreme Court had in the past pronounced on the matter is false. In fact, the Judiciary has had no cause to deal directly with the question of the 25 percent of votes in the FCT because in all the presidential elections in Nigeria since 1999, each winner always met the requirement. It has therefore not come before the judiciary as a ground for reviewing any person’s victory. The presidential election of February 25, 2023 where the candidate declared by INEC as president-elect did not win up to 25 percent of votes cast in the FCT is in actual fact the first time the matter is coming up for determination. Those who have already formed an opinion that there is a precedent to be followed might be misled into violence if their expectation is not met. They need to watch it.

Is Abuja one of the states of the federation? This is a major question of interest to many but it is not a new question. The judiciary has answered it before, yet the question has refused to go away. To imagine that those still raising it are unaware that the question had been answered before by the judiciary is simplistic. On two occasions: the cases instituted by Okoyede (2001) and Musa Baba-Panya (2015), saw our courts affirming that Abuja is one of the states of Nigeria. The decisions were hinged on Section 299 of the constitution which provides that Abuja should be treated as if it were one of the states of the federation. There are several reasons why the decision looks suspect. First, what immediately follows the provision suggests that there is a limit to when, where and how the provision is applicable. This is because if Abuja is to be treated as a state at all times, it would not have been necessary for the provision to immediately detail how the legislative, executive and judicial functions of Abuja were to be handled. They would have just been left to run as states handle theirs. 

A second reason why not everyone is persuaded that the drafters of the Nigerian Constitution intended to make Abuja a state of the federation is their failure to change their other provision which says that Nigeria shall have 36 states. Why couldn’t they simply say 37? In addition, the same Constitution formally describes Abuja as the Federal Capital Territory(FCT).  There is also the issue of whether an entity is exactly same as one that is treated like it. One school of thought provides an interesting analogy; that if a man choses to treat his stepson as if he is his son, it does not change the fact that a stepson and a son are not the same in all respects – a stepson can never successfully claim to be the biological son of a stepfather simply because the stepfather treats  him as a son. Although the executive is known for deciding on which judgments to obey, it does not help the case of Abuja as a state that judicial decisions directing it to be so treated have never been obeyed by successive administrations.

To make the attainment of 25 percent of the votes cast in a presidential election mandatory for Abuja treats it differently from other states. Perhaps that is a strong point because states are supposed to be equal in the eyes of the law. But that is not the only case where Abuja is virtually a stand-alone entity. Indeed, there are too many things found in a state that are nowhere in Abuja. It has neither its own governor nor a legislature. The president serves as its governor while the national assembly makes laws on its behalf. Why would such an entity be regarded as a state when it does not have several things that states have? What appears obvious is that although Abuja is not a state, it is a special Nigerian territory that can attract certain provisions such as the 25 percent requirement. To start with, it is the only part of Nigeria where citizens especially civil servants are attracted from all over the country through the principle of federal character to cohabit. Every presidential candidate ought to be able to score just 25percent of votes cast in such a location of diverse citizens that is a miniature Nigeria

It is also important to note that for a candidateto be elected as governor of a state, such a candidate must score 25 percent of the votes cast in at least two-thirds of what makes up a state. Considering that no one disagrees with the fact that the president is the governor of Abuja, is it too much for Abuja to be a mandatory place where such a president should meet that requirement? Many would agree that Abuja where a president stands-in as governor ought to be where the 25 percent requirement is not negotiable. Otherwise, there would be no basis for a president who could not attain that basic requirement to be imposed on the people of Abuja who apparently didn’t vote for the particular president. Ordinarily, this should not give room to debate, but unfortunately the subject has been so politicised that supporters of different parties are not likely to take any decision on it lightly. This is why the judiciary needs to take a comprehensive look at the subject once and for all. 

At the same time, a decision which categorically makes Abuja, the 37th state is likely to agitate those who would see it as an attempt to give more states to the North. In 1967 when General Yakubu Gowon turned Nigeria into 12 states, the North and the South had 6 states each. Some Nigerians didn’t think it was fair toin later years give  the North 19 of the 36 states, leaving the South with only 17. To elevate Abuja to a state thereby increasing the gap between the North and South respectively to 20: 17, is perhaps not the best way to attain the much desired unity in the country.  Our apex court can help stabilize the polity by halting the situation in which our constitution specifically provides for 36 states, yet we seem to have 37. The lessons of two-third of 19 states which we faced in 1979, ought to have persuaded us away from a figure that is odd-numbered. Otherwise, problems of two-thirds of 37 which await us in future can be resolved now.

In a tragic sense, Sudan is somehow lucky. Its leading political figures, who also happen to be combatant generals, have not hidden their differences beneath a façade of mutual deceit.  They have instead allowed their differences to blossom into an open bloody confrontation. The two top generals who also happen to be the top political citizens of a nation with many hidden wounds have spared no effort in coming into the open to display their differences and clashing ambitions. These differences also happen to reflect the many hidden complications in Sudan’s national life: religious differences, economic interests, political ambition, a politicized military, big power transferred aggression and the aggressive strategic goals of big powers.

When an animosity between two rotten warlords blossoms into a shooting war, it opens the path to either a national meltdown or some kind of settlement. It is either the stronger force subdues the weaker and dictates the terms of a peaceful settlement or an equilibrium of forces is achieved in which case peace through negotiation becomes the only path open to all. In the next couple of weeks, Sudan may have to migrate from the present rage of clashing warlords to a full civil war, yet another in a series since after independence in 1956.

In a little over a week, Khartoum, the capital, has been transformed from a scraggy sprawling city in the sun into the battlefield of an undeclared civil war. A contest for power supremacy between two corrupt ambitious generals has reopened the window for familiar military adventurism. The bloody rivalry between the two topmost senior military and political leaders has exploded into a real combat situation between factions of the Sudanese military and security forces. War planes, tanks and other weapons of war are being used freely as troops shoot into civilian population centres in Khartoum and beyond.

The raging confrontation is between the forces of General Abdul Fattah al-Burhan, Commander of the Sudanese Army, against those of General Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, commander of the Rapid Support Force(RSF), a paramilitary security force. Both are semi autonomous forces competing for pre-eminence in the post al- Bashir era. Both men happen to be the topmost political figures, Head and Deputy  respectively, in an interim semi military government presiding over the country after  a series of shifting power arrangements after the toppling of Omar al Bashir in a 2019 coup led by both men. Both men also staged a coup that wrested power from the revolutionary civilian coalition of civil society groups whose protests facilitated the ousting of al-Bashir’s three decades of Islamist authoritarianism.  

The raging bloody confrontation has degenerated into a blood bath.  Casualties have mounted and order has collapsed. Close to 300 deaths have been reported with over 3,500 injured. Most of the victims are innocent civilians and international workers according to independent journalists and observers. The diplomatic community has been badly hit with United Nations offices and diplomats’ residences openly ransacked and looted. Disturbing cases of open harassment of female diplomats have been reported. Attempts by the international community to broker a cessation of hostilities has led to two failed ceasefires that collapsed within minutes of being announced.

The African Union(AU) has, as usual, been generous with condemnations of the violence with a basket of resolutions and threats, calling on both sides to come to the negotiating table. The United Nations has in turn joined in ritual condemnations of the fighting and its tragic fallouts. Meanwhile, the hostilities are assuming the character and dimensions of a full blown civil war.

The origins and drivers of the resurgent violence in Sudan go beyond a mere interpersonal power tussle between the two very corrupt and ambitious political and military overlords. It goes down to the strategic issues and factors that have always defined the country’s existence and recurrent crises. The primary conflict is that between a growing popular democratic wave and the long standing conservative Islamist power establishment that was the basis of the three decades long Omar al-Bashir hegemony. The pro- democracy forces led the 2018 street protests and revolution that helped topple Omar Al Bashir’s 30 year autocracy remain alive. They had started with agitations and street protests for greater accountability and a better standard of living. Pitted against this nascent populist democratic wave is the conservative Islamist power core of the Sudanese state. The current power structure led by both Generals  Hamdani and Dagalo are thinly disguised factions of the al-Bashir regime.

It would be recalled that the popular uprising softened the al Bashir autocracy for toppling by the military. In turn, the two dueling generals staged a coup that upstaged the popular revolution,  refusing to cede power to the leadership of the popular movement.

In many ways, a perennial power tussle between factions of the usurping military leaders has become the centerpiece of Sudan’s political life in recent times. It has consistently sidestepped the transition to popular democracy which remains the major issue in the post al-Bashir era. The compromise that legitimized the now crumbling semi military administration remains an attempt to forge a tenuous balance of ambitions between these two dominant forces on the one hand and the popular civil society  coalition on the other.

Predictably, therefore, the appearance of uneasy political stability that would lead to the planned democratic elections later in two years was more an appearance than a reality. It has now burst into the bloody confrontation on display in and around Khartoum. It is unlikely that the two dueling generals and their followers will be willing to sheath their swords for as long as they still have forces and formations under their respective command and control. Already,  deal to subsume the paramilitary Response Force under the larger umbrella of the Sudanese Armed Forces has fallen apart.

Strategically, Sudan’s peculiarities may escalate the present confrontation. The interplay of internal political interests may be overwhelmed by international conspiracies and interests occasioned by a convergence of Sudan’s strategic location and internal composition. The United States has always seen Sudan as something of a precarious and suspicious rogue nation  that needs to be constantly kept under watch because of its deep Islamic leanings and sporadic terrorist affinities. Sudan was for a long time a hiding place for jihadist terrorist and fundamentalist organizations associated with a long tradition of anti-Western activism. These range from Yassir Arafat’s temporary refuge in Sudan in the days of the Black September organization. Similarly, al-Queda found refuge in Sudan in its formative years leading President Bill Clinton to send cruise missiles to bomb suspected  terrorist havens in Sudan in the run up to the emergence of Osama Bin Laden.

As a result, the two opposing tendencies in the global Islamic world have sought and found allies within the Sudanese political leadership. At different times, Iran and Saudi Arabia as well as their client states and allies in the Middle East have courted different regimes in Sudan. Even now, major interests in the Middle East are tending to support either of the two warring generals. Egypt and Libya have assumed opposing alliances in the ongoing confrontation.

At the present time, the Russians have emerged to further complicate an already complex scenario. They have seen an opportunity in the establishment of a naval base in Sudan as an opportunity to counter long standing US and Western influence in Sudan. Similarly, the Saudi’s remain interested in exploiting the political fluidity in the Sudan to advance their interests. Others like Egypt, Libya and the UAE have of late weighed in in a running jostle for regional influence and pre eminence. Sudan’s neighbours like Egypt, Ethiopia, Eritrea, South Sudan  and even smaller African authoritarian regimes all have an interest in the contest for supremacy among Sudan’s ambitious and politicized military leaders.

As it turns out, contrary to the prevalent notion that Sudan is merely a vast arid semi desert country, the country actually contains 10 percent of the arable and fertile land mass of Africa. In addition, it has an abundance of natural resources. Its oil reserves are the main attraction for an increasing Chinese presence in the country. It also has abundant gold and uranium resources in which both its immediate neighbours and major international players  are deeply interested. Therefore, there is a convergence of international interest in the current instability in Sudan which may make the confrontation degenerate into a full blown civil war with deeply interested external players intent on finding lasting foothold.

For the international community especially both the United Nations and the African Union, a quick resolution to the sudden violent eruption in Sudan is now imperative before the parties ossify into combatant footholds with friends abroad. Sudan should be more  than a casual engagement. The international community will have to untangle the web of complex interests that are at play in the Sudanese crisis. The Sudan crisis calls for the highest display of diplomatic dexterity to sufficiently assuage the interests and reassure the combatants.  A ceasefire leading to dialogue is the only way out.  A quick resolution is imperative if the escalating humanitarian tragedy is not to worsen. Most importantly, the challenge in Sudan is first and foremost that of restoring the original sanctity of the civil society coalition that pressured al Bashir out of power. This should be quickly followed by the restoration of civil authority through a democratic election and return to civil rule. Continuing to sweep the prodemocracy current under the carpet of warlords can only prolong the crisis and plunge Sudan into yet another avoidable civil war. Sudan is boiling from an urgent desire for genuine democracy, not the superficial contest of the huge ego of ambitious war mongers and  power oligarchs.

For Nigeria, the evolving tragedy in Sudan has far fetched repercussions. The United States initiative with its special military mission in AFRICOM will be in peril if Sudan crumbles in an all out civil war. Sudan holds a delicate geographical place in the international effort to contain the spread of jihadist terror in the Sahel. 

Happily, the Nigerian political landscape has evolved beyond the point where politicised generals have privatized commands that can be used to hold the nation to ransom. It is perhaps a happier place to be in the hands of rough political entrepreneurs than be caught in a cross fire between armed warlords funded by the state.

City FM is inviting you to a scheduled Zoom meeting.

Hey, could you please allow me to begin this piece by making two important explanations. First, I deliberately chose to recall the novel  Cyprian Ekwensi published in 1960 because I wanted to recall

in the minds of those who have read that unforgettable story how something as ordinary as a traveler’s passport could form an important part of a book.

Now, an ordinary passport has become an important national discourse, and who knows, a judicial dissertation on it could soon become one of the burdens weighing on our over-burdened judiciary. Oh, Ekwensi’s book had the intriguing title of “The Passport of Mallam Ilia”

My second explanation; ordinarily, to call a Moslem Mallam is to call him a scholar or leader. I have the example of Mallam Aminu Kano, the extraordinary leader of the Northern talakawa to guide me. His followers included both Chinua Achebe and Wole Syoyinka, let alone Abubakar Rimi, Tanko Yakasai and Bala Usman. In these present times, Nasir el-Rufai has prefaced his name with that title. So, too, my good friend and respected journalist and newspaper Editor, Mallam Garba Shehu.

The 2023 election must go down in Nigerian history as the most disappointing and most dramatic. Or, has there been an election in which a newspaper, such as the Premium Times, have openly published that it had reviewed the results relating to a state (Rivers) using materials uploaded in INEC confirmed portal and arrived at a result totally, radically, dramatically, unmistakably different from the result INEC announced?

According to that online publication, Labour Party’s Peter Obi, won the presidential election there, and roundly defeated All Progressives Congress party’s Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the man on whose head INEC had placed the victory crown pertaining to Rivers state election as well as nationally. I have waited for INEC to show the Premium Times how a want of brains on the part of its Reporters and Editors could have led to that conclusion – but that reaction has yet to come, surprisingly.

Then as sheer drama goes, nothing in Nigeria’s history could beat that nasty narrative from Adamawa state where a man who has no business with announcing a state’s result mounted a podium, and in the presence of the news media as well security agents, announced the result of a state while the collation of the election result was still on? On what foundation did that effort rest? Or was that official actually

following the example laid out for him by INEC headquarters? How could nothing have agitated the mind of that dysfunctional official that he was embarked on a disgraceful journey and was, apart from attracting odium on his person and INEC, was disgracing Nigeria? That sorry story added to the “sorryness” of the sorry story which Nigeria has become.

Yet, despite the sordidness of that dastardly act, another sordid aspect has been introduced into the annals of the 2023 election. And it has to do with the alleged passport of the APC candidate in the

presidential election; Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Sincerely, what has a passport got to do with the qualification of a candidate in the race to become Nigeria’s president in a free and fair election? We must accept that a constitutional demand is that a candidate in a presidential election must not have dual nationality. That is a given. But a passport? That is a big but. I checked the internet and found that “Applicants wishing to obtain a Nigerian Passport at the Consulate or any other mission abroad must be a Citizen of Nigeria”, according to information relating to the Nigerian Consulate in Atlanta, Georgia, USA.

Another internet check threw up this: “The Guinean passport is issued to citizens of the Guinea for international travel”. Yet, camouflage passports exist, and are designed to look like a real passport, issued

in the name of a non-existent country or entity as a security measure to make an important person look like “a not very interesting man from a not very interesting country”. But that would have made sense for Tinubu during the NADECO days, not after.

An article by Balogun Kamilu Lekan in NEWSNigerian asserted that “there are five different passports, and they are available to citizens depending on the factors warranting their needs”. Again, it is said there that they are available only to Nigerian citizens. What about various types of Guinean passports? Could a non-Guinean who offers special services to the country have one?

Yet, yet and yet again. What if Tinubu does not have a Guinean passport? He has said nothing about the allegation. And if that is another worthless allegation from the social media planet, it would

help if Tinubu would clear the air soonest so that Nigeria could concentrate on other matters. But by the way, where is Tinubu EVEN NOW? His whereabouts are a secret, perhaps to elude those scheming to be included in his administration….but this adds to the drama of the 2023 election. 

LAST week, I mentioned a former deputy governor of Lagos State, Alhaja Sinatu Ojikutu, who wants to renounce her citizenship and move abroad because of Tinubu’s emergence as the President-elect. Bode George, a former military governor and veteran politician, has for the same reason, also expressed a desire to emigrate.

It is sad enough when youngsters “japa” or flee to distant lands because they have concluded after much suffering that Nigeria has failed their generation and can offer them nothing meaningful. It will be particularly heart-wrenching if elderly folks take off to foreign climes at a time when they are supposed to be happily relaxing in a familiar home environment for the rest of their lives.

Statistics are not available, so I can’t swear that I am right. But based on conversations I’ve had with Nigerians from all walks of life, all age groups and different parts of the country, I am convinced that feelings of despair – which have been widespread for the past few years – have significantly increased since the Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, crowned Tinubu in March. 

When you are declared winner of a controversial context amidst numerous complaints and are facing anger or indifference from a large chunk of the populace, you have two options at your disposal: You can either disdainfully ignore or viciously lash out at overt critics and those who simply cannot be bothered to respond enthusiastically to your presence on the public stage.

Alternatively, you can launch a charm offensive in places where you are unpopular, go out of your way to win hearts/minds and bend over backwards to perform so impressively that you wind up proving your detractors wrong and transforming lukewarm citizens into devotees.

If Tinubu gets sworn in next month and then manages to persuade Supreme Court judges to support him against opponents who have strong cases against him, there will be many things he can do to offset the bitterness his presidency will generate from Day One. If Tinubu is able to successfully cross these bridges at the end of May and whenever the Supreme Court is ready to deliver its verdict, I will list, on this page, the ways in which he can improve his relationship with the millions of Nigerians who didn’t vote for him.

But, for now, let’s focus on what needs to be done now. And one of the things that needs to be done now is for Tinubu to humbly visit Madame Ojikutu and Oga George and promise them respectful treatment if they jettison their exile plans.

The Adamawa flogging

I WAS horrified when I saw the video of a bleeding INEC employee in his underwear. It was all over the internet. He had been beaten up during last weekend’s electoral fracas in Adamawa State after being accused of corruptly subverting the will of the people. Violence is always wrong.

But it seems that enraged mobs can be very effective because the Adamawa situation was quickly resolved. There was no time-wasting messing about. INEC and other authorities speedily stepped into the fray and prevented things from further escalating; and the PDP governor (Fintiri) who actually won was officially acknowledged as having triumphed over the APC candidate who initially refused to accept defeat.

I’m truly sorry that the APC candidate – Hajiya Aishatu Binani – lost because I am a feminist and would have been delighted if she had become the first female elected governor in Nigeria. But it is clear that the INEC Resident Commissioner (who didn’t hide the fact that he was rooting for her) misbehaved on her behalf. And I have, unfortunately, seen no evidence that makes me believe that she deserved to be declared as the winner. And I was rather embarrassed when she prematurely made a victory speech.

Anyway, the question I am asking is this: If INEC staff in Yola had not been harassed and flogged, would INEC have been so keen to solve the Adamawa problem so efficiently and fairly? As a friend of mine said to me yesterday: “Is jungle justice the only type of justice we can count on in Nigeria? If cheating, biased INEC staff had been thoroughly dealt with in other states during the elections, would INEC not have done much better?”