We’ve all seen the terrible consequences inflicted across the world by the war between Russia and Ukraine, with over a million people fleeing Ukraine in fear for their lives at the start of the war in 2022. As the world is still grappling with the tragic aftermath of the invasion of Ukraine, the last thing we want, especially in Africa, is another war right now, particularly on the motherland of all continents.

However, the threats made by the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS) of employing military force to restore the president of Niger, should the coup leaders fail to do so before an ECOWAS-mandated deadline, may trigger just that. The fact that the newly instated president of ECOWAS, Bola Tinubu, is the same Tinubu elected earlier this year to the Nigerian presidency, any action taken by ECOWAS is likely to be seen as a personal attack on Niger by Nigeria.

There is no potential benefit for either country if Nigeria were to invade Niger Republic. The only motivation for President Tinubu to invade Niger is to send a strong warning to his own men in khaki against plotting a coup at home. He wants to use Niger as an example to send a message to any West Africa countries whose military personnel, emboldened by the success of Burkina Faso, Guinea, and Mali in toppling their elected governments, may be contemplating similar actions.

If Nigeria were to invade Niger Republic under the premise of restoring democratic leadership, then it must also simultaneously invade these three countries, given that their present governments, too, are unelected. The fact that so many African countries are opting to topple their governments in favour of military rule, even in this day and age, suggests that there is something fundamentally wrong at the root. That which we call ‘democracy’ in Africa is a ruse, causing national impoverishment rather than being the panacea to national development that the elite claim it to be.

The current assortment of political leaders have sought to be in power for the sole purposes of satisfying their own lust and those of their neocolonial masters. They demonstrate no interest in providing leadership for their people. Whilst they avail themselves of the fat of the land, most people on the African continent lack the necessities just to live. Many can’t even afford to feed themselves and their families, let alone acquire the luxuries enjoyed by the ruling castes.

The military takeover of Niger is about more than a simple change of leadership. It is born out of the decades of injustice inflicted on the people by their colonial master, France, who even now continues to exploit Niger and the other francophone countries. Despite the rampant poverty in these West African francophone countries, they still underwrite the French economy. Yet they are regarded as ‘poor’ and are compelled to serve the needs of the French government and its people.

We should not allow ourselves to be pawns in the hands of the Europeans and Americans who care only about their own gain. Not only do they not have the best interests of the Nigerien people at heart, they have no regard for them whatsoever. Their only concern is for the cut-price resources they can extort from the country, and, indeed, the whole continent.

_This_ is what needs to be addressed, rather than a confrontational military approach that will create unnecessary enmity between our peoples for many generations. If Africa’s political classes strived to provide excellent leadership for their people, no coups d’état would take place.

The fundamental issue here is that the current geographical boundaries across Africa do not represent the peoples therein. These borders are an artificial construct imposed by the colonial masters to be used as a weapon of conflict and ongoing oppression in Africa.

Four countries in West Africa have already experienced military takeover, and, with the current pressure-cooker situation, it is only a matter of time before the rest of the continent follows suit.

The recent coup in Mali led to a new constitutional referendum taking place, resulting in the rejection of the French language and adoption of 11 new official languages from the local people groups instead. This bold step is evidence that Mali should never have been amalgamated into a single country. Thus, the next step must be freedom for the major nationalities to form their own independent nations, deciding amongst themselves whether to form a confederation or remain independently sovereign.

There is historical precedent for this: Lichtenstein, a small European country with a population of only 39,000 in the 2021 census, are one of the most financially prosperous, with more registered companies than citizens. Diminutive size should not be a barrier to nations withdrawing themselves from the bigger conglomerations created by the colonial masters. Equally, there is no reason that peoples with similar values should not merge, thereby forming even stronger nations.

However, this must be done in line with the will of the people, not as the manipulation of the political class. Only when this is done, and the rule of law is allowed to thrive, will we have true democracy in Africa. Otherwise, we will be continuing to treat the symptoms whilst allowing the underlying problem to continue destroying the continent.

Whilst Nigeria and ECOWAS may feel obliged to intervene against the military coup in Niger, this will only exacerbate the animosity across the region. The Yoruba people must prevail on President Tinubu not to invade Niger Republic as the coup in that country has nothing to do with us. The onus ought now to rest on the West African Union, and indeed the entire African Union, to do the right thing, offering the Nigerien people the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they want to remain in this colonial arrangement or free themselves forever.

The sounds of the drums of war Nigeria’s president and Chairman, Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Authority of Heads of State and Government, Bola Tinubu, is beating is gradually richochetting within the length and breadth of the West African sub-region, albeit negatively as Nigerians rue what the predicted outcome will portend.

On July 27, 2023, the two years old administration of Mohammed Bazoum was toppled in a military coup by a group of soldiers led by Brigade General Abdourahamane Tchiani. Among reasons given for the coup were the rise in insecurity and declining economic prospects, which contributed to fragility in the country. There was also the debate over the ethnicity and legitimacy of Bazoum, which was an issue during the last election campaign. Bazoum is from Niger’s ethnic Arab minority and has always been labelled as having foreign origins. This did not sit well within the military circle, which is predominantly composed of the larger ethnic groups.

There was also the issue of the large number of foreign military troops and bases in the country said not to have been well received by the military. Again, France’s huge investments in Niger’s mining sector are another reason for its interest in security.

But the administration of Tinubu, both as president of Nigeria and ECOWAS leader had given the military junta an ultimatum of seven days in which they are supposed to relinquish power back to the ousted president. A move many Nigerians have dismissed as a dangerous gamble.

In a communique at the end of the Extraordinary Summit on Socio-Political Situation in the Republic of Niger, held in Abuja, the leaders also rejected any form of purported resignation by President Bazoum, declaring him as the only recognised and elected president by ECOWAS, the African Union and the international community.

“In this regard, only official acts of President Bazoum or his duly-mandated officials will be recognised by ECOWAS,’’ the communique read by the president of ECOWAS Commission, Dr Omar Touray, noted.

They demanded full restoration of constitutional order in the Republic of Niger and considered the illegal detention of President Mohamed Bazoum as a hostage situation, holding the authors of the attempted coup d’état solely and fully responsible for his safety and security and that of his family and government.

They also said that a some drastic measures will be resorted to if at the expiration of seven days, their demands were not met.

“Such measures may include the use of force for this effect. The Chiefs of Defence staff of ECOWAS are to meet immediately,’’ the leaders said.

In addition to ultimatum, the Summit announced immediate sanctions on Niger, including the closure of land and air borders between ECOWAS countries and Niger, establishing a no-fly zone on all commercial flights to and from Niger, and suspending all commercial and financial transactions between ECOWAS member states and Niger.

Furthermore, assets of the Republic of Niger in ECOWAS Central Bank, Niger state enterprises, and parastatals in commercial banks will be frozen.

Niger will also be suspended from all financial assistance and transactions with financial institutions within ECOWAS.

Additionally, travel bans and asset freezes were imposed on the military officials involved in the coup attempt, as well as their family members and civilians who accept to participate in any institution or government established by these military officials.

But back home, knocks have trailed the zeal of President Tinubu to follow suit on military action even as the seven-day ultimatum draws to a close. He has sought leave from the Godswill Akpabio-led Senate to unleash military might on the Tchiani junta. Though denied, Tinubu has cut off electricity to the West African country as well as shut all borders connecting the two countries. In retaliation, the junta has cut diplomatic ties with Nigeria in addition to France and the United States of America. The way it is, there’s no love lost between Nigeria and the Nigerien junta.

However, while the ECOWAS nations are plotting means to oust the coupists, the people of Niger are queuing solidly behind the new regime, and ridiculing ECOWAS and the Nigeria’s president as impostors, who are yet to put their organisation and individual nations in order.

Many theories have been propounded to prove the insincerity of Tinubu’s loud drums of war, with the likes of Timi Frank, a former All Progressives Congress (APC) spokesperson saying he is seeking state of emergency so as to have enough grounds to suspend the ongoing Presidential Election Petition Tribunal, where Atiku Abubakar of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Peter Obi of the Labour Party are contesting his victory at the February 25 polls and the legitimacy of his government.

He said: “It is clear to discerning minds that Tinubu wants to find an alibi to declare war in Niger and under that declare a state of emergency in Nigeria which will invariably lead to suspension of the ongoing sitting of the Presidential Election tribunal.

“He is not out to restore democracy in Niger Republic. He is out to legitimize and gain recognition for his government from western allies. Let Nigeriens solve their problems, Nigeria has enough challenges of its own.”

But for a professor of Political Science, Jibrin Ibrahim, who spoke to Premium Times, the use of force in Niger will be a “real crisis for ECOWAS, Nigeria and the Sahel because the risk of the major sustained crisis is real.”

He added that the size of Niger with its scattered population and land mass will make a military campaign perilous. He also posited that a war at this time is not in the interest of ECOWAS or Nigeria but the West.

“The Russians have made it very clear that they will support the Niger military in this fight, so, we may have a fight that is really a fight between Russia and America and we are simply puns in that fight. That for me is the biggest risk for West Africa,” Ibrahim said.

In his article, Tinubu’s Risky Niger Gamble, Shetty’s Embarrassment, social commentator, Farooq Kperogi, observed as follows:

“But going to war with another country because it unfortunately devolved into a system of government that, in our judgement, is abhorrent is unwarrantedly arrogant, provocative, and reckless. This is particularly more so because, at least for now, the new military junta in Niger Republic enjoys enormous goodwill among the vast majority of the citizens of the country.

“I have seen massive demonstrations in support of the new military regime in rural and urban Niger— and against President Bola Tinubu whom demonstrators have rechristened “Ebola Tinubu” to signal the toxicity and unwelcomeness of his intrusion into the internal affairs of their country. Nigeriens obviously have no problems at the moment with the junta in power. When they do, they’ll find a way to deal with it. Who are we to tell them how they should conduct their affairs and whom they should prefer as their rulers?”

In addition to the outrage that is trailing Tinubu’s desire to launch military onslaught against Niger Republic, senators from the northern part of Nigeria, have registered their angst, asking the president to rethink his decision as it may portend danger to about six states that ebued on Niger including Sokoto, Borno, Jigawa among others.

A statement made available to newsmen by spokesperson of the Northern Senators Caucus,  Senator Suleiman  Kawu, insisted that emphasis should be focused on political and diplomatic means to restore democratic government in Niger Republic.

“We also take exception to use of military force until other avenues as mentioned above are exhausted as the consequences will be casualties among the innocent citizens who go about their daily business. Besides, about seven northern states who shared border with Niger Republic namely Sokoto, Kebbi, Katsina, Zamfara, Jigawa, Yobe and Borno will be negatively affected.

“We are also aware of the situation of Mali, Burkina Faso and Libya, which may affect the seven Northern states, if military force is used.

“There is serious implication for our country, if  military force is used without exhausting all diplomatic channels.

“As democrats and representatives of the people we are hereby urging our colleagues to observe due diligence in invoking section 5 sub section (4) (a) and (b) of the 1999 Constitution as amended to guide President Tinubu on the planned military action.”

Whichever way the pendulum swings, stakeholders have argued that any military incursion in Niger Republic is a clear case of dangerous gamble, and must be discontinued.

It`s so amazing how some Islamic clerics in Northern Nigeria are supporting Tinubu to send soldiers to Niger Republic to fight a proxy war between us (Northern Nigerians) and our brothers and sisters in Niger Republic on behalf of France. On behalf of the colonial agenda of France. So that France can continue to exploit, loot, and siphon the resources of the Francophone countries.

Have we ever wondered why the Francophone African countries remain the poorest African countries? I will not even go into the CFA currency here. That will just be an overkill.

Hamani Diori, the first President of Niger Republic attempted to negotiate the Uranium contract between Niger Republic and France in 1974 when he attended the burial ceremony of late French President Georges Jean Raymond Pompidou. Oh Hamani Diori was toppled just a few weeks after returning to Niger from France. His beautiful wife Aissa Diori was murdered. Diori’s France backed coup leader, Seyni Kountché, became the longest serving ruler of Niger Republic, giving France all the Uranium and Gold it needed for virtually free.

I am not sure when France started supporting democracy in Africa.

Niger Republic, the worlds 7th largest Uranium producer, provides France with 33% of its energy-needed uranium and 25% of Europes needed uranium. Yet, Niger remains one of the poorest and darkest countries in the world.

Let me put this more clearly. Niger’s uranium is fully under the exploitative control of a French company called Areva.

Areva generates revenue of over $4billion annually. Google it yourself.

Niger Republic’s GDP is about $15billion. Google this yourself too.

That means Areva, a single French company generates almost 30% of Niger Republics economy.

Secondly, a quick internet search of Areva’s headquarters will show you the tallest building in Courbevoie, which is the number one business district of France. Yet, Nigeriens remain in darkness and poverty.

How can a single company be generating up to 30% of the GDP of the country that it is exploiting? Does that even make sense in any way to any right thinking human being?

Anyway, back to the matter. We all need to be aware that Niger accounts for some of the largest gold deposits in the world. I believe Richard Nixon was wondering where Charles De Gaulle got all that Gold from.

And now we have Tinubu wanting to send our army to fight our brothers across the border just so that he can win the approval of the West.

The big question is why?

We the Northerners must understand that 7 Northern states share a cumulative 1,100km long border with Niger Republic. These states are Kebbi, Sokoto, Zamfara, Katsina, Jigawa, Yobe, and Borno. Stretching along the entire northern border, North East to North West.

Are we in the North ready for a proxy war on behalf of France against our brothers and sisters in Niger? Are we ready for the death, carnage, destruction, and chaos that is to follow? Are we ready to destroy the thousands of years of relationship that exist between us and our brothers and sisters in Niger on behalf of Tinubu and his newly found Western backers?

The same West that criticized the election that brought Tinubu to power is today showering praises on Tinubu as the champion of democracy. If you don’t believe me please read it yourself (https://www.ft.com/content/24f50cd6-6b78-477d-a7a7-68bb1ec1d972) Amazing how fast the West switches.

So what really changed? When did Tinubu become a champion of democracy for the West? Just about 18 months ago there was a coup in Chad. The West supported it and said nothing of democracy. ECOWAS did nothing. So what has changed?

Hypocrisy 101?

Oh no, what is the true nature of the actual relationship between Tinubu and France? Dont mind the countless trips Tinubu has been making to France for lord knows how long now.

Oh to understand that relationship, you first need to understand the relationship between Tinubu and the Chagoury’s. Oh they are the Lebanese billionaires behind Eco Atlantic (just google Eco Atlantic) by the way. To those that care to know. To understand how this is similar to the war in Ukraine, one needs to just google “Burisma and the Biden Family”. Ukraine is an idea of the suffering that will follow if we allow ourselves to be used as the proxies for Western war agenda or for Chagoury business interest.

Are we about to go to war with our closest ally (Niger Republic) on behalf of the business interest of Tinubu and the Chagoury’s? We want to shoot and bomb the same Nigerien soldiers that paid the ultimate price to fight bandits and terrorist with us, for us, and by us?

Back to the matter, again…

A few days ago, I watched an interview on Arise TV with a former Minister of Foreign Affairs, Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi. I was baffled to hear him invalidate the humanitarian, security social, and economic consequence of a military operation in Niger Republic by saying that it is a price worth paying if Nigeria is to become the giant of Africa. I am not sure what he means by “giant of Africa” here. Please watch (https://youtu.be/EEr1vdGs-Xc) for yourself to get a sense of what is actually going on.

This got me wondering if there is an ethnic and regional conspiracy against the North. If the coup happened in Benin Republic, will Tinubu be willing to send the military? Will Akinwande Bolaji Akinyemi continue to support a military operation with the excuse that the disastrous consequences of death and carnage for such an action is worth paying for in order for Nigeria to be the giant of Africa?

Must Hausa/Fulani blood be spilled across Nigeria/Niger border for Nigeria to become the Giant of Africa? So have I been lied to all my young life that Nigeria is already the giant of Africa?

Will the same Akinwande be willing to spill Yoruba blood in a war against Benin Republic so that Nigeria will attain the status of “giant of Africa”, whatever that even means?

Moreover, a friend of mine asked me what will happen if Nigeria invades Niger Republic? Will Tinubu declare a martial law with the backing of his newly found Western besties so that he can stay in power forever to avoid the outcome or decision of the Presidential Election Tribunal? Is this a back up plan for Tinubu to hold on to being President by all means? Or is this just a strategic attack against Northern Nigeria. Just the quality and caliber of ministerial nominees from Northern Nigeria raises more questions than answers regarding a grand plan or agenda against the North.

Islamic clerics in Northern Nigeria must stop pushing every narrative pushed to them by the current administration for their selfish interests. Arewa will burn if a war against Niger Republic is to start.

I must remind you that Tinubu’s new found besties have a record of bombing Islamic countries. Never mind Iraq, Libya, Syria, Somalia etc. If Tinubu was President when Muamar Ghadafi was killed by the West, would he have supported the coup in Libya knowing fully well that by supporting such madness Sub-Saraharan Africa (Northern Nigeria in particular) will be flooded with arms and terrorist? Oh has Arewa not see enough of that aftermath in Borno, Yobe, Zamfara, Katsina, and also in the hands of Bello Turji? Don’t we have enough orphans and widows?

I want to remind the North that France supported Biafra during the Civil War. France supported those that INHUMANELY MURDERED Ahmadu Bello (Sardauna) and Tafawabalewa.

So when did France begin to like us and to like our dear democracy? Oh when Tinubu became the President of Nigeria I guess.

Are we really ready to face the armed forces of Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso, and Niger Republic backed and trained by Russia’s Wagner? Lol. Dey play.

Are we really ok?

No, we Northerners, ARE WE OK?

We can’t plan, we can’t reason, we can’t speak?

Zamu gaya wa aya zakin ta. Very soon.

I have found myself at the centre of a pivotal moment in Nigeria’s political landscape. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, in a move that brought me immense honour, chose me as a ministerial nominee. Coming from the traditional, conservative regions of northern Nigeria, this represented a significant stride towards a more inclusive national representation.

The sheer joy and pride I felt at my nomination were beyond words. It was a validation of my capabilities, a nod to my vision, and a sign that our great nation was ready to embrace a future where young women like me, even from the most traditional parts of Nigeria, can hold positions of influence and power.

Yet, life, with its characteristic unpredictability, led to the withdrawal of my nomination. To some, this could seem like a setback, but my faith as a devout Muslim guided my understanding. I saw it as the divine will of Allah, who I believe grants power as He wishes, when He wishes. His plans are always superior to ours.

Even with this unexpected twist, my gratitude to President Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu for considering me for such an esteemed position remains undiminished. The journey doesn’t end here; I believe this is a mere stepping stone, the best is yet to come. My resolve to serve my beloved country, Nigeria, in any capacity I can, is stronger than ever.

I would like to assure my incredible supporters that this is not an end, it is the dawn of a new era I urge all of us to continue praying for our nation and to stand behind our president as he strives to better Nigeria. Together, let’s press ahead united under our #WEBELIEVE campaign.

It would be unfair of me here if I fail to acknowledge and appreciate the overwhelming support from international organizations and community, a lot have reached out and I am completely dazed by it all.

My nomination may have been withdrawn, but my hope is unwavering. As I have often stated, “Hope is not lost; maybe I will come back again.” This phase of my life has instilled in me a deeper sense of resilience, faith, and the value of service beyond titles and positions. It has reaffirmed my belief in the potential for change and in the inherent greatness of Nigeria. The dream is still alive, and my commitment to our nation remains steadfast.

As we move forward, I pray for the good health and strength to our President Baba Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his Vice President, Sen. Kashim Shettima.

May Allah continue to bless our great nation, The Federal Republic of Nigeria! #webelieve!??

NB: I would like my supporters to know that this is my only verified source of interaction on social media and should be wary of cloned accounts bearing my name. Thank you and God Bless.

Dr Maryam Shetty

“Of all our studies, history is best qualified to reward our research” Malcolm X

The foreign IMF team flew into Abuja on November 18, 2022 for the 2022 Article IV consultation meeting with Nigerian government officials. At the end of the meeting, the IMF’s recommendations for the incoming 2023 Nigerian President on fiscal policies stated; “Policy priorities include permanent removal of fuel subsidies by mid-2023 as planned, stoppage of oil theft, improved tax compliance through automation, taxpayer segmentation, customs modernization and rationalization of tax incentives, and adoption of excise and VAT rates similar to those prevailing in peer countries in West Africa.” President Tinubu is implementing all the IMF recommendations. First, he increased petrol prices, school fees, food prices, electric tariffs, water prices, transport costs, house rent, hospital fees and burial fees. Then, he is planning to introduce high taxes on unwaged workers and market women in the informal sector.

The Tinubu government plans to tax market women and others in the informal sector through FIRS by working with the Market Traders Association of Nigeria (MATAN) in a program called the VAT Direct Initiative. MATAN members will each receive an ID card upon enumeration, which would contain their Tax Identification Number (TIN) and other personal details. Imposing taxes on market women and workers in the informal sector will reduce household income, further increase food and commodity prices and increase poverty without improving any government service. Tinubu’s strategy is to impose the Lagos model of increased taxation and revenue generation under an Iyaloja and market place touts on Nigeria. However, this strategy will fail because Lagos is not Nigeria and Nigerian market women do not have a national or state Iyaloja. History teaches us that Nigerian women will organize and resist government attempts to reduce their household income by increased taxation. We will examine the historical struggles of Nigerian women against taxation by focusing on the Aba women revolt of 1929.

The revolt of women against direct taxation in the Eastern provinces occurred between November 1929 and January 1930. In October 1929, the Acting District Officer of Bende issued an order to all warrant chiefs to count all men, women, children, and livestock during the next census for taxation purposes. The census began in Oloko. The warrant chief ordered a counter to proceed with the census when the Acting District Officer gave him a week deadline. The counter started counting at Umuobasi village in Oloko. In the first compound, he got into a fight with the farmer's wife. The woman ran to the market where a women meeting, discussing the issue of direct taxation, was in progress. The presence of a bleeding member, claiming that the warrant chief had sent a census counter to her home to assess her property for the purpose of taxation, electrified the meeting. The meeting immediately sent messengers with palm leaves to women in all villages in Bende and beyond. The women were told to mobilize against the coming direct taxation of women.

On the next day, thousands of women from neighbouring villages gathered at Oloko. First, they went to the Niger Delta Pastorate Mission where the census counter worked. There, they sang, ate food, and demonstrated until they numbered thousands. Whereupon they moved to the home of the warrant chief. The women sacked his home, seized his properties, and attacked all his family members. Three days later, the women sent representatives to the Acting District Officer. The women representatives filed a complaint of assault against the warrant chief and the census counter. They visited the Acting District Officer again, the following day, and informed him that women from Bende, Aba and Owerri divisions have gathered at Oloko for his personal assurance that women would not pay taxes. When the Acting District Officer arrived at Oloko, he gave the women a written guarantee that they would not pay taxes. However, the women demanded the arrest of the warrant chief. The Acting District Officer arrested the chief and transported him to Bende where the native court found him guilty of "spreading news likely to create alarm and of assault” and gave him a two-year sentence. The Acting District Officer wrote, “The women numbering over 10,000 were shouting and yelling round the office in a frenzy. They demanded his cap of office, which I threw to them, and it met the same fate as a fox's carcass thrown to a pack of hounds.”

One week later, the women revolted. They burnt down the native court buildings at Nguru, Okpuala and Ngor in Bende district. In Owerri province, they also burnt the native court building at Azumiri. The next day, the women burnt down 2 more native court buildings in Owerri province. In Aba division, they burnt down 3 native court buildings. The revolt was in full swing. The women spread the revolt along trade routes with such speed that it caught the colonial government off guard. The response of the government, upon recovery, was military pacification. The colonial government sent armed troops to Aba and Port Harcourt. Aba women reacted to the troops presence by destroying many foreign stores. The women attacked and looted a French company at the Imo River. The colonial troops rushed from village to village as burning and looting of foreign shops became widespread.

In December, thousands of women invaded Owerri township and barricaded the Owerri-Aba Road. At Aba, the situation was tense. The colonial government sent troops from Owerri to Aba as reinforcements before more barricades could render the Owerri-Aba Road impassable. The mobilization of the colonial troops caused the women to change strategy. First, instead of going from village to village, they concentrated their numbers in the important towns of Aba, Calabar, Port Harcourt and Owerri. In these towns, they ransacked foreign shops and appropriated imported commodities without the mediation of money. This forced the colonial State to concentrate its troops on these few urban areas. Next, the women unleashed attacks on native court buildings in smaller towns and villages. They attacked native courts in Calabar province, Iko Ekpene, Abak, Itu and Opobo. They destroyed the properties of native court chiefs and clerks in Ngor, Okpuala and Mbawsi. The colonial government sent its troops into the hinterland with instruction to pacify the village women. At Utu-Etim-Ekpo, the colonial troops opened fire on the women, killing eighteen women and wounding nineteen others. At Abak, the troops also opened fire on the women, killing two.

The next day, the women in Calabar province opened another front in the revolt. Native court buildings were set on fire. So also, were the properties of the native administration employees and of the colonial foreign companies. At Opobo, the colonial troops opened fire on the women, killing twenty nine women and one man. Twenty-one women were wounded, and eight women drowned when the rifle fire of the troops drove the women crowd into a nearby river. The death of the women at Abak, Utu-Ekim-Ekpo and Opobo led to more ferocious attacks, especially in Calabar province. The women organized their attacks such that reinforcements from neighbouring villages gathered in one village by travelling through footpaths at night. The following day, the women would attack all institutions of colonial rule in the village and disperse before nightfall. They travelled back home, through these same footpaths which they were familiar with as palm produce retailers. Thus, many villages were attacked simultaneously  despite the presence of the colonial troops. The troops could not determine which village would fall under attack. They usually arrived by road after the women attack was over. They shot the protesting women whenever they arrived at a village during an attack.

The colonial government changed tactics following the shootings at Opobo. The government sent troops to pressure the village elders and leaders, to beg the women to put an end to the revolt. The pleas from the village elders achieved the desired results. The revolt came to an end. The colonial government imposed collective fines in accordance with the Peace Preservation Ordinance on the villages where women participated in the revolt. In all, the government fined thirty-seven villages. In these villages, the government fined each adult 25% of the tax rate. In this way, the State collected approximately £5,000 following the termination of the revolt. The government burnt down villages that refused to pay collective fines and destroyed their crops and livestock. After this, the colonial government set up a commission of enquiry to investigate the causes of the women revolt.

There were many struggles against taxation before the Aba women  revolt in 1929.  We have told the story of the nation mass resistance against taxation in 1927 and 1928. More women struggle against taxation occurred in Nigeria after 1929. Wole Soyinka captured the struggle of the Egba women against taxation in 1947-1948 in his memoir, “Ake: The Years of Childhood”. History teaches that the Tinubu government IMF sponsored policy of reducing the household income of women and other unwaged workers in the informal sector by increased taxation will meet with strong resistance. The Tinubu increased taxation policy will fail like all the past colonial attempts to impose direct taxes on Nigerian women.

In a series of recent events, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu's administration has displayed a propensity for quick decision-making. However, these swift actions have raised questions and concerns about the administration's approach and its long-term implications.

First, the abrupt announcement of the removal of the fuel subsidy, which was subsequently revealed to have been omitted from the inaugural speech — underscores a lack of strategic foresight. While the previous government had already paved the way for this move, President Tinubu's administration missed an opportunity to proactively communicate the subsidy's removal and soften its impact on citizens. By taking its time to announce the dates and processes for both the removal and accompanying policies, the government could have projected a more deliberate, forward-thinking image.

A similar pattern unfolded just last week as ECOWAS, led by President Tinubu, issued a firm ultimatum to the military junta in Niger following the coup. While Nigeria's commitment to democratic values is laudable, this somewhat impulsive ultimatum overlooked potentially less costly diplomatic options.

Before the ultimatum was issued, due consideration should have been given to the African Union and the UN Security Council's stance on the matter. Both entities refrained from endorsing military intervention in Niger, instead emphasising the importance of non-violent solutions. These observations hold considerable significance and should have been addressed before the ECOWAS leaders decided on the ultimatum.

While taking a regional lead in restoring democracy is commendable, spearheading an effort that might involve an international illegality to counter another raises concerns about the quality of advice. This is because everyone with a basic understanding of international relations knows that declarations of military action must follow certain international protocols. Hence, all foreign policy decisions must be approached with meticulous analysis and measured steps.

The Niger ultimatum also exposes the administration's eagerness to appear proactive — potentially overshadowing the careful considerations required for such critical decisions. In this case, the threat of military action within seven days may have underestimated the simmering tensions after the coup, which further lends credence to the fact that we should have opted for diplomacy as a primary course of action, with the threat of military confrontation as our secondary option.

Nevertheless, the administration's swift moves remind us of the delicate balance between appearing decisive and enacting sound policies. The ‘recentness’ of these events also underscores the importance of patience and thorough analysis, particularly when regional stability and international relations hang in the balance.

It is undeniable that the Tinubu government faces immense pressure and seeks to project a proactive stance. However, there are moments when optics must yield to pragmatism. With millions of lives at stake, every government action demands a thorough consideration of its potential repercussions.

As Nigeria grapples with these decisions, one thing remains clear: the learning curve for President Tinubu's administration is ongoing, and it must quickly adapt to navigate the complexities of governance with a greater appreciation for the gravity of each choice.

I rest my case.

Plus ҫa change. Does anything ever change? Is there a fundamental immutability in the Nigerian liaison with Nigeria? Is the relationship between a Nigerian and Nigeria fated to be unamenable to change and congruence? Well, I think many Nigerians are by a very decent measure patriotic and consummately committed to fatherland.

But while most statespersons are inclined to stay within the observatories and watch phenomena, a few in the obverse end, with bullhorns, attempt to overwhelm the cosmos of opinions with disturbing anti-nationalist tropes.

It is concerning, as it should be for every Nigerian, the endorsement of the felony against humanity in Niger Republic and the championship of the same for Nigeria, albeit tacitly or implied, by some individuals. This is a time citizens must affirm the inviolability and supremacy of democracy as well as assert the unity of Nigeria and the integrity of its institutions – and not pollute the public sphere with reckless fulminations.

It is disturbing that a section of Nigerians is banding in folly with alien agents who are running a propaganda against Nigeria over our stance on the putsch in Niger Republic. It is deeply disturbing. To some, the interest is not about Nigeria or good governance; rather it is about politics and native leanings. Whatever position taken by the leadership on any issue is subject to protestations, regardless of the reasons compelling the decision.  

This is an unpatriotic and jaundiced disposition to domestic and transnational concerns. It is obvious that to these ones what matters is not whether the leadership is competent and sufficiently prepared to fix the country, or whether the leadership is taking bold decisions for the greater good or playing a critical role in the league of nations, the dominating concern is that the leadership does not conform with their bias and some insular expectations.

But being patriotic does not mean anyone must like the government, it dictates citizens must commit to the peace and progress of the country, defend its integrity, democracy, and institutions as well as its sovereignty, regardless of the complexion of the leadership. Nigeria is too important for groundless tropes to be the definers of critical discourses.

Democracy is about having the right dialogues – varying and disparate, nevertheless. As active citizens, we should be more involved in discourses that foster nation-building and transformative leadership, and that can launch the country forward. We have a responsibility to give recommendations; proffer solutions; push innovations or back inventions, policies, programmes, and plans that will get us to where we want to be as a nation. Conversations casting the nation in a dark raiment of confusion and hopelessness are simply unyielding.

Years ago, I wrote “A nation in dire need of patriots’’. It was at a vicissitudinous moment in the life of the nation. I am inclined to reprise some of my erstwhile thoughts here.

A better Nigeria begins with me. It begins with you. It begins with us. We cannot outsource the development of our country. We must put our hands on the wheel to move it forward. We only make the country we deserve. The Chinese did not entrust their development to the Americans or anyone. Singaporeans as well did not consign their progress to any external agency. They built their country through tempest and hailstorm. They did not do so projecting the worst of the country, they acknowledged the challenges, but worked cohesively to address them.

Nevertheless, the place of leadership in the progress of these countries is unimpeachable. For China, the leadership tapestry of Mao Zedong saw the country evolve from an agrarian economy to an industrial nucleus. In the case of Singapore, the reformist deportment of Lee Kuan Yew launched the country from a divided and chaotic third state to first. Yes, we cannot excuse the place of leadership in transforming society. But we now have that leadership with transformative qualities.

A better Nigeria begins with me. Nigeria is salvageable. The traditional crotchets of inveterate pessimists and disbelievers in the Nigeria project are that only a rupturing of the entity can save its peoples. But this is an escapist’s way of avoiding responsibility to do the actual task of building the country.

Nigeria is our collective responsibility. We all have an equal share in the task of nation-building. We must begin and not stop crocheting the national fabric. Nigeria is not an option. Nigeria is the option. Nation-building cannot succeed in vacancy of the citizens. Nation-building is largely citizens building.

So, it all comes back to us. A better Nigeria begins with me. Theodore Roosevelt, 26th US president, famously said: “The first requisite of a good citizen in this republic of ours is that he shall be able and willing to pull his own weight.” Ralph Nader, American activist, and author, expressed my sentiments when he said: “There can be no daily democracy without daily citizenship.” By the same token, Paul Collier, award-winning author, when he said: “You are a citizen, and citizenship carries responsibilities.”

We can only create a better country if we work at it. Citizenship is a right that comes with the burden of responsibility.

Project Nigeria; defend Nigeria, its people, institutions, and democracy.