magine what it would feel like if the person you loved most was killed or raped. Then, someone thought it would be a great idea to erect a huge statue in your neighborhood to honor them—no, not your loved one, but the monster who hurt them beyond repair. I'm sorry to be so graphic and blunt, but that is how many people feel each time they pass a public square or park with a statue of their ancestors' slave master, a murderer, or a white supremacist.

I am the sixth great-grandson of President Thomas Jefferson, who was a slave owner. I am a descendant through his relationship with his slave, Sally Hemings. Despite my connection to Jefferson, he falls under the above description. There are many statues of him that should come down. He was, after all, a participant in the institution of slavery—perhaps the most notorious one among the Founding Fathers, not least because of the jarring contrast between what he practiced and what he preached.

Long after slavery ended, a lot of statues of "powerful" white men were put up or retained, not least so as to remind people of color of their "degraded" place in society. This was done to keep them in their "place" and to mentally manipulate them. Of course, the false idol is praised by many of their counterparts who fought for and funded the statue because they were all living that same lifestyle and attempting to reach the same "success" at the expense of others. For these reasons, and more, I think all the statues of people that are offensive or spiteful to a whole group of people, or statues that honor people that, by today's standards, would be breaking the law, should be removed from public areas.

Public statues and monuments like the ones of Thomas Jefferson, Robert E. Lee, and Christopher Columbus (who, it cannot be stressed enough, did not discover anything new to the indigenous people) are for many people symbols of hate, racism and slavery; and when we honor and celebrate them in public arenas, we inadvertently give them and their actions validity and power. We must no longer give power and permission to people to hate.

Now, I don't think we should erase questionable statues from the face of the earth or rewrite history. But as a tax-paying citizen, I just do not want to contribute to the upkeep of the statues or look at these oppressors when I'm going about my daily life.

The time of selectively preserving and glorifying some bits of our history. while letting less flattering ones gather dust, is ending. This is the time for change, reconciliation and healing, and the place for statues of tarnished historical figures are museums or other educational environments that will allow the whole story to be told.

A statue alone only provides content, but a museum setting would allow it to have context. It is imperative that we remember our history, that we don't erase our complicated past, but preserve and learn from it while understanding where those figures fit into the fabric of our country. In the sentiment of Thomas Jefferson, we have to grow and change with our times.

The first monuments that need to be removed from public spaces, without further discussion, are Confederate monument. Confederate statues were erected to honor post-Civil War white supremacists who are known exclusively for selecting the Confederacy over the Union and fighting a war to defend and extend the evil institution of slavery. They represent hate, not patriotism, because they went against the U.S. and do not represent what the U.S. stands for now.

There are no public monuments of Hitler in Germany, so why should any Americans be subjected to the celebration of Confederate statues and images of hate and enslavement? And it's not that anyone in Germany doesn't know who Hitler was. They just remember him as he deserves to be remembered—among other things, as not the kind of man you glorify through statues, monuments and street names.

Now I know many people, even some of my family members, will say Jefferson was not as bad as a leader of the Confederate Army. After all, he wrote the Declaration of Independence, created the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, made the Louisiana Purchase and participated in the founding of the Library of Congress and the University of Virginia. I respect him for those things... but on the other hand, ask yourself if you can look past the fact that he owned more than 600 people against their will, knew it was wrong, but never let them go.

Can you look past that and praise him as an idol on a pedestal just because he wrote a document that he thought did not apply to you or your family in the first place? He has a place in our history, to be sure; but this place needs to be occupied by the real Thomas Jefferson, not the character he projected through his more inspirational writings.

Would removing statues and renaming military bases create a slippery slope toward getting rid of every statue and historical building's name? It seems unlikely—there are just too many. But that's a chance I'm willing to take if it will make people feel more equal, instead of feeling degraded each time they pass a statue or building that looks down on them, figuratively and literally, insinuating they don't belong. Such monuments are like bullies—non-verbal but still imposing, constantly present.

This is our country's opportunity to do much more against white supremacists, hate and systemic racism than merely tweet. This is our chance for change and action. This is our opportunity to really prove that this country actually cares about making sure all men and women are created equal and treating them as such.

Elected officials need to stand up for the message of equality that the United States of America is supposed to represent. If they don't, the people will rise up and do their jobs for them. After all, "To restore harmony, to render us again one people acting as one nation should be the object of every man really a patriot." These are Jefferson's own words—an example of the part of his legacy that is actually worth celebrating. But with deeds, not with statues.

Shannon LaNier is the co-author (with Jane Feldman) of "Jefferson's Children; The Story Of One American Family." He's also the founder and host of the DaddyDuty365.com, podcast, where celebrity dads tell all.

The views expressed in this article are the author's own.​​​​​

Except something else occurs that grabs the headlines and dominates Nigerian social media, the big news of the past week would probably be the death of Senator Abiola Ajimobi and the political drama that it has generated. Senator Ajimobi served as a Senator between 2003 -2007. He was Governor of Oyo State between 2011 – 2015, 2015- 2019. He achieved the distinction of being the first Governor in that state to be elected for a second term in office. He broke the jinx. His tenure as Governor was quite controversial with mixed results and divided opinions. He was a very frank and outspoken Governor who was also very conscious of his social status and the powers attached to his office. He was also quite audacious. He engaged the Olubadan in an open battle when he chose in one instance to transform some high chiefs of the Olubadan-in-council into beaded kings. 

There was also his infamous confrontation with students of the Ladoke Akintola University of Technology (LAUTECH) who had stormed Government House to protest the prolonged closure of their school. Ajimobi hushed the students up and told them harshly that they should remember that they were in the presence of “the Constituted Authority” of Oyo State. The Oyo State Government under his watch owed arrears of salaries. By the general election of 2019, his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC) stood no chance in the elections. It was generally believed that the “Constituted Authority” had alienated the people he governed so much they were bound to reject the country’s ruling party in the state. As expected, the APC lost the Gubernatorial election to the rival, People’s Democratic Party (PDP) whose flag-bearer Engr. Seyi Makinde is the incumbent Governor of the state. 

In 2019, Ajimobi also sought election into the Senate. Nigeria’s Upper Chamber is increasingly an old people’s home for retired Governors. But he lost the Oyo South Senatorial bid to the candidate, again, of the PDP. He took his case to the Election Petition Tribunal. He lost again. In the face of this rejection, the APC consoled itself with the conclusion that the performance of their party in Oyo state did not amount to a rejection of the APC by the people, but a rejection of Ajimobi’s politics! The same party would later reward Ajimobi with the position of Deputy National Chairman, South West. His admirers insist that he was a hero, a bridge-builder, and an illustrious Ibadan son and politician who made his own contributions to the development of his state and country. His style may just have been a bit brash, they admit. 

Man lives. He dies. It is in the nature of all living things to die. Human experiences like love, achievements, social status can bring an individual much fulfilment, but death is the biggest event of our lives. It defines our mortality. It is arbitrary and tragic, because it marks the end of everything. It is not a form of completion, because nobody ever completes life, even a man of 100 still nurses hope, but with death, everything is finished. Death does not grant the dead a say in what happens to him or her: but there is a form of survival to it. The dead survive in social contexts: in the memory of those who love or hate them, and each recollection is absolutely beyond the control of the dead. The dead exist only as social identities. Culturally, we are expected to respect and honour them. This is seen as a moral obligation. We are also likely to feel offended if the people besmirch their memory. 

But what we often see is that this moral obligation is merely socially constructed. It cannot be imposed. It is determined by context and relationships.  We have seen this at play with two recent high profile deaths: that of former Presidential Chief of Staff, Malam Abba Kyari, whose death generated so much emotion that it has now formed the substance of a book titled: Abba Kyari –Portrait of a Loyalist: The Good, The Bad and the Ugly Sides of Public Service in Nigeria edited by Magnus Onyibe. And now: the death, at 70, of Senator Abiola Ajimobi. Both men died as a result of COVID-19 related complications. Both died in the same hospital: First Cardiology Consultants in Lagos. But if anyone thought Kyari’s death was controversial, that of Senator Ajimobi would seem to be even more so. 

At the centre of the latter is the ugly and totally avoidable conflict between Mrs Florence Ajimobi and the Seyi Makinde administration in Oyo State. During a condolence visit to the Ajimobis led by the Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, Dr. Kayode Fayemi, Mrs Ajimobi turned on the Deputy Governor of Oyo State, and accused the Governor, Seyi Makinde of “playing politics” with her husband’s death. She said: “…He didn’t call me. Even if he had called me, I never had his number. He should have sent text messages for record purposes. The Governor of Oyo State never called me. He never signed a condolence message. Never called even when my husband was on sick bed for one month. What politics are you playing please..?” 

The outburst was recorded in a video that has gone viral. The Oyo State Government and the Governor have responded almost in equal measure. The revelations have been unpalatable. It turned out that there was some disagreement over where the former Governor should be buried. The Government says the preferred location by the family in Agodi GRA is a land that is under litigation. The permit that was eventually granted to allow Ajimobi to be buried in his Oluyole GRA home, we are told, was even in violation of an existing law. Really? Governor Makinde’s administration should not form the bad habit of breaking the law, no matter what! It was further established that the Governor issued a signed condolence statement and had also made efforts to reach out to Mrs. Ajimobi.  He also ordered that the flag should be flown at half-mast in honour of the deceased. 

When Mrs Ajimobi watches that video again in the future, she may regret speaking too hastily. She only needs to do a review of the reactions to her outburst by the public. She has been accused of having “a sense of entitlement”. “Who does she think she is?”, some asked.  The Agodi GRA property where she wanted her husband buried has also become a subject of many uncomplimentary remarks about her husband’s integrity. She has even been told that if she loved her husband that much, why didn’t she shut down her own shop the day her husband was buried? Ordinary Nigerians are not always nice to political leaders dead or alive. Social media has given them such voice and freedom that has turned them into a “Constituted Authority” of their own. But the Oyo State Government should sheathe its sword and not add to Mrs Ajimobi’s grief. Elisabeth Kubler-Ross in a book titled “On Death and Dying” wrote about the “Five Stages of Grief,” and although the emotions of grief are not scientifically chronological, anger is one of them. When people lose loved ones, they tend to be angry for various reasons, until they come to terms with reality. Mrs Ajimobi deserves support, not abuse at this time.      

More people will probably still disappoint her, but if she must be angry, I believe that the people she needs to be angry with are members of the APC National Working Committee who used her husband as a means to their own political ends. By June 16 when Senator Ajimobi was named Acting Chairman of the party as the in-fighting between factions raged, Ajimobi was said to be on life support. Didn’t they know that? Party spokespersons lied that he was recuperating. By June 18, Fisayo Soyombo, an award-winning journalist had gone on twitter to announce that the Senator was dead. He was challenged. He stood by his story. He said his source has never failed him. On June 25, the National Executive Committee of the APC dissolved the party’s NWC and set up a Caretaker Committee. The same day, Ajimobi’s death was announced. What manner of men are these who will do political 419 with dying and death and turn a man they claim they love into a pawn? Fisayo Soyombo has been vindicated. A journalist is as good as his or her source. He deserves another award for his investigative journalism. And may God, the only “Constituted Authority”, over and above all things, grant Senator Ajimobi, peaceful repose.

For more than a week, the refuse bins across the streets were filled to the brim, surrounded by bulging refuse packs. Garbage collectors who are contractors of the Lagos State Waste Management Authority (LAWMA), under a PSP arrangement, were said to be on strike over the non-payment of their salaries for three months! Street sweepers, with their ubiquitous orange overalls, helping to keep Lagos clean were also nowhere to be seen. In the middle of a global public health crisis like COVID-19, and with hygiene as one of the recommended safety responses, I thought Lagos had a big problem on its hand. Waste managers going on strike, in a state that is the epicenter of the pandemic in Nigeria? Many Lagos residents were outraged. Why won’t LAWMA pay waste managers? 

Before long the media focused on the story. The facts as reported in summary are as follows: In May, Governor Babajide Sanwoolu, as part of efforts to reposition LAWMA, was said to have ordered an audit of the agency. The auditors reportedly stumbled on damning irregularities, wastages and leakages within the system. These include the discovery of sharp practices by PSP contractors, the middle men who interface between LAWMA and street sweepers/refuse collectors. LAWMA has 652 of such operators who in turn engage 15, 498 workers, who manage 600 routes across the state. The contractors were accused of padding their bills, and passing their cost to the state government. In LAWMA’s record, a sweeper is paid N25, 000 per month as salary, while a supervisor is paid N40, 000 per month. In reality, the contractors don’t even pay their staff up to this amount. As the agency’s wage bill rose from N540 million per month to N1 billion, the Governor asked the former MD to step aside and insisted on an audit. Many of the contractors were found guilty, with the most notorious among them identified as “The Iron Lady”.  As part of the reform process, the state government appointed a new Managing Director to oversee the changes that needed to be made.    

It was at this point that hell broke loose.  Contracts were terminated including that of the “Iron Lady” who alone managed 66 routes. There were attacks on the new management of LAWMA by street sweepers who publicly discarded their orange overalls, and took their case to the social media. They had my sympathy.  Not to pay these hapless workers, who risk their lives every day for mere pittance didn’t look good. But it soon became clear that this was not about LAWMA but some powerful contractors and middle men who were determined to resist and frustrate the proposed reform, insisting that they are untouchable. 

Anyone who is familiar with the waste management process in Lagos will attest to the fact that this is one of the major areas reserved for the purposes of political patronage. The contractors are not necessarily independent.  They are either party stalwarts, or their representatives, being rewarded for their contribution to election victory. They have behind them Godfathers who also report to Godfathers. Governor Sanwoolu is right to have ordered an audit, and to have asked the former Managing Director to step aside. But the audit must be fair and it certainly can’t go on endlessly. Yesterday, I saw a few street sweepers back at work. There must be some honest contractors whose staff do not deserve to be out of work and whose salaries must be paid. But there must also be a strong monitoring mechanism in place. No contractor should be paid for work not done or be allowed to pad bills. The new man at LAWMA, that is the Acting MD, will need the personal support of the Governor and that of the Commissioner for Environment, Tunji Bello under whose Ministry LAWMA falls. Both Sanwoolu and Bello have been long enough within the system to know where the corpses are buried. 

The Governor should be firm and tread carefully though. One of the reasons adduced for the humiliation of his predecessor, Akinwunmi Ambode was that he too tried to change things at LAWMA. In so doing, he stepped on very powerful toes and burnt bridges. The contractors and Godfathers that he displaced never forgave him. They blackmailed him. In the course of the current face-off, I have noticed garbage being dumped, seemingly deliberately, on the streets of Lagos. Governor Sanwoolu should be watchful. Nobody, Iron Lady, or Caterpillar Man, should be allowed to play politics with public health and hygiene in Lagos.   

This year, there was some feeling of nostalgia about May 29 as Nigeria’s Democracy Day. When a few persons called me to ask if there were special plans for Democracy Day on May 29, I had to remind them that Democracy Day was now June 12. On June 6, 2018, President Buhari proclaimed June 12 as the new Democracy Day. I guess with time, Nigerians will get used to the new order, and June 12 will “take root” firmly as new Democracy Day. Hopefully no government will show up in the future to reverse what may well be remembered as one of the good deeds of President Muhammadu Buhari. As events turned out, on May 29, this year, many state governors marked either their first or fifth year in office; other states talked about Democracy on June 12. Ahead of June 12 itself, the Federal Government released a document outlining the achievements of the Buhari administration in five years. On June 12, President Buhari addressed the nation. Other political leaders issued statements. But there was no celebration as we knew it. The entire country had been overtaken by the COVID-19 pandemic, with its social distancing, physical distancing, new normal regimental orders. The deadly disease overshadowed everything.  As at May 29, 2020, Nigeria had recorded 8, 915 confirmed cases of Corona Virus with 259 deaths.  

By Friday, June 12, the number of cases in Nigeria had jumped to 14, 554 cases, with 387 fatalities. The total number of new cases rose to 681. This coincided with the disclosure that the report of the Economic Sustainability Committee chaired by Vice President Professor Yemi Osinbajo had projected a loss of 39.4 million jobs by December 2020 (an unemployment rate of 39.4%), a monthly revenue loss of N185 billion, a sharp fall in GDP rate, with many Nigerians likely to slide into extreme poverty. Twenty-one years after our return to civilian rule and 27 years after June 12, 1993, Nigeria is firmly at a cross-road. It is easy to blame the COVID-19 pandemic which since the first index case was reported in the country on February 27 has kept everything on hold. 

But if anything, what COVID-19 has done is to expose macro-level governance issues in Nigeria. May 29 or June 12, each with its own symbolism, both provide an opportunity for government at all levels to give account and submit a report card to the people. This was what President Buhari did in his June 12 national broadcast. Many took that speech with a pinch of salt. A few state Governors used the occasion of their first or fifth year in office or the June 12 day to render account, but for the most part, many state governments did not even bother. Commentators were also distracted. The kind of rigorous assessment that was expected did not happen.  But a few states made an effort. On May 29 and June 12, I observed an attempt by the Governors of the following states and their supporters and friends to engage the public: Lagos, Ogun, Bauchi, Yobe, Delta, Kebbi, Kano, Kwara, Sokoto,, Enugu, Borno, Oyo, Osun, Ekiti and Ondo. In addition, the Federal Capital Development Authority (FCDA),  on June 12,  published an advertorial titled “FCDA Continues to deliver on PMB’s Next Level Agenda”.  The many claims made by these state governments need to be subjected to close interrogation and scrutiny. It is not enough to place adverts and congratulatory messages in the media: are the messages true? Are the claims verifiable? And those Governors hiding under the constraints of managing COVID-19 to sleep on the job, is anyone monitoring them closely? We often blame the Federal Government, but the real centres of failure can be found at the sub-national level. Before COVID-19 governance was a major source of anxiety in Nigeria.  It is even more so now in the face of this man-eating pandemic, and will still be an issue hereafter.   

It is not possible in a short newspaper commentary to attempt a review of the claims made by the aforementioned states in terms of service delivery to the people. For this reason, I have chosen to focus on just one state: Kwara.  This particular state featured prominently during the last general elections in 2019. The main battle in the gubernatorial election in that state was between the All Progressives Congress (APC) which had as its candidate, Abdulrahman Abdulrasaq, and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which fielded Abdulrazaq Atunwa.  At the end of the election, Abdulrazaq, the former, was declared winner with a margin of 216, 792 votes to wit: 331, 546 votes (APC) to 114, 754 votes (PDP).  The APC candidate won in all the 16 Local Government Areas of the state. The PDP alleged that the election was rigged but what happened was not just an election, it came across as a battle for the soul of the State. 

For decades, Kwara politics had been dominated by the Saraki political family. That dominance was entrenched by Dr. Olusola Saraki, Senate Majority Leader in Nigeria’s Second Republic (1979 -1983) and the Godfather of Kwara politics for decades. In 2003, the immensely charismatic and popular Dr. Olusola Saraki “installed” his first son, Dr. Bukola Saraki as Governor of the state. The son will later replace the father as the Godfather of Kwara politics.  The Saraki political machinery had a strong hold on the entire state, such that nobody could aspire to any position if such a person was not endorsed by the Saraki Godfather machinery. The ordinary people of Ilorin and other parts of the state depended on the Saraki family, and the man they called “Oloye” for their survival. Saraki, the father, did not disappoint them.  His longevity as a power broker was a function of his mastery of populism and the common touch and his dexterity in building bridges to the centre.  

In the 2019 general election, Dr. Bukola Saraki, the son who also became the Godfather, fell out with the ruling party at the centre, and back home, he and his chosen candidates faced a bigger opposition. The same APC machinery that Saraki had helped to strengthen in the state in 2015 was turned against him. The people were mobilized to reject the prevailing status quo. Atunwa was seen as Saraki’s candidate.  He could well have had the making of a good Governor. But he stood no chance by association. The main slogan for that election was “O to o ge”. Literally, that was a statement of protest. It was an open rejection of the Saraki political dynasty and anything associated thereto.  In a well-orchestrated, social media-driven advertisement of this protest, the people of Kwara were shown on the streets of Ilorin chanting and symbolically using the broom, the APC emblem, to sweep away the Saraki influence in Kwara politics. To an ordinary observer, something had changed. Saraki himself lost the February 23 Senatorial election. 

But was that enough? Will the new man in the saddle deliver?  Abdulrahman Abdulrazaq was sworn in on May 29, 2019. Before long, an open quarrel had broken out between the state government and the Saraki family, particularly Senator Bukola Saraki. By February 2020, the public was inundated with stories about how the Saraki family had taken illegal possession of plots of land meant for the public, and how Senator Saraki as Governor had similarly seized government properties across the state. It was a very messy affair. Dr. Bukola Saraki was at the same time facing pressure from Federal Government agencies. There was trouble chasing him around in Abuja. Back home in his state, the new Governor seemed determined to embarrass him. I wrote a piece at the time, and in the concluding paragraph, I advised that Governor Abdulrazaq should face the business of governance, because at the end of the day, he will be assessed on the basis of his achievements, not his ability to humiliate the Sarakis. 

It looks like common sense eventually prevailed in the matter. I take special note of the fact that on May 29, the Governor of Kwara State was one of those Governors who had something to crow about. Of him, one Yahaya Seriki writes: “…the government of Abdulrazaq has brought to the state unprecedented developments whose demonstration is now found in the nooks and crannies of our state. There are not progressive claims; they are activities of physical verity.  So far 56 percent of his cabinet is made up of women, first of its kind in Nigeria, and yet the most accentuated gender equality demonstration in the country as at present…his government refunded the 450 million naira that was allegedly diverted from the Universal Basic Education (UBE) funds by the previous government… over 8, 000 final years students from Kwara State across varying tertiary institutions in the country were duly paid their bursary…scholarship of 100, 000 Naira was earmarked to students of Kwara origin in law schools across the county and numerous primary and secondary education facilities being built, and some renovated… rehabilitation of Patigi waterworks…roads, healthcare facilities, sewage systems…”  (The Nation, May 29, p. A5.). 

Two weeks later, on June 12, in a three-page colour advert titled “Democracy Day and a Dawn of Impactful governance in Nigeria, sub-titled “Ise’nlo”, meaning “work is in progress” the Kwara State Government offered a pictorial account of the infrastructure provided by the Abdulrazaq government in Kwara State. (see THISDAY, June 12, pp 55- 57). We are also told: “Abdulrazaq lives in his own house, drives his own car, and inspires his team to be prudent and people-oriented. And he is never tired of talking to any member of the public…” The Governor’s media spokesperson, Rafiu Ajakaye in a piece titled “365 Days of Impactful Governance in Kwara would admit that “Kwara, for the record, is not yet an Eldorado. No such state exists.”  But, he says, “the administration inherited and has rescued a state that once tottered on the brink of collapse – at least in the area of human capital development indices… just 12 months down the road, the Otoge leader has successfully exchanged the Kwara narrative. From instant payment of relevant counterpart funds, which have brought back development partners, and taken the state off the UBEC blacklist, Abdulrazaq is taking steps to stabilize and reposition the state for growth.” In yet another report, the Kwara State Director General of the Kwara State Bureau of Lands, Hon. Bolaji Edun, wrote in April, that Governor Abdulrazaq has signed 175 Certificates of Occupancy, and taken steps to strengthen the ease of doing business. I hope one or two of those 175 Certificates went the way of the Sarakis as a peace-making overture! 

There are obvious lessons to be learnt from the Abdulrazaq story in Kwara state. Here is the example of a Governor who almost lost the plot by focusing on perceived enemies. His saving grace is that he changed track and tactics and chose to focus on what is important. That is why he has a story to tell one year after assuming office. Many Nigerian Governors simply do not know what they are doing. They are confused. COVID-19 is their come-uppance. It has exposed their ignorance and incompetence. There are Governors who are obsessed with petty squabbles, even over the management of COVID-19. They have nothing to show, nothing to celebrate, they call themselves “silent achievers.” I have a strong aversion to that phrase. If the achievement is loud enough, everyone will see it. Nigeria faces a big challenge at the sub-national level. With the survival challenges that COVID-19 has brought upon us, the Nigerian people must indeed “take responsibility” and that includes holding those who lead us to account. It is not a task that can be left to our lawmakers who from Abuja to every part of the country are a self-seeking bunch. We can restructure, reduce the cost and size of government, but if the wrong set of people continue to rule, Nigeria’s journey will remain recursive. The big, defensive response that I get to this is: “Look at America!” My response:  Trump-ism is a virus worse than COVID-19. 

The announcement of Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala as Nigeria’s nominated candidate for the position of the Director General of the World Trade Organization (WTO) which would now be vacant by September 1, 2020, and not 2021, following the incumbent’s decision to take his exit a year earlier was received with great excitement among Nigerians. This enthusiasm is in itself a reflection of the high regard in which NOI, as she is otherwise known, is held by her compatriots. It didn’t matter that Nigeria’s President had withdrawn an earlier nominee for the post, Ambassador Yonov Frederick Agah, Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the WTO and a long-serving WTO insider (since 2005).  In a country where ethnic sentiments run deep and every public position is seen as an opportunity to re-enact primordial ethnic conflicts, it is significant that no one complained about an Agah being replaced with an Iweala as candidate for one of the world’s most visible positions. The resume of Dr. Okonjo-Iweala that was submitted along with her nomination by the Nigerian Government read like a national honours citation. 

The general consensus is that Nigeria had chosen well. It was good to see Nigerians queuing up behind merit and accomplishment. A two-time Minister of Finance in Nigeria between (2003 -2006) and (2011 -2015), and a one-time Minister of Foreign Affairs (June – August 2006), Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala is so famous in her home country that many believe if there should ever be a first female Nigerian Vice President or President, she is the most suited for the position. In 2012, and again in 2019, she had shown interest in the position of the President of the World Bank. In 2012, she was Africa’s consensus candidate and in 2019, she was not nominated, but one of the key moments in her career was her outstanding performance as Managing Director (Operations) of the same World Bank. 

Her brilliance in that position and as a renowned international technocrat makes her a role model for many Africans, especially young women for whom she represents a symbol as to the fragility of the proverbial glass ceiling, and a counter-figure for the naïve assumptions about the capacity of the girl-child. But WTO Directors-General are not elected by nationals guided by patriotic sentiments. The process requires nominations to be made, and each nominated person gets a chance to articulate his/her vision before the WTO General Council, representing the 164 member-states. A decision is arrived at through consensus, not voting. There is high-grade politics involved, as well as intense competition between developed and developing countries, and within an insiders’ club that seems to run the organization. 

Okonjo-Iweala’s candidacy received an early dose of this when shortly after her nomination by Nigeria, Egypt raised an objection on the grounds that the nomination was out of time because the African Union had set a deadline of February 10 for choosing a consensus candidate from Africa. Egypt argued that the nomination process by the African Union was announced in November 2019, and that in their reckoning, with Nigeria withdrawing the candidacy of Ambassador Agah, the AU was left with just two candidates from which it could choose, namely Hamid Mamdouh of Egypt and Eloi Laourou of the Republic of Benin. This caused some concern among Nigerians. But the matter was resolved when, June 9, the WTO acknowledged Nigeria’s nomination of Okonjo-Iweala. Apparently the AU process is unknown to the WTO as the organization does not have a provision in its rules that nominees must be consensus candidates from their regional blocs. 

The AU must be commended however for taking a pro-active step. As far back as November 2019, African leaders were already preparing for a WTO succession that was scheduled to occur in 2021 when Roberto Azevedo’s tenure as DG effectively ends. The game changed in May 2020 when the Brazilian WTO DG announced that he would bow out a year earlier. The Chairman of the WTO Governing Council promptly announced a call for nominations, to commence on June 8 and end on July 8. Nigeria is not only within time, Okonjo-Iweala’s nomination is valid. Her nomination has been further strengthened by the Republic of Benin’s withdrawal of its own nomination. As at the time of writing this piece, three nominations are on the table: Egypt’s Hamid Mamdouh, Mexico’s Jesus Seade Kuri and Nigeria’s Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. The game is on, and between now and the close of nominations, more nominations are likely to be made. The name of Kenya’s Amina Mohammed has been mentioned. South Africa is said to be supporting Okonjo-Iweala. 

I think African solidarity/unity is important. It is not too late yet for Africa to choose a consensus candidate. In the round of nominations for the position of the Director General of the World Health Organization in 2017, Africa spoke with one voice, and stood by Ethiopia’s Dr Tedros Ghebreyesus. Even now that he is under fire from the United States over COVID-19, African leaders are solidly behind him. Nigeria must lead the process of building an African consensus. Many African leaders have said what Africa needs is trade with other continents, not aid. An African as the DG of the WTO could help facilitate that objective especially in the light of the African Continental Free Trade Agreement (AFCTA) which may have been short-circuited by COVID-19 and the fall-outs, but nonetheless remains a strategic continental plan. Post-COVID 19, Africa is bound to remain an important destination and source for global trade. Having strong, even symbolic presence at the WTO could be to the continent’s benefit. 

The role of the DG, WTO is largely managerial and advisory, member-states reach their own decisions, still an African DG is not a bad idea. The timing for this could not have been better. An African incidentally has never been a Director General of the WTO, despite the fact that at least two African countries, Southern Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) and South Africa, were founding members. The General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the precursor of the WTO was led by Europeans from 1948 to 1993: United Kingdom (1948 -1968), Switzerland (1968 -1980), Switzerland (1980 – 1993), Ireland (1993 - 1995). When the WTO was formed in 1995, the DGs have been supplied by Ireland (Peter Sutherland, 1995, a carry over from GATT), Italy (1995 – 1999), New Zealand (1999 -2002), Thailand (2002 -2005), France (2005 -2013), and Brazil (2013 –August 2020). This profile not only shows that the WTO which is an intergovernmental organization, established to promote and regulate international trade has been dominated predominantly by Europeans. 

There have been calls for a reform of the Organization, part of that reform should include making it more diverse and inclusive. The EU has already discussed the possibility of having a European successor to Azevedo, and a return of the DG office to a developed country, and names have been mentioned: the European Commissioner for Trade, Phil Hogan, who has openly expressed interest, his predecessor, Peter Mandelson and the Spanish Foreign Minister, Aranza Gonzalez. Africa must speak with one voice, and rally behind Nigeria’s Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala. It is not too late to persuade other African countries to act like the Republic of Benin and support Nigeria’s candidate and that includes Egypt. Nigeria must not see Egypt as the eternal rival: it must engage Egypt and other African leaders constructively. Africa’s failure to unite on the question of the WTO Director-Generalship could promote Europe’s domineering presence at the organization. There are openings for opportunities. It is not certain for example, that the United States, this time around, will support a candidate from Europe, although the US is still probably studying the emerging nominations. Nigeria should seek the support of the United States for the position, and also lobby China, although that may be tricky, given America’s touchiness about the Chinese. It is almost certain that the United States will not support Mexico’s Jesus Seade Kuri. The possibility of a Latin American (Mexico) succeeding an exiting Latin American (Brazil) may not offer good optics. 

Nobody knows how many more candidates will show up before July 8, but it must also be noted that there has never been a female Director-General of the World Trade Organization (WTO). Gender-sensitivity should be one of the reforms urgently required at the WTO. The Organization is looking for the best possible candidate. I do not doubt the fact that other nominees are talented persons, Egypt’s Mamdouh is a WTO insider, Mexico’s Kuri has served in GATT and WTO and is a veteran of trade negotiations in addition to years at the Bretton Woods Institutions. Whatever any nominee has in terms of experience, Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala’s credentials are just as formidable and exemplary, and should a short-list be attempted she will rank at the very first level. The main criticism that I have heard is that her expertise is more in finance rather than trade. That ciriticism is as misplaced as the Egyptian objection to her nomination. Her resume as submitted by the Nigerian Government does not show any shortcoming in any area in terms of her experience and exposure. 

The WTO says it is looking for “candidates with experience in international relations, encompassing trade and/or political experience, a firm commitment to the work and objectives of the WTO, proven leadership and managerial ability; and demonstrated communications skills.”  Okonjo-Iweala is eminently qualified on all counts. The talk about the difference between finance and trade is the product of the perpetual rivalry between Ministers of Trade and Ministers of Finance. As Nigeria’s Finance Minister on two occasions, the country’s Customs department reported to her. What is Customs if not trade? As Minister of Finance, Okonjo-Iweala also led Nigeria’s negotiations within ECOWAS and with the Paris Club.  Besides, she is a development economist, and trade is an essential part of that career leaning.  It has also been said that WTO is organized like a boys’ and insiders’ cult.  It is time to smash that cult and let in a breath of fresh air. The big consideration in choosing Mr. Roberto Azevedo’s successor should be: what kind of Director General does the WTO need at this time: a saviour or a survivor? 

The WTO does not need a survivor who will seek to service old paradigms and promote the same assumptions that have affected the organization’s efficiency. The WTO is heavily challenged and embattled. It needs to be saved and strengthened. Both COVID-19 and the unending trade war and friction between the United States and China present serious challenges for the next WTO DG. The US is opposed to the idea of China passing itself off as a developing country-member of the WTO. It has raised questions about fair trade, competition, tariffs, intellectual property and the body’s dispute settlement mechanisms. China disagrees. Other countries have their grievances. The implications for a rules-based international trading system are dire.  There is need to agree on a proper definition of what makes a country developed or developing, and move beyond the current self-classification regime. The WTO also needs to be repositioned for its trade liberalization objectives in the context of international regulatory co-operation. The next WTO DG must be a person of high emotional intelligence, a neutral advisor and certainly not a Geneva trade cultist with vested interests who simply wants to hold the position and survive. COVID-19 disruptions and an increased wave of trade protectionism have changed the dynamics of global trade. There is also the unfinished business of the Doha Round. The emergence of the next WTO DG must mark a new beginning, not the end of the beginning, and certainly not the beginning of the end for the WTO. Nigeria’s Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala fits the bill.   

Since February 27, 2020, when the first index case of COVID-19 was reported in Nigeria, and that satanic, virulent virus overwhelmed our lives, Nigeria has had cause to deal with other convergent afflictions: the first in my view, is the pandemic of irresponsible governance as evidenced by the kind of poor leadership responses that we have witnessed in some states of the Federation, and the growing narrative that some key players may have turned the main pandemic itself into a racket; the second is the pandemic of insecurity – even with states and borders on lockdown, bandits, criminals and terrorists – whichever label suits your fancy- have been running riot across the country particularly in the North East/West where villages are sacked in one day, for hours on end, Southern Kaduna where villages have been razed and murder has been committed on a large scale, and elsewhere in the country where members of the middle class are now afraid of their own shadows. The third is the poverty pandemic: lockdowns, shutdowns and the obvious possum-ization of all processes has resulted in the loss of income, the suspension of jobs or their outright loss, a sharp rise of course in unemployment figures and the abbreviation of hope in the face of inflation and economic contractions. The fourth is the pandemic of rape. 

I have no immediate data to suggest that the menace of “sex without consent” and the associated ills of domestic and sexual violence have any causal relationship with COVID-19, but what has been seen so far is that in the season of COVID-19, there has been an exponential rise in the reported cases of rape and sexual violence. One newspaper has had cause to report for example that in one month, there were ten high profile cases of rape across the country. In Kaduna, in April, an 18-year-old young girl known as Jennifer was attacked and raped by five men. The victim’s family released a video of her ordeal.  In  Lagos, a young lady, Tina Ezekwe, just 16, was shot and killed at a bus stop in Lagos by a trigger-happy policeman. This was rape of another kind, but a popular variety in Nigeria pointing to the failure of the state and its agents to place a high premium on human lives. A few days later, in Edo State, a 22-year old university student Vera Uwaila Omozuwa, simply known as Uwa was beaten to death in a church after she had been allegedly raped. Her assailants smashed her head with a fire extinguisher. 

In Dutse, Jigawa, there was the report of a 12-year old girl, named Farishina who was raped repeatedly on different occasions by 11 men. In Ibadan, on June 2, a 19-year old student Barakat Bello was also raped inside her father’s house and murdered. There have been even more horrific reports: of men sleeping with a two-year-old, of men sleeping with their daughters, and the only excuse one imbecilic offender could offer was that if his wife denied him sex, he would seek sexual pleasures from his own daughters. In Lagos, four masked men raped a 12-year-old girl. In Niger State a 25-year-old man raped an 85-year old grandma! A university undergraduate in Lagos was also accused of kissing a child  passionately. He has since been arrested.  In Benue, a 38-year-old man raped his seven-month-old daughter! Nigeria’s social media space understandably, has been inundated with hashtags of protest, anguish and change: #JusticeforUwa, #JusticeforTina, #JusticeforJennifer; #JusticeforFarishina, #JusticeforBarakat; #Wearetired; #NotoRape; #StopRapeNow…#EndRapeNow..     

The exponential explosion in reported cases of rape in the time of COVID-19 may be responsible for the outrage that we have seen, but the truth is that the essential difference is the focused media attention that the subject now receives. Rape is an epidemic that has now reached pandemic proportions due to inaction, stigmatization, limitations of existing law and the the failure of the state to respond to what is clearly a major humanitarian crisis. In 2017, the Nigeria Bureau of Statistics reported, and you must take this as merely an estimate given the challenges of data collection in Nigeria, that there were 2, 279 reported cases of indecent assault and 1, 164 cases of anal sex, at the time from 35 states, In July 2019, a poll by NOI reported that one in every three girls in Nigeria would have experienced one form of sexual assault before the age of 25. That means virtually every Nigerian woman has at least a story of sexual harassment or molestation to tell. In 2020, there has been an unprecedented explosion. Is COVID-19 a special type of beast that implants a new variant of madness in people’s heads, which is directly linked to their libido?  

Governor Kayode Fayemi of Ekiti State under whose watch rape has been fully criminalized, deserves commendation.  He has just signed into law, a piece of legislation from the State House of Assembly, titled “Compulsory Treatment and Care of Child Victims of Sexual Abuse Law 2020.” There have been objections to the new Ekiti State Law on the grounds that it says no sexual offender will be entitled to bail. Expressly, this would be a violation of Sections 35(1), 36(5) of the Nigerian Constitution, and to that extent questionable, but let it be known that the right of bail is contractual in nature, per Tobi, JSC. 

Elsewhere, I have spoken about the principled position that has been taken by Governor Fayemi and the Ekiti State House of Assembly. They are both convinced that there should be zero tolerance for sexual violence for all forms of sexual violence. Nobody should argue with that. Governor Fayemi also says there should be a national consensus on the issue of rape in Nigeria. His wife, the delectable Erelu Bisi Fayemi turns 57 this week and has been a victim of sexual molestation by her own account. I do not not think this is why Fayemi is gung-ho on the question of rape and sexual violence, we should look more at the principle behind his protestation. Before him, it is only in Lagos State that we have had a similar passion expressed about sexual violence, with the establishment under then Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola of a sexual violence agency. In Ekiti, Fayemi has moved further by instituting a more active naming and shaming system by activating a Sexual Offenders Register, and taking that register to the Social Media. It is a brilliant initiative even if we must not overlook the fact that the register has not yet named and shamed a power-figure – power figures, the NGOs insist are the worst perpetrators of rape. Power, class, culture and privilege being the strongest enabling factors of rape. But the issue is: can we ever have a national consensus on rape in Nigeria? Opinion is divided on that and that is the real problem. 

Nigeria’s attitude to the issue of rape and domestic violence has been at best unprogressive and far behind contemporary legal thinking. The failure to move forward and align with current trends on this subject is one of the sore aspects of our jurisprudence. With regard to rape, the relevant body of laws include the Criminal Code, Sections 215, 218, 221, 357 - 361 thereof, the Penal Code, Section 282 thereof, Section 1 of the Violence Against Persons Prohibition Act, 2015 (VAPPA), and the Child Rights Act (2003), all reasonable and valid in expression and effect under Chapter Four of the Nigerian Constitution.  Ancillary provisions within the statute books also do not in any way justify the abuse of human rights often indicated by the obtainment of carnal knowledge by force. But there are known gaps in the law that have not been addressed. Without being pedantic, it is worth noting that concerns have been expressed about the definition of “rape” itself under Nigerian law. Section 357 defines rape as a man having forceful carnal knowledge of a woman. In today’s reality, it is not only men who rape women. Women rape women. Men rape women. Men rape Men. The law needs to be changed. 

In the extant law, a married man cannot rape his wife. This does not arise from a construction of the doctrine of the unity of spouse: that is a man and his wife being one and the same but the thinking that a married woman is a property of her husband, to be used as deemed fit. There are decided cases that have freed women from this primordial and antiquated misconception but this is one curious area in which the law has not yet penetrated the proverbial “other room” where even wives of Presidents, and accomplished women, suffer in silence.  There is also the problem of child brides. Nigeria operates a conflict of laws, or perhaps a dual legal system with the rights of children. The definition of a child for example in the Child Rights Act (2003) is different from that of the Children and Young Persons Law, in the same manner in which the Criminal Code Provisions on Rape are at variance with the same provisions in the Penal Code that are applicable to the Northern States of Nigeria. The existence of a dual legal system is at the heart of Nigeria’s under-development process. It accounts mostly for the failure to forge a consensus on anything in the country. 

Take the Child Rights Act. Whereas it has been ratified as required by virtually every State in the South of Nigeria, 11 states, mainly Northern States, have refused to ratify it. They claim that it violates the Shariah law which allows child marriages.  UNICEF reports that Nigeria accounts for one of the highest rates of child brides in the world. The figure is put at 23 million child brides, most likely to double by 2050. Nigeria also accounts for one of the highest rates of Vesico-Vaginal-Festula (VVF), arising due to early exposure of child brides to coitus, with the added complications of high infant mortality, maternal morbidity/maternal mortality rates, out-of-school syndrome, poverty…and yet the defenders of culture, tradition and religion in parts of the North insist that any attempt to change the regime amounts to a violation of their rights. The rule is that a child below a certain age is not in a position to grant consent. The definition of a child in Nigeria is confused and confusing. 

This is perhaps why since 2008, every attempt to review the extant laws on rape has been unsuccessful. There have been repeated talks about the need to review the punishment for rape, the definition of it, the burden of proof, the fielding of evidence and the time within which reasonable action can be taken. But every Bill addressing the matter since 2008 simply ends in the drawers. As recently as 2019, a bill to amend the Criminal Code on Rape made it to second reading and vanished into thin air. A few weeks ago, Senator Ovie Omo-Agege and others started talking again about the need to amend the laws to discourage rape. There is no guarantee that the latest effort will not end up as another effort at grandstanding and populism. Rape, like Federalism/Restructuring, is one of the most discussed problems in Nigeria. Every stakeholder knows what the matter is but nobody is willing to do anything about it, or courageous enough to go the extra mile. Nigeria is a country of smart talkers without either ambition or will. 

The other issue with regard to rape is the evil of stigmatization. In traditional societies, rape was a taboo, a Karmic affliction, a curse.  Victims and their families could not talk about it. Families were afraid that nobody would marry their daughters who may have been defiled and in those traditional communities, the biggest achievement of a female child was to marry well and be a good wife. The times have changed, but primordial frames of mind have remained resilient. The culture of silence is the biggest threat to the now emerging #MeToo movement in Nigeria and Africa, reinforced by the fear of stigma. The final sticky problem here is that nobody talks about when a man rapes a man, or a woman rapes a man or a woman, and the fact that many of those shouting #MeToo, may just well be making false accusations.  

While Nigerians are busy with the management of COVID-19 and its many fall-outs, fire has been burning in other aspects of national life which require equal attention both now and after COVID-19 – the increasing spate of insecurity in the country is one, the crisis in the country’s electricity sector is another, but COVID-19 is such an all-consuming pre-occupation that other issues have been pushed to the back-burner. More people have died in Nigeria from attacks on communities by terrorists nicely referred to as bandits since January raising a question about the country’s capacity to win the war against terror and insecurity, and there have been crises on other fronts that we would still need to deal with, which may have far-reaching implications for national economic sustainability. The politics of the electricity sector is one of such issues.  

Long before COVID-19, for example, there have been problems with Nigeria’s privatization of the power sector and the performance of the entire value chain from generation to transmission and distribution. The problem perhaps can be traced back to 2013 when the Federal Government of Nigeria decided to complete the privatization of the electricity sector. The then PHCN was unbundled into three parts: Generating Companies (Gencos), the Transmission Company of Nigeria, and Distribution Companies (Discos). The ancient Power Holding Company of Nigeria (PHCN), even after its commercialization did not meet the objective of achieving efficiency and effectiveness in delivering power to accelerate Nigeria’s economic development process. The underlying philosophy as I understand it, is that partnership with the private sector will address that omission and re-position Nigeria’s electricity value-chain. The Nigerian Government sold a 60% stake in the distribution end of the value chain, and retained ownership of 40% therein, but it kept 100% control over the transmission of electricity. The Gencos had different controlling share ratios. Manitoba of Canada was engaged to manage the Transmission Company of Nigeria. Private investors took over the management of the Gencos and Discos. 

The reform of the electricity sector is one of the major last acts of the Goodluck Jonathan administration. Many institutions of state were involved in the process, notably the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE), the National Electricity Regulatory Commission, that is the regulator, and the Bulk Electricity Company, the middle broker known as the Bulk Trader. Privatization is not an automated transaction. It is a process, with its own twists and turns and indeed, there were in-built mechanisms in the power sector reform process and the Electricity Power Sector Reform Act (EPSRA) Act to ensure reviews, standards and the fine-tuning of the process. But the entire process had hardly assumed a definite form, the private investors had not yet settled down, when Nigeria faced one of its most momentous transitions in contemporary history. The Jonathan administration left in May 2015. It was replaced by a new administration led by President Muhammadu Buhari.  This lent a new tone to everything else: the new administration had a choice to continue with the programmes of its predecessor or to adopt some of them and review/reject/cancel others. This was exactly what happened. And it happened that the power sector reform process was one of those areas that the new Federal Government felt a review was necessary. 

This is understandable perhaps. Successive Nigerian administrations since the return to civilian rule in 1999, have without exception acknowledged the fact that an efficient power sector would help to accelerate Nigeria’s development process, and even the quality of livelihood. In an economy dominated mostly by the informal sector and Small and Medium Scale Enterprises (SMEs), an efficient power supply system should facilitate productivity and release the people’s energies for maximum beneficial outputs, with corresponding implication for output growth. The bigger questions, however, have been: how to keep politics out of it?, How to get it right? And how best to act in the national interest and not narrow, partisan interests? Those were the questions at issue when the Umaru Yar’Adua administration succeeded Obasanjo’s administration in 2007 and billions worth of imported equipment were allowed to rot away at the ports. The same questions emerged as soon as the Buhari administration assumed office. 

Without missing a beat, the Buhari administration took a fine toothcomb to the privatization of the electricity sector and began to engage the private investors in the power generating and distribution ends of the value chain. In the course of the 2014/2015 Presidential campaigns, key spokespersons of the opposition All Progressives Congress had accused the Jonathan administration of fumbling with the power sector. They even argued that the efficient delivery of electricity to the people is not rocket science. Thus, upon assumption of power a point needed to be proved, but in attacking former players in the corridor, the new administration overlooked a number of issues and soon ran into fresh, troubled waters. In order to save face, it has spent the best part of the past five years looking for scapegoats and trading blames. The matter has now reached a point that the DISCOs have now gone to court to seek a restraining order against a planned forensic audit by the Federal Government. I have written twice on this subject in recent times. The first time I did so in this column, I was accused of cruelty by the Discos simply because I argued that an upward review of electricity tariffs would be insensitive to the plight of Nigerian consumers of electricity. My follow-up comment on the subject drew sharp reactions from official quarters and all I did was to state that the private investors have something useful to say that should be addressed. In this commentary, I simply wish to draw attention to some often overlooked cross-current issues, and ask that common sense should prevail. Litigation could serve the purpose of taking the egos of the various players on a Disney-mode trip, but it can only make things worse in the long run. The main victims would be the ordinary people of Nigeria. Only a week ago, 10 of Nigeria’s generating plants all became idle at the same time: Geregu II, Omotosho II, Ibom plants, Sapele II, Alaoji, Olorunsogo II, Ihovbor, Gbarain, AES and ASCO. The effect was that power generation fell to 2, 626 MW – a complete embarrassment in a country of 200 million that should never at any time generate anything below 40, 000 MW. Even at the best of times, the entire country’s installed generating capacity is about 12, 910 MW, but the peak that has been generated in the last five years is about 5, 375 MW. TCN lacks the capacity to evacuate and deliver the same amount of energy to the Discos. The national grid has degenerated. It is perpetually down. Transmission infrastructure is extremely poor. What are the issues? 

The Federal Government budget for power is usually through the Niger Delta Power Holding Company (NDPHC), TCN and the Rural Electrification Agency. The Federal Government through the Central Bank has also made provisions to enable the Gencos pay the gas supplier and meet other statutory obligations. But the industry often complains about government, and how regulation has resulted in a shortfall. On its part, government accuses Discos in return, of being congenital debtors whose failure to make due remittances to the Bulk Trader has derailed the electricity sector. The deficit in that sector today is over N2 trillion. Government blames the private investors, they in turn blame government. The investors’ argument is that the authorities have refused to allow cost-reflective tariffs, which is provided for in the Multi-Year Tariff Order (MYTO) in the enabling Act. They point out that government has stubbornly, contrary to the Act, pegged tariffs. Who will pay for the difference? 

Now, it should be noted that the expectation of the Nigerian Government is that the privatization of the power sector will work out like the privatization of the telecommunication sector, but the electricity investors argue that this is like comparing apples and oranges. “In the electricity sector, the value chain is not 2 plus 2 = 4”, they say. In other words, it is not the same as telephone. Nobody can distribute electricity without bringing wire and electric poles to your doorstep. Telcos use a different kind of technology. My view: this may not be a very useful comparison except we want to open up an unproductive argument between Discos and Telcos who certainly have many tales of woe of their own to tell. 

The non-availability of gas has also been a major issue in the electricity sector chain. Thermal plants do not get enough gas due to one excuse or the other. The Discos are not responsible for the supply of gas. The Nigeria Gas Company (NGC) which is fully owned by the NNPC is responsible for that. But the NGC is not part of the privatization process. It is bogged down by bureaucracy and the inefficiency of the NNPC. Why is the NGC not privatized? Meanwhile, government is still talking about building a gas pipeline to Ajaokuta, Abuja, Kaduna and Kano? How will that impact on electricity transmission? Why the gas pipeline? Where are the foreseeable gains? Hydro power generation is cheaper but the Mambilla Hydro project has remained a perpetual work in progress while much energy is devoted to the pursuit of shadows. 

The Federal Government complains about the Discos but the point is often overlooked that there are still 10 power plants that are fully owned by the Federal Government. Why are those plants not working? The Federal Government has been challenging private investors who borrowed money to invest in the electricity sector but it is not worried about the fact that existing assets in its own possession are wasting away. 

The crisis in the electricity sector has been considered and re-examined at all levels, not just by the NERC, the regulator, but also by the National Economic Council (NEC), and of late, there have been some developments. The first is the emerging prominence of Siemens of Germany in the conversation. Siemens is not new but its records in Nigeria are mixed. It has a track-record of achievement in the electricity sector particularly its intervention in Egypt where it helped to add value. The plan is that by 2021, Siemens would have helped to ramp up Nigeria’s electricity service delivery. A key point however: foreign contractors should not be promoted as a threat to local investors in the electricity sector. Is it possible to restrict Siemens to the transmission sector and the reinvention of infrastructure? The MoU that has been signed with Siemens is presented to local players as a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. That is unwise. 

The Federal Government through the National Economic Council and the Presidency as it were has now ordered a forensic audit of the power companies who seem to be uncomfortable with that. I guess they do not trust government and can you blame them?  But why the emphasis on forensic audit? Ordinarily, this should not be a matter for litigation. The Federal Government also wants state governments to be part of the shareholding in the power sector. I have no problems with that. Government already has equity. It can share that as it wishes, but nothing more than that.  

What the Federal Government must watch closely and be careful about is the repeated threat that it intends to either review the privatization of the electricity sector or cancel it altogether, whatever that double-talk means. The Senate President Ahmad Lawan seems to support the latter option, whereas he was a member of the Senate Committee on Privatization, 2011- 2015. What could be his motive? Government options should not be about individual interests. There are larger implications about investor confidence, cost of likely litigation, the sanctity of contracts, service delivery and governance. The current situation is un-bankable on all fronts. I recommend dialogue, not the looming showdown. Nigerians want regular electricity supply, affordable tariffs and a country that works. Is it possible to focus on that? 

This year’s eid-al-fitr, the Muslim festival marking the end of the month of Ramadan, during which Muslims fast for 29 or 30 days, in observance of one of the Five Pillars of Islam, was celebrated on Saturday and Sunday May 23/24, but it was a different kind of eid. It was sombre, low key, and completely over-shadowed by the COVID-19 pandemic. In close to 100 years, there has been no eid like that: the world’s nearly 2 billion Muslims observed the Ramadan under imposed conditions. People were advised to avoid congregational prayers and stay in their homes. On Sunday, many could not observe the traditions of the eid either: the sharing of gifts, visits to family and friends to share goodwill, hugs and handshakes. In countries around the world, persons were advised to shun large gatherings for their own safety. Eid prayers could not be held publicly in Mecca and Medina. The Grand Mosque was noticeably scanty. Earlier, the Saudi Grand Mufti had advised against large congregations. 

In Egypt, the usually busy Al-Azhar Mosque in Cairo was empty. In the United Kingdom, the Muslim Council, ahead of the Eid-al-Fitri, advised Muslims to pray at home.  In Indonesia, Pakistan, Thailand and Malaysia, congregational prayers were allowed but there was very strict adherence to precautions. In Thailand for example, worshippers who showed up for the Hari Raya, as the eid-al-fitri is otherwise known in that country, Malaysia and in Indonesia had to pass through health officials who checked their temperatures, gave them sanitizing gels, recorded their names and addresses so they can be traced and contacted in the event of a report of community spread of the virus. The people prayed but they kept away from one another. The main thing about COVID-19 is how it has imposed a regimen of observances on human behavior and relationships. 

The fact that people are expected to comply or gamble with their lives for failing to do so, is what makes it all so surreal.  The mode of compliance varied from one country to the other. The only uniting factor, however, is how on Sunday, the Muslim global community and indeed the entire world was reminded of how so much COVID-19 has disrupted our lives. This sub-text was driven home more poignantly when the New York Times on May 24, decided on a dramatic, all-type concept front page, listing the names and brief descriptions of about 1,000 Americans who had died from COVID-19 related complications. It was the first time in more than 40 years that the New York Times will not have an image on its front page. The published names were compiled from obituary notices in newspapers across the United States by a researcher - Alan Delaqueriere - and put together by a team led by Ms. Simone Landon, Assistant Editor, Graphics.  There was also an inside-page essay by columnist, Dan Barry. For me, this was journalism at another level. 

The New York Times went beyond the raw data that is quoted daily by Johns Hopkins University which tracks the incidence of COVID-19 in the United States (over 1.6 million confirmed cases, and over 98, 000 deaths – the highest COVID-19 figures in the world!). The newspaper gave names to the statistics and conveyed a sense of the uniqueness of those that died. Whoever reads that list is bound to realize how it is so easy to be alive at one moment, only to end up on a list of corpses in a short moment. The unpredictability of human transitions is what therefore makes it alarming that certain persons knowing how the grim reaper is on rampage, riding the vehicle of a virus, would engage in suicidal and risky behavior. 

These were my thoughts as I read the New York Times on the day of the eid-al-fitri, and reflected on the sharp variations in how theeid was celebrated especially in sub-Saharan Africa where religion is a virus of sorts. Whereas North African countries (Morocco, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Algeria) where there are high figures of COVID-19 enforced rules of physical distancing, many worshippers South of the Sahara threw caution to the winds, with perhaps the notable exceptions of Ghana and Senegal. In Sudan, before and after the eid, neither the leaders nor the people seemed to have heard of physical distancing. Sudan has the highest number of cases in East Africa with over 100 deaths but nobody seems to care. The people and their leaders certainly did not care during this year’s eid-al-fitri. Inflation is over 100% in Sudan. Health workers have no access to Personal Protective Equipment. The World Health Organization (WHO) should watch that country closely.

In Tanzania, a country that has been “Magufulifized” to paraphrase the eminent Kenyan Professor, PLO Lumumba, the leaders pretended to be aware of the need for physical distancing but the worshippers who trooped to mosques in Dodoma and elsewhere in the country could not be bothered. As in Sudan, the mismanagement of the COVID-19 pandemic could be traced to the failure of leadership. President John Magufuli of Tanzania held much promise when he assumed office five years ago, but he has since derailed confirming indeed that his reform agenda is a double-edged sword of progressivism and dictatorship/primitivism. He insists that there has been a reduction in the number of COVID-19 cases in Tanzania, but this is not based on data. Tanzania stopped releasing COVID-19 figures and suspended daily briefings on April 21 because Magufuli is convinced that such briefings cause panic among the populace. He also insists that testing cannot be trusted, having discovered that even fruits and goats have tested positive due to faulty test kits. The Africa Centre for Disease Control and the US Embassy in the country have warned about the extremely high risk that Tanzania constitutes, especially to the neighbouring countries of Kenya, Zambia and Uganda. Healthcare workers in Tanzania cannot even express an opinion because under Magufuli, it is a crime to have independent thoughts. On eid-el-fitri day, Muslims in Tanzania simply followed his lead and ignored the reality of COVID-19. 

In not too far away Burundi, the management of COVID-19 is not any better. Burundi is officially a secular state. Muslims constitute a minority, previously thought to be only 1% of the population but now considered to be about 5-8% after the last post-civil war census. The big problem with Burundi in the face of COVID-19 is the total refusal of President Pierre Nkurunziza to come to terms with the fact that the pandemic is real. Last week, the country held a Presidential election, a stage-managed election which was rigged to produce the candidate of the ruling party, the CNDD-FDD as winner with 68.72%. The CNDD-FDD’s candidate, Evariste Ndayishimiye was once Chief of Staff to Nkurunziza who wants to retire from office and retain the pompous title of “Supreme Guide to Patriotism”. The new President will be required to consult the “Supreme Guide” on matters of national security and unity. Nkurunziza has apparently forgotten what happened to former Angolan President Eduardo dos Santos whose delusion of indispensability eventually led to his humiliation. 

I digress slightly. The point I am really trying to make is that in Burundi, not even the country’s Muslim population had any need to worry about COVID-19. Before the eid, the government of Burundi expelled World Health Organization officials from the country on the ground that they had become “persona non grata.” International election observers and monitors were informed that they would be quarantined if they showed up in the country to observe any election. The international community stayed away.   

Now let us switch the lens to Nigeria. Days before the eid-al-fitri 2020, the Nigerian Government on May 4 eased restrictions that had been imposed by the Federal Government on Ogun, Lagos states and the Federal Capital Territory, not for religious reasons, but as part of a “phased and gradual process” of re-opening the Nigerian space while also addressing the multi-faceted challenges of COVID-19. State governments also began to relax the restriction orders in their states, with the entire country bound to enforce the uniform ban on inter-state travel and the emplacement of a nationwide curfew from 8 pm to 6 am. There were specific regulations and guidelines for restaurants, places of religious worship, human relationships, work place protocols etc. There was a big push-back from ordinary Nigerians who had grown weary of the lockdown, as well as pundits and business owners who felt that the lockdown will not work in Africa but the biggest resistance came from religious leaders especially Pentecostal church leaders who argued from all corners of their mouths about either 5G technology or the damage that the lockdown was doing to the church economy.  There were exceptions though: on the mainstream Christian side- the Catholic Church, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), and on the Pentecostal side: Pastors Enoch Adeboye, Tunde Bakare, Sam Adeyemi and Paul Adefarasin… 

If Muslim leaders were opposed to the lockdown, they were quiet with their objections. The Christian leaders were loud and aggressive. One of them even said if government could allow markets to re-open, churches should also be re-opened. However, the fact that Muslim leaders were also not entirely quiet soon became evident as many states in the North began to announce that religious worship was in order, and that mosques and churches could re-open even as COVID-19 figures in Nigeria increased geometrically. In due course, these states: Kano, Bauchi, Taraba, Nasarawa, Gombe, Yobe, Niger, Adamawa, Cross River, Delta… lifted the ban on worship centres, with the convenient caveat of course that the rules of physical distancing and (2) attendance relative to building capacity and (3) the threshold of 20 persons per gathering must be respected. All the Governors claimed that they were responding to pressures from religious leaders. The Governor of Kano claimed he was advised by Islamic Scholars. The Council of Ulamas in Kano State insisted that they were not consulted. The Sultan of Sokoto, the Head of the Muslim Ummah in Nigeria and head of the Nigeria Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) issued a statement directing all Muslims in Nigeria to observe the eid prayers at home, because the eid-al-fitri is not fard (that is obligatory). President Muhammadu Buhari also issued a statement saying nobody should visit him to pay eid homage as is customary and that people should pray at home. 

But in reality, what Nigeria and many other countries in sub-Saharan Africa are faced with is the threat of an exponential rise in COVID-19 cases post eid-al-fitri. In Kano state which is second on the Nigerian COVID-19 League Table, the guidelines were observed more in the breach. The Kano elite at the prayer grounds hypocritically tried to maintain social distancing but nobody provided minimum care for the ordinary people who risked their lives in the name of religion. In Minna, Niger state, there was reportedly a heavy downpour. People abandoned their masks and rushed into the mosque where they huddled together. The Nation newspaper (Nigeria, May 25) reports that Southern Muslims in Nigeria observed the eid in their homes. In the Northern part of the country, where the Northern Governors Forum most recently announced that the region accounts for 54% of reported cases, and 70% of fresh infections, the prayer grounds were unlocked from Kano to Borno, by the same leaders who had only a few days earlier acknowledged a brewing crisis in their region. Does that make sense? 

I have tried to paint the picture above simply to revisit the commendation that Africa has received for beating the world’s expectations with regard to COVID-19 sero-prevalence. The eid celebration is merely a peg. At a recent Africa.Com Webinar Series 6 with the theme: “What’s the real story behind Africa’s COVID-19 figures?”, the WHO Regional Director Ms Rebecca Moeti expressed enthusiasm about the fact that whereas WHO expected higher COVID-19 cases in Africa, the numbers have been lower than expected. She praised African countries. Both the WHO DG and the UN Secretary General have also had cause to commend Nigeria. The praise for Africa may be premature. It is not justified by the attitude of many of the leaders and the behaviour of the people. Could the real story in Africa be - that not enough testing is being done resulting in gross undercount or that corruption has further mutated COVID-19 into a strain that is yet unknown to the world? Or is the virus un-African? These are the key questions. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has reshaped the entire world – the future of everything and the world of work, but perhaps the most visible effect of this disruption is most felt in the financial services sector, the markets and the global economy. In this regard, the banking sector is one of the most gravely impacted. It would be useful to reflect a little on the extent to which this is so in Nigeria and the meaning of the multi-dimensional implications, and hopefully, someday, someone will take on the task of analyzing in greater detail, bank-customer relations and the role of the banks in the time of COVID-19 pandemic in Nigeria. I seek to provide a preliminary sketch, throw up a few posers and make some observations. 

When on March 29, Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari announced the imposition of an initial two-week lockdown on Lagos and Ogun States and the Federal Capital Territory, the three parts of the country that had then presented a higher COVID-19 sero-prevalence, he exempted healthcare workers, security personnel, pharmaceutical companies, oil company workers, the country’s food supply chain, the media, and other essential workers. His speech made no mention of the banks.

This omission was addressed the following day, March 30, by the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning and the Governor of the Central Bank who further informed the public that Nigerian banks/money markets would also be expected to provide essential services during the period of the lock-down. Obviously, during the period of the lock down, Nigerians would need money either in terms of access to cash, or the completion of pending transactions, transfers, payments and savings. In April, the Federal Government further extended the lockdown by another two weeks and yet by another week, towards the end of the month. As it turned out, other states of the Federation relying on Section 8 of the Quarantine Act and enabling state laws also enforced their own versions of the lockdown.  Effectively, Nigeria became part of the global response to COVID-19. People were asked to stay at home, stay safe, follow guidelines, and avoid the risk of infection and transmission. It all happened so suddenly, so unexpectedly.  Nobody was prepared for it. There were reports of harvests of death in Europe, Asia, and the Americas. Fear gripped the world. Panic reigned. People asked the inevitable question: will humanity survive given the virulence of the virus? As people stayed at home and off the streets, they still needed to survive. Nobody had withdrawn cash or saved towards COVID-19. The importance of access to the banks and to cash was writ large; earning an income became a matter of life and death for households and businesses. The world thus found itself in a pre-historic Darwinian situation where only the fittest survived. The banks in Nigeria were not of much help. Their rating in terms of customer relations/support fell. 

The banks simply refused to open their doors to customers. The few that pretended to do so in Lagos, provided only skeletal services. People were advised to make withdrawals using Automated Teller Machines (ATMs), but most of these machines had no cash supply, and where they had, long queues could be seen daily, without anyone observing the physical distancing guidelines. Digital banking transactions, which had been touted as the new way of the world, proved difficult. If you went directly to an open branch, you would be kept waiting by a gate man who knew nothing about banking. He would return later to tell you that the officer hidden inside the banking hall would need to contact someone at the Headquarters. Many account officers who attended to the middle class were also under quarantine. Their phones were switched off. A major pillar of the banking business - making the customer happy, collapsed. The bankers took their own survival more seriously. The customer was no longer king! COVID 19 is the great destroyer of all known norms. It has shifted paradigms and turned the table against all known norms. 

When on one occasion, I had cause to protest, I was told that the banks were also being careful. They needed to protect their staff. They would not allow customers to bring the virus into their banking halls.  They had also recorded quite a few cases of fraud during the lockdown. So does that justify the scarcity of cash at cash points and the epileptic e-banking platforms?  It will be recalled that the Central Bank of Nigeria introduced a Financial Inclusion Strategy in 2016, the objective of which was to promote electronic banking and mobile money transactions. This led to the increasing digitalization of banking transactions in the country and the emergence of such features as the use of POS, e-banking and payment service agents. Whereas this has been hailed as a progressive development, Nigeria remains far behind other countries like Kenya and South Africa, where a higher rate of financial inclusion has been recorded. Nigeria’s slow penetration rate in this regard was exposed by the COVID-19 lockdown and indeed in reality, Nigeria remains under-banked; its banking practices are still far behind.  

For many subsistence workers whose survival depended on daily work, the banking situation was worse because these blue-collar workers live or suffer relative to their daily hustle. Whatever work that linked them to the banking value-added chain was cut off.  The extended family community that often helps to bridge the gap in Africa, was also adversely affected. Nigerians in Diaspora whose financial remittances constitute a major source of oxygen for local households and the economy also ran into troubled waters. In every sense, Nigeria’s financial sector faced a severe respiratory crisis with corresponding implications for economic growth and social stability. It didn’t take long before Nigerians especially the youth, became restive. A social crisis loomed large in the horizon. In Lagos and Ogun States, neighborhoods were attacked by those who called themselves “One Million Boys”. The rich became afraid of their own shadows. Nigerian banks had to take extra security measures. Organized Labour and the Organized Private Sector began to push the argument that the lockdown would not work in Africa, and that it was better government re-opened the business space.  

On April 27, it may be said that the Federal Government succumbed to pressure when in a nationwide broadcast, President Muhammadu Buhari announced a “phased and gradual” easing of the lockdown in the Federal Capital Territory, Ogun and Lagos States, with the same advice for other parts of the Federation subject to their own peculiar circumstances with regard to COVID-19.  The responses were varied. Ogun State chose to defer its own relaxation of the lockdown by a week, having joined a week later than the FCT and Lagos State. On May 17, the state announced yet a further extension of the lockdown. Other states of the Federation again took their cue from the Federal Government in due course. Delta, Ebonyi, Katsina, and Borno states have since allowed mosques and churches to re-open. Kaduna state and others have also announced relaxed measures. Across the country, a curfew remains in place from 8 pm to 6am. Inter-state travel has been banned, even if there are concerns about the movement of the almajirai across state borders with many of them testing positive for COVID-19. In the face of new guidelines, banks also opened their doors.  

But even then, bank customers are still unhappy, particularly in Lagos and the Federal Capital Territory. The banks remain an index of the people’s frustration. From May 4 to date, the premises of virtually every bank has been a war zone. Customers besiege the banks daily, without caring about either physical or social distancing rules. They sit outside or they queue up in a long, snaky, stretch. The people seem determined to die, if possible, just to gain access to their bank accounts. The queues are long. The desperation is palpable. A few banks have since provided tents and chairs in front of their branches. I won’t be surprised if in the third week of the easing of the lockdown, some Nigerian banks also begin to provide mattresses and mats!. Those queues may not disappear unless the banks open up more branches and pay better attention to customer care. 

Just how serious this is, was brought to the fore in a now popular, and sensational video, showing the Chairman of Ikwerre Local Government in Rivers State, Samuel Nwanosike who led a mini-task force to a branch of the United Bank for Africa (UBA) to disperse a crowd of bank customers, who did not wear face masks, and did not observe physical or social distancing.  “Do you want to kill my people?”, Nwanosike asked the bank officials, angrily. “Who is the bank manager here?... Who is the second in command?” One bank official told him: “The people are not listening to us”. There may be a lot to learn from this as all businesses adjust to a “new normal” occasioned by a capricious virus.   

The banks and their sympathizers insist however, that they do not deserve any blame, vulnerable as they are like every other business, without any measurable support from either government or their regulator, and yet they continue to play their part as responsible corporate citizens. There is probably a point here: it is on record that the banks and their CEOs enthusiastically joined the Private Sector Coalition Against COVID-19 known as CA-COVID which has so far raised over N27 billion. It is part of the burden that banks face that many of their customers think that the donations should have been given to them directly since the banks have their bank accounts and verification numbers. The banks were accused of seeking tax reliefs, and their CEOs, of promoting their own individual egos.

But perhaps the biggest challenge for Nigerian banks, and the extent of their vulnerability, emerged when a tele-conference video was leaked, showing the CEO of Access Bank, Herbert Wigwe, in which he announced that Access Bank was going to cut staff salaries and retrench staff as part of its business continuity and sustainability plans in the context of a public health crisis that has crippled business. The leakage of the Access Bank video was met with outrage. Wigwe was called names. The Bank was abused. A few days later, the Central Bank of Nigeria in response to this drama, announced that no bank is allowed to cut any job without its express approval, and that indeed job cuts in the banking sector are forbidden at this time. Access Bank denied the video that was in circulation. Stakeholders may accuse Nigerian banks of lapses in the face of COVID-19 but the truth is that the attack on Wigwe and Access Bank was totally unwarranted. In my view, Wigwe showed leadership and was honest. 

The only “COVI-diot” in the Access Bank matter is the disloyal staff who leaked the content of an in-house conversation. No serious organization should condone that kind of treachery. Wigwe says salaries will be cut and branches will be rationalized. Last year, Access Bank acquired Diamond Bank in one of the biggest Merger and Acquisitions that the Nigerian banking sector has witnessed in the past decade. Since that merger, Access Bank has not rationalized staff or branch networks. It simply inherited all the branches and staff that belonged to the defunct Diamond Bank resulting in a situation where you could have up to three branches of the same bank on the same street. Access Bank may have chosen the wrong time to announce its business re-design plan, but it is confronted with a reality that every business would have to deal with. But the question should be asked: Is it part of the work of the regulator to dictate cost and business models? 

Before COVID-19, one of the problems Nigerian banks faced was that of over-regulation by the Central Bank. Regulatory high-handedness hampered the capacity of the banks. Many of the banks also faced the threat of deteriorating credit quality due to over-exposure particularly to ailing sectors - oil and gas and the power companies. COVID-19, collapsing oil prices and naira devaluation turned the crisis in the banking sector into a triple whammy. Micro-finance Banks are losing over N45 billion uncollected loans. To all intents and purposes, it is part of the role of the Central bank to protect the banks and stave off the possibility of corrosive stress. Elsewhere we have seen Central Banks intervening to protect the banking sector. The Central Bank of Nigeria has made useful interventions in other areas– to protect SMEs, pharmaceuticals, loans, manufacturing sector, agriculture… but it has done little to strengthen the capacity of the banks to survive as business. 

The plug on job cuts, or the furloughing of bank staff is at best the postponement of the evil day. Bank staff as well as other employees must prepare for the worst. Many businesses will end up as part of the COVID-19 death rate statistics. Jobs will die too. Previous pandemics posted a V-shaped recovery trajectory. There are no such guarantees this time around. A U-shaped recovery scenario may even be optimistic. Many economies will sink in an L-shaped format. And that is where leadership matters. What should leaders do in relation to economic risks and the structural legacy of COVID-19?  This is the kind of rigorous thinking we need to see instead of the same government that wants to implement the Oronsaye Report, cut cost and ensure economic sustainability telling banks and other businesses that they cannot cut costs. The mixed messaging that has characterized Nigeria’s management of the COVID-19 tragedy so far points to serious issues of governance. 

The Board of Governors and the Ethics Committee of the African Development Bank (AfDB) have given Dr. Akinwumi Adesina, the Bank’s President, a clean bill of health in a report dated May 5, wherein it is stated that Adesina has been “entirely exonerated of all allegations made against him.” The background to that development is useful and it is as follows: 

On January 19, a group of anonymous whistle-blowers who described themselves as “a group of concerned staff members” of the AfDB prepared a document titled “Disclosure of Acts Related to Alleged Breach of Code of Ethics by an Elected Officer, to the Attention of the Director of the Integrity and Anti-Corruption Department (PIAC) and the Chairpersons of the AUFI and Ethics Committees.” The “elected officer” in question is Akinwumi Adesina, the Nigerian President of the Bank. The whistleblowers wanted him to be investigated for alleged breach of the institution’s Code of Conduct, in order to check fraud and corruption and prevent an institutional crisis. In that January document, Adesina is accused of non-respect of internal rules and regulations in recruitment, nepotism, impunity, questionable award of contracts, preferential treatment of Nigeria and Nigerians, using Bank resources to collect awards in personal capacity, political lobbying of Heads of State, and turning himself into “the unchallenged travel champion of the Bank.” On March 3, six weeks after the group submitted its petition, it protested that the Ethics Committee was either unable or unwilling to investigate the 16 allegations it raised against Adesina and that there was evidence that certain forces were trying to prevent the Ethics Committee from doing its work. It urged the Ethics Committee to commission an independent investigation. In April 2020, this same “Group of Concerned Staff Members” submitted yet another petition against Adesina titled “Additional Cases of Alleged Breach of the Code of Ethics by the President of the African Development Bank Group to the Attention of the Governors of the African Development Group.” They raised four additional allegations including “use of Bank resources for self-promotion and private gains” and abuse of due process in the appointment of country managers. 

There was however a twist in the tale when a counter-complaint, dated March 13, was submitted to the Chairman of the Ethics Committee by another group, called “a group of indignant members” who denounced the “Group of Concerned Staff Members” and stated clearly that they were “outraged” by the latter’s attempt to “take hostage of our institution.” They claimed that the mastermind of the anti-Adesina protest is a certain Executive Director  -  Stephen DOWD (American, member of the Ethics Committee) and a group of non-regional Executive Directors who are “not for the good governance of the African Bank of Development but to discredit the candidacy of the current President for his re-election.” The “indignant members” disclosed that they were members of the “Group of Concerned Staff Members” until they discovered that they were being manipulated by Dowd and other non-regional Executive Directors. They asked the Ethics Committee to investigate Dowd. The Concerned Members rebutted this and said the indignant members were never part of their group. 

All the petitioners on both sides of the aisle, pro- and anti-Adesina did not reveal their true identities but it was obvious that there was sharp division within the bank over Adesina’s leadership and tension between regional directors and non-regional directors of the Bank. The externalization of the conflict was bad for the image of the institution. Akinwumi Adesina himself did not hesitate to proclaim his innocence.  In an April 6, 2020 statement, he wrote: “I am 100% confident that due process and transparency, based on facts and evidence, will indicate that these are all nothing more than spurious and unfounded allegations.” Now, with his exoneration by the Bank’s Ethics Committee last week, Adesina can claim to have been vindicated. He received an added morale booster when Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari congratulated him and described him as a good ambassador of Africa and Nigeria. Both votes of confidence should bring huge relief to Adesina’s friends and supporters within and outside the Bank and brighten his chances of re-election for a second term.   

There is little doubt that Adesina’s emergence as AfDB President, his leadership style, and his reform efforts constructed around what he calls the High Fives continue to ruffle some feathers within the Bank. His emergence in 2015 was hotly contested. But with President Goodluck Jonathan, then President-elect Muhammadu Buhari, former President Olusegun Obasanjo, Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala and many other African leaders strongly behind him, it was easy for him to score 60% of the votes to beat seven other contestants including Chad’s Bedoumbra Kodje, Zimbabwe’s Thomas Sakala, Ethiopia’s Sufian Ahmed and Cape Verde’s Cristina Duarte (the choice of non-regional members). On his part, Adesina came to the competition with excellent professional and academic credentials - a First Class in Agricultural Economics from the then University of Ife, Nigeria, Ph.D, Purdue University, former Vice-President, Alliance for a Green Revolution in Africa (AGRA),  former senior economist, West African Rice Development Association (WARDA),  former senior scientist, Rockefeller Foundation, and Nigeria’s Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development (2011 – 2015). Above all, Adesina is hardworking, focused, highly driven, cosmopolitan, and self-motivated… We worked together in the Jonathan government. 

The 2015 AfDB election was particularly important to Nigeria. In 2005, Nigeria’s Olabisi Ogunjobi lost the AfDB position to Rwanda’s Donald Kaberuka who went on to serve two terms. To become AfDB President, a candidate must have a double majority of the African and non-regional members. Nigeria is AfDB’s largest shareholder with over 9% of the capital and yet since the AfDB was established in 1964, it was only in 2015, that it got its candidate elected for the first time as President of the Bank. Akinwumi Adesina became the presumptive President on May 28, 2015 and assumed office on September 1, the same year.  He had hardly settled down in office before France began to complain that he rarely speaks French, whereas he is fluent in both English and French. Three Vice Presidents also left the Bank. The conspiracy against him reared its head early, and has re-emerged more aggressively towards the end of his first term. 

Nonetheless, Adesina has had a good run in his first five years as President of the AfDB. No one can doubt neither his commitment and passion, nor his resolve that the mission of the AfDB is to help accelerate the development of Africa, create a new Africa, and provide new opportunities for every African. He has also been very outspoken in promoting partnerships, calling upon bilateral and multilateral institutions to support Africa to build infrastructure, human capital and ramp up economic growth. Under Akinwumi Adesina, the AfDB has consistently maintained its AAA rating achieved under Donald Kaberuka. The Bank is also comparatively more innovative, people-oriented and far more visible. It is better decentralized. Its standing among global financial institutions is strong. The Bank’s income has increased. It is far richer today than it has ever been. 

In recognition of his efforts, Adesina has been widely decorated with honours and awards. He has been named African of the Year (2019) by the African Leadership Magazine; countries have decorated him with their national honours – Senegal, Liberia, Tunisia, Nigeria, Cameroon, Niger, Togo.  Universities have awarded him Honorary Doctorate degrees.  

In 2017, he won the World Food Prize, which is regarded as the Nobel Prize for Agriculture. In 2019, he received both the All Africa Business Leaders African of the Year award and the Sunhak Peace Prize. His critics allege that he uses his position for self-promotion. Every award that Adesina has received as AfDB President is never without an acknowledgement of the achievements of the Bank. He has also used the opportunities presented by his international recognition to promote African causes. The World Food Prize came with a tidy sum of $250, 000 and the Sunhak Prize, $500, 000.  What did he do? He donated all the prize money, his own personal contributions and the support of friends and philanthropists, to set up a Borlaug-Adesina Fellowship Programme and the World Hunger Fighters Foundation to fight global hunger. Norman Borlaug, a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate established the World Food Prize in 1986. The Borlaug-Adesina Fellowship is managed by the World Hunger Fighters Foundation. It has already graduated a number of Fellows. 

But for me, perhaps if there is any personal gain for the bank’s President, it is the manner in which he has managed to emerge as a role model for many young Africans who want to study Agriculture and Economics because of him. They also want to become agri-preneurs because they believe him when he says the future of Africa is in the agriculture value-chain and that agriculture is not land cultivation, but big business. 

Adesina’s finest moment is perhaps not the honours and awards that he has received but his presence at the 45^th G7 Summit held in Biarritz, France, 24 -26 August, 2019.  This was at a time when the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) announced that it had arrested one Invictus Obi and was looking for about 80 other Nigerians who over a period had been involved in identity theft and wire fraud in the United States. It was a low moment for many Nigerians at home: some of our compatriots had again damaged the country’s image and denigrated the Nigerian Green passport. It was at this exact time that the pictures of Akinwumi Adesina, another Nigerian, showed up in the media, meeting with world leaders at a G7 Summit in France. The G7 Summit is a meeting of the most powerful leaders in the world. And there was Akinwumi Adesina having a tete-a-tete with President Donald Trump, shown in conversations with Chancellor Angela Merkel and others, standing side by side with the Canadian Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau. Many young Nigerians drew inspiration from this. Their reaction was that Adesina at a critical moment helped to show, unwittingly as it were, that there are gifted Nigerians making positive contributions, who can be admitted into distinguished, global company. Many said they would want to be like him. Others wanted him to return home to run for the Nigerian Presidency in 2023. I am sure Adesina himself would not be so tempted. He must have learnt a lesson or two about African politics when he served as Nigeria’s Minister of Agriculture. Participation in partisan politics in Africa requires many adaptations that many intellectuals or technocrats may not be best suited for, except of course, they are willing to take the risk and damn the consequences. 

Hence, understandably, much earlier, on June 14, 2019, at the 54^th Annual Meeting of the Bank in Malabo, Equitorial Guinea, Adesina announced his intention to run for a second term as President of the AfDB. The election was meant to take place during the 55th Annual Meeting of the Bank which was originally scheduled for May 25 -29, 2020 but which due to the COVID-19 pandemic and the “resulting global disruption” has now been re-scheduled for August 25 -27. Adesina’s supporters insist that the attack on him by the “Group of Concerned Staff Members” is meant to politicize and frustrate his re-election bid. Apart from his open proclamation of innocence, Adesina has also been very philosophical about the attack on his person and tenure. A devout Christian and a prayer-warrior,  each time President Jonathan asked him to lead the Council in prayers in those days, you were bound to receive a song and a long prayer with Pentecostal flavor and quiet murmurings from across the Chamber that the prayer warrior should make his supplications brief, and so it is not surprising that as the allegations against him circulated, Adesina occasionally resorted to prayers and Bible passages (Psalm 60:12; 2 Corinthians 12:9) on his twitter account. 

Prayers can help but there is a lot more to be done. The verdict of the Ethics Committee may be favorable but still, that is not the end of it. President Muhammadu Buhari has re-affirmed Nigeria’s support for Dr. Akinwumi Adesina. The African Union (AU) and all the Heads of State and Governments of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have also openly endorsed him for a second term. AU Chair, South African President Cyril Ramaphosa and others have, most recently, commended Adesina and the AfDB for announcing a $10 billion facility to fight Corona Virus in Africa. He also enjoys the backing of Africa’s Organized Private Sector. Former President of Liberia, Ellen Sirleaf-Johnson has told Adesina that African leaders trust him. “We trust you,” she said. 

But Dr. Adesina must study the power game a bit more closely. Will his enemies quietly accept their humiliation and sheathe their swords? Do they have any hidden aces up their sleeves, especially as it has been suggested that they are being sponsored by non-regional stakeholders? What is their strength? Can they still do any damage? The AfDB comprises 54 African countries and 27 non-African members, the latest in the latter category is Ireland. AfDB voting power is weighted relative to share of capital, with Nigeria, United States, Japan and Egypt having the greatest share.  Does he have enough numbers to gain the required double majority?  Even if he does, my take is that the re-scheduling of the 55^th Annual General Meeting of the AfDB offers him an advantage. He has the advantage of more time to embark on diplomatic and fence-mending outreaches to turn his adversaries within the system into friends. He and his allies must not ignore those aggrieved “whistle-blowers” or seek to shame them. This is not the time for triumphalism. The right thing to do is to engage the naysayers. Adesina’s overall goal should be a united, inclusive, democratic and open AfDB, not a divided institution. The AfDB must remain focused on its development objectives not in-house politicking. 

In 2010, Donald Kaberuka (Rwanda) was re-elected by acclamation. Before him, Omar Kabbaj (Morocco) was also re-elected in 1995. There is no reason why Akinwumi Adesina, a sole candidate, should not be re-elected. He has earned it. Nigeria deserves it. The Nigerian Government should stand by Adesina to ensure his re-election.