Census is very serious business as it requires the general mobilisation of the populace. In many cases, the nation is placed under an emergency. One of the earliest accounts of census was given by Dr Luke in his Gospel in which he wrote that Emperor Caesar Augustus issued a decree for a census of the Roman world, including colonized Israel(Luke 2:1-5).

This general mobilisation required everyone to go to his own city to be counted. This was why Joseph and Mary, his betrothed wife,

went up from Galilee to Bethlehem. It was during that obviously stressful journey, Mary had cramps, and because populations were on the move, the inns were overcrowded and the couple had to rest in a manger where Jesus was born. So, Jesus was counted as part of the important statistics required to run the Roman Empire.

This account serves to illustrate the fact that census is serious business as, theoretically, it provides vital data, especially demographic, social, economic, migration and immigration. It also provides the basis to plan employment, school enrolment, services and social protection programmes. These programmes include the palliatives the Buhari government is so much in love with perhaps because the figures never tally and its documents can easily go up in flames.

Census is ordinarily a reliable method of count compared to the estimate method that, today, puts our population at 220 million. I like the sound of that figure; that means when we pound the ground, the world will know Nigeria is the true Giant of Africa, and that contrary to the claims of our enemies, we are not a sleeping giant.

Just as Luke showed, census is general mobilisation, although in our case, we necessarily do not need to be counted in our villages and clans. Therefore, when this government joked with the idea of holding a census from this Wednesday, May 3, 2023, it was obvious there are unstated underlining reasons. There had been quite inadequate mass enlightenment and awareness. In any case, real census was impossible in the season of general elections which itself is a weapon of mass distraction, and can also be quite divisive.

So, what was government thinking before fixing the census date; a date some three weeks to its welcome exit?

 Could it have been for the records, for fame or fortune, especially when the hangers-on would soon become financial orphans?

It was clear that government was not prepared for the census. So Nigerians were not surprised when last Friday, April 28, 2023, that is five days before the scheduled census take-off, Buhari postponed it.

If the exercise is postponed, can Nigerians be obliged the census of the huge sums of money so far expended or will this go into voice mail?

If the in-coming administration were to conduct a proper and reliable census, its motives must be clear and pure. They should not be like the colonial 1953 Census rigged by the British colonialists; the unreliable and disputed 1962/63 Census or the orphaned 1973 Census which even its parents disowned, leading to it being officially scrapped.

Also, the Buhari government rescinded its decision to collect an $800 million loan from the World Bank to provide palliatives for its fuel subsidy removal. The regime’s Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning, Mrs Zainab Ahmed, had claimed the largesse would be distributed to 50 million Nigerians representing 10 million households.

First, if it is true that trillions of Naira would be saved by stopping the subsidies, why not expend part of it on the so-called palliatives rather than take another loan from the World Bank shylocks?

Secondly, what is the sense in the World Bank and Finance Ministry agreeing to spend about $53 million of the $800 loan on hiring staff, office administration, committee overheads and other logistics such as training and workshop?

Thirdly, we know palliatives, at least in Nigeria, have not improved the lives of the populace. For instance, President Muhammadu Buhari claims to have spent over N2 trillion on Social Investment Programmes, SIP, yet the state of the poor Nigerian has become worse. One of the testimonials on this failure is this same World Bank, which in its Poverty and Prosperity Report for last year, stated that Nigeria contributed three million people to global extreme poverty, and that every minute, over six Nigerians enter the extreme poverty bracket.

Fourthly, simple economics and accounting, common sense and logic dictate that if the payments of subsidies are stopped, that should reduce, not increase our debt burden.

Fifth, it is illogical seeking foreign loan to pay unsustainable sums allegedly to cushion the effects of subsidy removal rather than seek funds to either repair the refineries or build new ones.

Sixth, the reason for the so-called subsidy is clear: the failure of this government, after eight years in office, to refine petroleum products locally despite the abundance of crude oil in the country.

Seven, the slave-like acceptance of the World Bank policy that assigns to underdeveloped countries like Nigeria the role of raw material providers, and the West, that of manufacturers of finished products.

Eight, this government that claims to have fed school children when they were actually on lock-down at home due to the COVID-19 pandemic, has clearly shown it can neither manage nor be entrusted with palliatives.

Nine, this regime, because it is in reality, a regime, has manufactured so much untruth in eight years that even lies are ashamed to be associated with it; so giving it new loans for palliatives is like putting a cat in charge of fried fish.

Ten, this government after eight years has been unable to deliver on its promises to provide basic electricity; in fact, it is incapable of even distributing the 4000MW its “clueless” predecessor distributed. Consequently, many households rely on the use of PMS-powered generators. So, increases in fuel prices, among other things, automatically lead to higher prices, reduced economic activity and higher inflation which is already over 22 per cent.

I am not surprised that the Buhari regime backed down on the removal of fuel subsidies which would automatically would have led to higher PMS prices. While the Finance Minister was shouting about the regime removing the subsidy, the Petroleum Ministry under Buhari, in January 2023,was assuring the populace this will not happen.

Its Senior Media Adviser, Horatius Egua assured Nigerians that the President : “understands the challenges of the ordinary Nigerian and would not want to cause untold hardship for the electorate.”

As the Buhari regime beats a retreat from holding the census, collecting the World Bank loan and further removing fuel subsidy, so should it also retreat from awarding more weekly contracts, and from the Presidential Villa not later than May 29, 2023.

Nigeria’s nascent democratic journey  has lasted for 24 uninterrupted years, the first time in its history. Previous democratic interregnums did not last long enough due to incessant military incursions into governance to give us enough time and data to evaluate its impact on society. The debate on the success or failure of our democracy is raging, and opponents have enough data to back their claims. The jury still needs to be out on that. However, we have made some progress in our democracy, but many Nigerians are yet to connect personally with democratic values  and dividends, making them question the idea and practice of democracy – or at least the Nigerian brand of democracy. 

If the 2023 election campaign has done nothing else, it has spurred widespread calls for reform and renewal in just about every sector and institution in our country and to do things differently. Almost everything in these tumultuous election months – hyperinflation, economic crisis, deep poverty, poorly implemented currency exchange, fuel scarcity, high rate of “Japa” – grew out of problems swept under the rug for decades. Now the need to do things differently is urgent and imperative. The case for a reset is compelling and will require courage, clarity, and creativity. What matters to Nigerians  is responsible, timely, and evidence-driven actions. This is what the incoming government owes Nigerians. 

A quick critical review of the performance of our democracy in the core facets of society reveals startling facts as further justification for the call for a complete and total reset of our democratic governance to be fit for purpose. These facets include the economy, security, education, unemployment, social cohesion, morality and ethics, and healthcare. However, this column will focus on the economy and unemployment and visit the other issues in subsequent articles. Comparing the economic statistics in 1999 with that of 2022 will reveal some form of growth that, in isolation, may look like tremendous progress.  Economists attribute the growth we experienced  between 1999 to 2013 to oil and gas windfall  and not out of any ingenuity or right policy  decisions. 

According to the World Bank, some of the economic statistics of Nigeria in 1999 were GDP (current US$) $45.6 billion at an annual growth rate of  0.58%; GDP per capita (current US$)- $381.4; Inflation at 6.6%; and poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of the population)-54.4%. In 2022, the same report indicated that Nigeria’s GDP (current US$) $448.1 billion; GDP growth (annual %)-3.4%; GDP per capita (current US$)-$2,113.5; inflation, consumer prices (annual %): 16.6%; Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines, 63% of persons living within Nigeria. 

Comparing 1999 with the 2022 economic data, we can see that Nigeria has experienced significant economic progress  over the past 23 years at the macro economic level and not necessarily at the micro economic level. Some of the changes are GDP (current US$) has increased by 883%; GDP growth (annual %) has risen by 4.83 percentage points; GDP per capita (current US$) has increased by 454%; inflation, consumer prices (annual %) has risen by ten percentage points; poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of the population) has increased by about 9% percentage points. It may seem like a good improvement at a cursory look, but given the period covered and context vis a vis what Nigeria’s contemporaries did within a similar time frame, we have mellowed our shout of Uhuru.

Furthermore, a more realistic comparison will be to compare our economic data within the past decade (2012 – 2022), and this reveals some dire results. Economic statistics of Nigeria in 2012 are GDP (current US$): $460.6 billion; GDP growth (annual %): 4.3%; GDP per capita (current US$): $2,762.9; Inflation, consumer prices (annual %): 12.2%;Poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of the population): 53.5%. Comparing these statistics with those of 2022 shows that the GDP has decreased by 2.7%; GDP growth (annual %) has decreased by 0.9 percentage points; GDP per capita (current US$) has reduced by 23.5%; inflation, consumer prices (annual %) has increased by 4.4 percentage points; poverty headcount ratio at national poverty lines (% of the population) has increased by about nine percentage points. This shows the dire straits our economy is in currently; therefore, we need to do something about it urgently . 

If you compare the growth of two nations with similar circumstances, you will be worried about why our growth has been stunted. The two nations are Rwanda and India. Rwanda’s growth rate was -0.9% in 2007, but by 2016, it peaked at 9.4% and stabilised at 4.9-4.2% between 2021 and 2022. Within the same period, their GDP grew by 25% relative to 2007. India’s case is even more admirable. India did not only increase its GDP fivefold in the last ten years but was able to lift more than 415 million people out of poverty in the past 15 years, whereas, during the same period, more Nigerians moved to multidimensional poverty. 

The reasonable inference to draw from this picture is that there is something wrong with our economic model. We need a reset before we degenerate into economic slavery. The indices indicate that our economy is not working -low growth, high inflation, high unemployment rate, unfavourable balance of trade, GDP and  low FDI. We must stop the degeneration and reverse it to the path of growth. Tanzania, Ivory Coast and Rwanda are getting it right. Whatever we must do to achieve a minimum of 5% growth per annum  is critical and urgent . 

The second problem is unemployment. Unemployment statistics in Nigeria could be better, as the country faces a high and rising level of unemployment and underemployment, especially among the youth. Nigeria has an unemployment rate of 27.1%, which means that about 21.8 million people are actively looking for work but cannot find any. Nigeria has an underemployment rate of 28.6%, meaning that about 22.9 million people work less than 40 hours a week or in jobs that do not match their skills, education, or aspirations. Nigeria has a youth unemployment rate of 40%, which means that about 14 million young people aged 15-24 are unemployed. The youth unemployment rate is higher for females (46%) than males (35%). 

Nigeria has a low labour force participation rate of 56%, which means that only about 80.3 million people out of the working-age population of 142.6 million are either employed or unemployed. Nigeria needs to create at least 3.6 million net new jobs annually to reduce the unemployment rate to 5% by 2033, according to a policy memo by Agora Policy. This would require an average annual GDP growth rate of 7.5% and an employment elasticity of 0.523.

The good news is that the new administration acknowledges these challenges as real and present, and the ideas and the will to tackle it is now the issue.

 The critical challenge our political leaders face is making Nigerians feel whole again, creating opportunities and hope for Nigerians, advocating, and expanding the frontiers of freedom, eschewing ethnic and religious bigotry, repudiating impunity, corruption, and uncertainties, putting Nigeria on the path of recovering our country socially, economically, and morally. 

In the penultimate month of the inauguration of a new government, it is time to reset Nigeria’s economy. This reset should be built on three critical pillars. These pillars include restoring public confidence in the institution of government and its capacity to provide all citizens opportunity irrespective of tribe, religion, or tongue; re-prioritising our national priorities to focus on the economy, security, education, a new national – subnational relationship ; and resisting playing politics with national development and fighting corruption.

The government should declare war on getting the economy right, especially raising money to make a difference . Once the economy is good, it will elicit both intended and unintended multiplier effects on every other aspect of the growth and development of Nigeria. The government must have a clear, SMART economic goal and an overarching economic strategy to achieve the set goal. There must be clear revolutionary actions that will reset the economy. The first of such revolution should be rapid infrastructural development which should be evident to all Nigerians. Spending on  power ,viable interstate highways , airports of truly international standard ,  scaling up train revolution  and other projects must explode. Government capital spending must rise several folds, and the average construction of national highways should double, as well as that of power,  seaport capacity , amongst other infrastructure projects . This can only happen if we can raise money as a country . The incoming government must find the money to make a difference in all critical areas . As it is often said , money answers  all problems. 

The second revolution is massive job creation. The Nigerian government must decide what clear strategy to create jobs. The bottom-up approach has not worked as intended and must be revisited. Therefore, I advocate for the top-bottom strategy, where the government encourage the establishment of many companies, industries, and small and medium-scale enterprises to boost production and create jobs. The government should resist providing only public sector jobs as it is not sustainable . This is counterintuitive because it makes the cost of governance high.

The last revolution is creating a sophisticated power and  technology  deepening strategy that will provide  access to the internet, smart mobile telephony and a sophisticated ID programme that will capture 99.9% of adult Nigerians that can be used to verify anybody instantly. This will be the backbone of cataclysmic change in Nigeria and provide the solid data infrastructure and base to move Nigeria into the technology age. The impact of this will be mind-boggling. Nigeria has the BVN, NIN and other forms of identification platforms currently. 

This needs to be harmonised and harnessed for Nigeria’s growth. The government must push to have almost every Nigerian captured in the ID programme and utilise the advantages of such data for economic progress. Imagine an organised ID system’s impact on instant loans to individuals and organisations, direct government interventions, like credits to citizens and businesses, ease of providing security, and increased confidence in doing business in Nigeria.

*Dr. Peterside is a former Director General of NIMASA  

In years past, no one could become a king without kingmakers consulting the deity of wisdom (Ifá).

 “Building Bridges for a New Nigeria,” admits two things, namely, that Nigeria has failed or is failing; and there was an old Nigeria which was divided and that there is the need for a new Nigeria whose goal is to improve relationships among people who are very different, or do not like each other. So, this topic is about how to foster good relations among Nigerians.

Ethnicity, language and religion have divided and destroyed Nigeria. They drive our politics. Some Nigerians will vote for a thief provided he is from their tribe. Ethnicity, language and religion promote disunity, unhealthy rivalry and disenchantment. In this presentation, I will examine and probe the problems, and discern how bridge-building is the way forward for this nation. I particularly like the goals of Nzuko Umunna (NU), which is a general platform for creating effective management of Igbo professionals, both at home and in the diaspora, uniting and bridging the gap between the various Igbo groups; and promoting cooperation, peace and good neighbourliness between Igbos and other ethnic groups in Nigeria. Through its handshake across the Niger and handshake across Nigeria programmes, Nzuko Umunna has demonstrated its love for, and belief in one healthy Nigeria. NU is therefore a metaphor for the average Igbo man and woman’s gregariousness to live anywhere with other Nigerians of whatever ethnicity, religion, language or culture. Highly Republican, extremely industrious, aggressively

innovative and painstakingly dedicated to a course they believe in, the Igbos constitute the second largest ethnic group after the indigenes in any part of Nigeria. No other ethnic group believes in the unity, indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria as the Igbos. It is therefore a national embarrassment and shame when they are profiled for attacks, denigration; disrespect or disregard, and regarded as a dot in the longer circle of Nigeria. No! the Igbos are NOT A DOT. They are the pillars that hold the Nigerian project together. Of Prof Onigu Otite’s 374 ethnic groups in Nigeria that speak over 350 languages, the Igbos constitute the main link that binds the beads of the other 373 ethnicities of Nigeria.

DEFINITIONS OF KEY CONCEPTS

BUILDING

“Building,” means the action or trade of constructing something. It also means to put something together. A source defines it, inter alia, as “the process of creating or developing something”. It is in this sense that, the phrase ‘peace-building’ is used.  This deserves some elaboration, and that is precisely what we shall presently undertake.

BRIDGES

“Bridges” means something that provides a connection between two things. It means, inter alia, “Something that makes it easier to make a change from one situation to another”.  Another definition is “something that reduces or gets rid of the gap between two people or things”. Yet another one is (inter alia) “something that provides a connection between two things”. Finally, the Britannica Dictionary and the Merriam-Webster Dictionary define it, inter alia, as “something that joins or connects different people or things” and, as “a time, place or means of connection or transition,” respectively.

BRIDGE-BUILDING

According to the Oxford Advanced Learner’s Dictionary, Seventh Edition, at page 176, “Bridge-building” means “activities intended to make relations between two groups or more groups friendlier”. It also means to “foster good relations”.

NIGERIA, AN ARTIFICIAL CREATION

Nigeria’s creation was fundamentally flawed with the British super-imposing Northern hegemony and dominance over Southern Nigeria. Nigeria is an artificial creation. Indeed, the name Nigeria was given to her by a young British journalist, Miss Flora Louisa Shaw (who later married Lord Lugard) on 8^th January, 1897. What is today known as Nigeria was ruled by the Royal Niger Company around 1886 to 1899. Following the revocation of its character, the Royal Niger company sold its holdings in the territory which later became Nigeria to British for £865,000. This was the price for which Nigeria was purchased. (i.e., about N 735. 2 Million only). By 1900, the Southern Nigeria Protectorate and Northern Nigeria Protectorate passed from the Royal Niger Company to Britain. By 1^st January, 1914, these two territories were amalgamated as the Colony and Protectorates of Southern and Northern Nigeria. The fusion of these two territories was done for political and commercial reasons without any consideration on the preferences of the inhabitants of these territories. These people already had their set ways of life – the Benin and Oyo Empires; Hausa City States; Igbo City States; Kanem Bornu, Ile-Ife civilization cradle of the Yoruba race. We already had great historical figure like Oba Ovonranmwen Nogbaisi of Benin Empire, King Nana of Itsekiri, King Jaja of Opobo, Queen Amina, Mal Idriss Alooma, Queen Idia, etc.

THE INDEPENDENCE

Nnamdi Azikiwe, Ahmadu Bello, Obafemi Awolowo, Sir Tafawa Balewa, Chief Anthony Enahoro, Joseph Tarka, Chief Dennis Osadebe, Herbert Macaulay, etc., who fought, unarguably, for the flag independence of Nigeria from Britain, in reality, projected the ideas of their enclaves. For example, while people from the Southern part of Nigeria craved for independence in the 50’s, the people from Northern Nigeria felt the timing was wrong. Chief Anthony Enahoro’s motion for Nigeria’s Independence suffered setbacks in parliament on several occasions with the northern members of parliament staging a walkout as a consequence of the motion. However, in 1953, Enahoro initiated move to self-government through the motion he sponsored in the Western House of Assembly. This eventually led to Nigeria’s independence on 1^st October, 1960. While it could be argued that the people currently occupying the territory called Nigeria were never consulted before the amalgamation of 1914, all of them lifted the Nigerian flag the moment the Union Jack was lowered in October 1, 1960.

THE FIRST COUP AND COUNTER COUP

Many who felt granting independence to Nigeria would usher in unprecedented growth, were surprised to see unprecedented corruption, looting of the nation’s treasury and mismanagement of the country by the supposedly founding fathers of the Country. The military that came to salvage the problem on 15^th January, 1966, even compounded it by their lop-sided manner of cleansing the system. There is a conspiracy theory that the Igbos used the coup to pave way for General Aguiyi-Ironsi to be Head of State of Nigeria. The Northern members of the Nigerian Army did not hold back as they retaliated over the killing of Ahmadu Bello, Tafawa Balewa, Maimalar and others by also slaughtering many innocent Igbo soldiers and civilians through a genocidal ethnic-cleansing. This eventually led to the Nigerian Civil War. There have been many coup d’états in Nigeria since the 1966 coup d’état. However, since the year 1999, there has not been any coup. There have been different agitations springing up in some parts of the country.

THE OLD NIGERIA: DIVIDED BY ETHNICITY

Nigeria is a conglomeration or an aggregation of several nationalities which makes the country a pluralistic and multi-faceted society. The diversity of Languages, traditions, and customs contribute to the nation’s vast cultural variety. By merging the numerous ethnicities into what is now known as The Federal Republic of Nigeria, it is believed that Britain created Nigeria. This is Lord Frederick Lugard’s fusion in 1914. The protectorate of Northern Nigeria, the colony of Lagos, and the protectorate of Southern Nigeria were amalgamated to form one nation. Without the approval of the numerous ethnic nationalities, this was carried out to serve the interests of Britain. The fight for power among the many ethnic groups in Nigeria began with this deed.

Since Nigeria gained political independence in 1960, there has been conflict between the country’s numerous ethnic nations about who will dominate the political system and the country’s natural riches. This conflict sparked the civil war that lasted from 1967 to 1970. Since the country’s independence, ethnic politics have dominated Nigerian politics. The power struggle between the three major parties during the First Republic was characterized by instances of ethnic politics, particularly between the Action Group (AG) led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, with its base among the Yorubas of the Southwest, the National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, with its base among the Igbos of the Southeast, and the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC) led by Sir Ahmadu Bello. In the Second Republic, the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, had control in the Southwest, causing this tripod equilibrium to echo once more. Most of its adherents had previously been Chief Obafemi Awolowo’s students. The Yorubas were in charge of the party. The National Party of Nigeria (NPN), which had a more national orientation and represented the legacy of the defunct NPC, had its main support base in the North while the Nigeria People’s Party (NPP), led by Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, maintained power in the Igbo states of southeast Nigeria similar to the NCNC. It should be noted that these ethnic-based political groups were more of a revival of the First Republic’s ethnic politics.

The National Republican Convention (NRC) and the Social Democracy Party (SDP) were the two main political parties of the Third Republic, a failed military experiment under General Ibrahim Babangida, which aimed to eliminate the Nigerian political system’s “triangle of parties.” With the unfortunate annulment of the presidential election of June 12, 1993, which was largely considered to have been won by Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola of Yoruba descent from the Southwest, this strategy almost succeeded in ending ethnic undertones to party politics in Nigeria. It should be mentioned that the annulment sparked fierce ethnic, populist, and regional animosity, especially in the country’s southwest.

The Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), which is predominately Yoruba in the Southwest, the All Progressive Grand Alliance (APGA), which has a predominantly Igbo membership in the Southeast, and the Congress for Positive Change (CPC), which is predominately Hausa-Fulani in Northern Nigeria, are examples of ethnically oriented political organizations operating in the current Fourth Republic.

The 2023 general election conducted recently further showed how divided Nigeria is. While Bola Tinubu of the All Progressive Congress had massive support from the South-West, the candidate of Labour Party, Peter Obi, had massive support from the South-East and South-South. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar had massive support from most of the Northern States.

THE EFFECT OF ETHNIC POLITICS

The Igbo, Yoruba, and Hausa ethnic groupings have long dominated national politics among Nigeria’s nearly 250 ethnic groups and the federating units. Perhaps this is due to their larger population, as well as their moderately active participation in the various governments since Nigeria gained colonial independence in 1960.

It has always irritated other minority ethnic groups. This feeling of exclusion from Nigeria’s mainstream has led to distrust, dread, and a sense of pessimism among these minority groups, which invariably has an impact on their sense of patriotism as well as their sense of national identity and psyche. There seems to be a growing sense of sub-nationalism among the smaller ethnic communities, as well as a need and desire for the groupings to control their own destiny. They doubt the idea of nationhood in the Nigerian system and display a callous attitude toward problems that concern them.

This battle for political and economic liberation is best exemplified by the people of the Niger Delta, which is located in the South-South geopolitical region of Nigeria. The locals are now in a state of despair as a result of oil exploration companies’ years-long exploitation of the abundant natural resources in their area. Previous Niger Delta political and thought leaders have unsuccessfully attempted to raise awareness of the region’s predicament worldwide. People’s patience has now run out after years of broken promises from several Nigerian governments and oil firms active in the area. The Ijaw people in this area have now ascended. The fight for an independent Ijaw State, or an Ijaw State to be taken seriously inside a unified Nigeria, entered a new phase, one of armed conflict and kidnappings, which lasted until the government’s amnesty program brought an end to them.

The minority ethnic groups from the Nigerian Niger Delta region, where the majority of the nation’s wealth is created, desire urgent and immediate inclusion and being treated equally by the rest of the nation as stakeholders in the Nigerian project. The agony of their environmental degradation and social upheaval brought on by the exploitation of the natural resources in their area is what they anticipate as a fair and appropriate compensation for their contribution to the national economy.

The failure of the Nigerian government to satisfy these minority ethnic groups’ aspirations has always manifested itself in agitation, which frequently results in wars. The agitation is expressed more fiercely the more strongly they perceive that the refusal to meet these demands is intentional and unjustifiable.

If there is one thing all Nigerians are agreed upon, it is the belief – fueled by disappointment and frustration – that have we have failed to fulfil our potential as a nation, we are a long way from living up to the dreams of our founding fathers. Right from our 21st year of independence (when we hypothetically came of age), till date, few issues have consistently featured in our national discourse (particularly in the media) as the “National Debate”. By this is meant the seeming past time of virtually every Nigerian to bemoan our experience as a nation. Simply put, Nigeria is a failed, and broken nation. Apply every conceivable yardstick, according to every knowledgeable (and not-so-knowledgeable) expert, the country is not just a disaster waiting to happen – IT MAY ALREADY HAPPENED.

THE UNIQUE PLACE OF THE IGBOS IN NIGERIA

Only on Monday, 24^th April, 2023, Mr. Allen Onyema, CEO of Airpeace, pledged to evacuate Nigerians stranded in war-ravaged Sudan free of charge if the government can get them to a safe and secure airport in any of the neighbouring countries bordering Sudan. Noting that everything must not be left to the government alone, Onyema in a moving statement said, “It will be a privilege and honour of tremendous pride that we will out there to give every Nigerian stranded in Sudan a sense of pride and oneness in their country.”

“Any action that will promote national pride, national cohesion, peace and unity, we are for it. We have no apology for believing in our Nation and loving the Nation despite certain national challenges.” I did not hear the government or any Nigerian of other ethnic extractions reject Onyema’s gratuitous offer because he is an Igbo man.

When Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie (Novelist and Harvard University’s Iconic W.E.B. Dubois Medal winner); when Dr. Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the first female and black Director-General of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) and former Managing Director (Operations, World Bank) are doing Nigeria proud, I did not hear complaints from other Nigerians. When J.J. Okocha, Dan Amokachi, Kanu Nwankwo, Mikel Obi, Uche Okechukwu, Vincent Enyema, Christian Chukwu, Emmanuel Okala, Onyekachi Apam, Francis Uzoho, Henry Nwosu, et al, were burning local and foreign football fields, making Nigeria proud, I did not hear anyone raise eyebrows.

When Chioma Ajunwa (Atlanta, 1996 Gold medalist); Emmanuel Ifeajuna (first black African to win a Gold medal in an international sporting event, at the 1954 Vancouver Commonwealth games); Francis Obikwelu (100m record holder); Michael Okpala, a.k.a. “Power Mike” (undefeated world Heavyweight Champion); Richard Ihetu (Dick Tiger) – former World Boxing Middleweight Champion; Olaudah Equiono (whose works led to the abolition of the over 500-year Slave Trade); Chinua Achebe (the greatest ever novelist from the black world, and whose epic, “Things Fall Apart” has been translated into over 500 languages; and listed by Encyclopedia Britannica as one of the “12 Novels considered the ‘Greatest Book Ever Written’”, were putting Nigeria on the world map, no one complained.

When Philip Emeagwala from Onitsha (a Computer Scientist whose seminar works brought about internet revolution, and described by CNN as the “Father of Internet”); when Prof Barth Nnaji pioneered robotics engineering and invented the E-Design concept in Engineering; when Prof Chike Obi (world acclaimed Mathematician and first African to bag a Ph.D in Mathematics, shook the world with his mathematical wizardry; when Prof Gabriel Oyibo blased aircraft design, aerodynamics, aeroelasticity, etc; when Prof Ben Enweonwu was described as the greatest African Artist for his globally recognized pioneering works in Arts; when Sir Louis Odumegwu Ojukwu(father of Biafran Warlord, Dim Chukwuemeka Ojukwu) was acclaimed as the first Nigerian and West African billionaire, I did not hear the shrieks of “Igboism”. Why the “Igbophobia”?

How many of us know that the 5^th President of Liberia was an Igbo man called Edward James Roye? That even the present President of Gabon, Ali Bongo Ondiba, argued to be of Igbo descent, who was adopted during the Nigerian Civil War? No one is shrieking Igbo invasion.

NNAMDI KANU

This was a man who was peacefully on bail in his ancestral home in Afaraukwu Ibeku, Umuahia, when between 10^th and 14^th September, 2017, especially 14^th September, 2017, Nigerian Security Agents code-named “Operation Python Dance” brutally invaded his father’s ancestral home, killing 28 innocent unarmed Nigerians in the process. Kanu who was the primary target managed to escape by providence, first to Israel, then to London. It was from London he travelled to Kenya where he was captured by agents of the FG.

We have not heard this FG use “Operation Python Dance” to confront and attack ravaging armed bandits, kidnappers, vicious Boko Haram that invade the farms and homes of innocent Nigerians, kill their men, rape their mothers, wives and daughters.

Curiously, this same country will forcibly kidnap and rendition Nnamdi Kanu from a foreign country, Kenya back to Nigeria, tortured, brutalized, blindfolded and subjected to inhuman and degrading treatment.

What is his offence? That he formed a non-violent, whistle-blowing, street-marching, beret-wearing IPOB (Indigenous People of Biafra) movement, whose advocacy is for self-determination – a right recognized by all international instruments such as Article 20 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948; Articles 10, 11, and 20 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, 1983; Article 1 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, 1976; Article 3 and 4 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, 2007.

I went to court on behalf of Nnamdi Kanu. The Federal High Court, Abuja, dismissed 8 of the 15-count charge. I appealed on the remaining 7 counts

On the 13^th of October, 2022, the Court of Appeal, Abuja Division, agreed with my submission and dismissed the remaining 7 counts. It held that, “forcible extraordinary rendition to Nigeria, without being subjected to any extradition proceedings is a gross and egregious violation of extant international and local laws which are binding on the Appellant (Federal Government), and as such, divested the trial court or any other court in Nigeria, of the jurisdiction to entertain the hitherto retained 7 counts of the amended charge or any other charge”. Wait for it. The Court of Appeal went ahead and made a telling and far-reaching order prohibiting Nnamdi Kanu from further being detained or tried for any offence howsoever by any court in Nigeria. As I speak to you, Kanu is still held in solitary confinement in the DSS gulag, upon a funny stay of execution order applied for and granted in favour of the same Federal Government. While America goes around the world scouting for, and defending every single citizen, Nigeria is staying execution of the fundamental rights of her own citizen in court. What a shame!

Note that the same FG had earlier rejected my 3^rd October, 2022 36-page plea for Kanu’s release, apart from the court proceedings.

Note also that the same FG has blatantly refused to release Kanu, inspite of the African Commission on Human and Peoples Right, March, 2018 decision that the FG must “fully comply with Nigeria’s obligations under the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights and other International human right treaties, including the right to life, the prohibition of arbitrary arrests and detention, the right to fair hearing, the prohibition of other cruel, inhuman and degrading penalties and treatment and the right to seek asylum.”

To underscore the FG’s egregious disrespect for international opinion, the UN Human Rights Working Group on Arbitrary Detention, had in a 16-page report indicted both Nigerian and Kenyan governments for the arrest, torture and continuous detention of the IPOB leader. The Group in its judgement ordered the “immediate release of Kanu unconditionally;” and pay him “adequate compensation for the arbitrary violation of his fundamental human rights”. Till date, Nnamdi Kanu, guiltless, helpless and hapless, is kidnapped and held like a common prisoner of war by the FG, amidst his deteriorating health condition, without permission to access his personal physician, or hold a joint meeting with 2 of his Counsel at the same time; or allowed files and materials to prepare his defence in a criminal trial he has been discharged of and his further prosecution prohibited. What a country!

Yet, Nigerians and international bodies stood by and watch and remain transfixed like a deer watching the headlights of an oncoming vehicle; and like an insect rendered immobile by some powerful insecticides. What has the Igbo man done wrong? I do not know. Or, do you?

THIS IS URGING PRESIDENT MUHAMMADU BUHARI TO RELEASE NNAMDI KANU IMMEDIATELY WITHOUT ANY CONDITIONS. THIS MUST BE DONE BEFORE QUITTING OFFICE ON 29^TH MAY, 2023. IT IS THE URGENCY OF NOW SIR. I beg you sir, on bended knees

THE 1966 COUP AND HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

The unfortunate January 15, 1966 Coup d’etat was pinned wholly on the Igbo race. Historical revisionists, without capturing the true facts, have only mentioned the names of the Igbo Officers who participated in the coup, while suppressing the names of other officers from other Nigerian ethnic groups. The names of the Igbos often touted are Major Chukwuma Kaduna Nzeogwu (from Okpanam, near Asaba, Delta State), who led the bloody coup; Major Emanuel Ifeajuna; Major Chris Anuforo; Major Timothy Onwuatuegwu; Major Humphrey Chukwuka; Major Don Okafor; Captain Ben Gbulie; Captain Emmanuel Nwobosi and Captain Ogbu Oji. The narrative has always carefully suppressed the names of the following officers from the other tribes who fully participated in the said coup of January 15, 1966: Major Adewale Ademoyegun (Yoruba), author of “Why We Struck”; Captain G. Adeleke (Yoruba); Lt. Fola Oyewole (Yoruba), author of “The Reluctant Rebel”; Lt. R. Egbiko (Esan); Lt. Tijani Kastina (Hausa/Fulani); Lt. O. Olafemiyan (Yoruba); Captain Gibson Jalo (Bali, Taraba State); Captain Swanton Robert (Middle Belt); Lt. Hope Harris Eghagha (Urhobo); Lt. Dag Waribori (Ijaw); 2^nd Lt. Saleh Dambo (Hausa); and 2^nd Lt. John Atom Kpera (Tiv). Why the years of skewed narrative? What have the Igbos done? I do not know. Or, do you?

32-year-old bachelor, General Yakubu Gowon had miscalculated when in attempting to crush Odumegwu Ojukwu’s announcement of the break-away of the Republic of Biafra on 30^th May, 1967, launched what he termed a “Police action” to retake the declared independent territory.

Images of Biafran children malnourished and starving, assailed the sensibilities of the world community. Biafra claimed that the Nigerian Federal Government was using starvation and genocide to win the war. Historical figures put the casualties of the Igbo populace at over 3 million people.

But, before then, the Igbos had shown an uncanny survivalist spirit by refining their own petroleum (fuel, diesel and AGo) and manufacturing their own Ogbunigare launchers. Had Gowon respected the Aburi Accord reached between the FG, a represented Gowon and Biafra led by Ojukwu at the peace meeting convened between 4^th and 5^th January, 1967, at Aburi, Ghana, by the Ghanaian Head of State, Lt-Gen. J. A. Ankrah, the 3-year bloody civil war would probably have been avoided.

When the Civil War ended on 15^th January, 1970, and General Philip Effiong handed over the surrender mantle on behalf of the Biafrans to General Olusegun Obasanjo, for the Nigerian Government, the then Head of State, General Yakubu Gowon, enunciated the 3Rs (Reconciliation; Reconstruction and Rehabilitation). With the profiling, typification, and mental and physical siege placed on the Igbos in our nation, I do not know if they have been reconciled, rehabilitated or reconstructed. Or, do you?

NIGERIA’S ALLEGED INDIVISIBILITY AND INDISSOLUBILITY

I heartily guffaw at times when I hear Nigerian leaders mouth moral platitudes and ineffective liberal disquisitions about the indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria. Even the 1999 Constitution also tells that historical lie in section 2 (1), when it imperiously declares that “Nigeria shall be one indivisible and indissoluble sovereign State to be known by the name of the Federal Republic of Nigeria”. Is that why successive leaderships take the unity, indivisibility and indissolubility of Nigeria for granted? I roar with laughter, because, old Russia made the same historical mistake. It was forced to dissolve on December 26, 1991, by Declaration No. 142 – H of the Soviet of the Republics of the Supreme Soviet. Fifteen independent and soviet States sprouted from the once unified behemoth and elephantine Republic, which at a time famously engaged powerful America in the cold war. The break-away Republics are Russia, Ukraine, Central Asia and Estonia, Latvia and Luthania (the three Baltic States; others are Armenia, Kyrgstan, Maldovia, Turkmenistan, Azerbailian and Georgia. Yet some others are Belarus, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan.

Ask Yugoslavia that broke up into six countries. Ask Sudan that broke up into Sudan and South Sudan on July 9, 2011. Sudan is still in war till date. Check out the “nine nations” of a seemingly monolithic 1.3 billion China, and you will understand my worries about Nigeria. But, the good news is that Nigeria has not always been in this sorry state of nadir, of bottomless quagmire.

Once upon a time in Nigeria, the motivating force that cut across political parties, was “Nigeria first”. This implied unity and indivisibility of Nigeria. Nigerian leaders of old; consciously arked on crushing nepotism, tribalism and ethnicity. They did this for the progress of Nigeria. Recall also the agreement reached by the National Party of Nigeria (NPN), Nigerian Peoples Party (NPP), Great Nigeria Peoples Party (GNPP), Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), and Peoples Redemption Party (PRP), when they came together and made an accord to work for the good and survival of Nigeria. This agreement was later nick named “Accord Concondiale” by Dr K.O. Mbadiwe, “the man of timber and calibre, caterpillar, Iroko and Obeche”.  

Renowned African writer, Professor Chinua Achebe, epically wrote this about Nigeria in 1983: “the trouble with Nigeria is simply and squarely a failure of leadership…the Nigeria problem is the unwillingness or inability of its leaders to rise to the responsibility, to the challenge of personal example, which are the hallmark of true leadership.”

Hardly would any right thinking-Nigeria fault this notion. I have always maintained that there are three problems besetting Nigeria. The first problem is leadership. The second problem is leadership. And the third problem is leadership. Other problems and challenges are mere off-shoots of this leadership challenge. The most outstanding of these attendant challenges is followership-a weal, lily-livered civil society that turns a second cheek to be slapped when the first one has been slapped.

Key Issues/ Problems with Fixing Nigeria:

• Complex ethno-religious composition that gives rise to tribalism,
• High power distance culture that makes institutional leaders see themselves as ‘Lords’ that cannot be questioned rather than as servants of the people,
• Corruption on steroids,
• Weak institutions, and
• High illiteracy/poverty rate, that make it easier for the political elite to weaponise poverty.

I will add, state captured by elite buccaneers and weak followership/civil society.

As pointed out Ehi Braimah “Bad planning, wrong choices/priorities, egregious greed and corruption are largely responsible for Nigeria’s fall from grace”.  By that, he was alluding to a time (in 1974), when Nigeria was reportedly so prosperous, that she lent money to the International Monetary Fund, the IMF. The source of that revelation, Alhaji’ Abubakar Alhaji, the then Permanent Secretary of the Federal Ministry of Finance, identified over-dependence on oil and the huge cost of governance at all levels as contributing to the comatose state of our economy.

A FUNNY COUNTRY: MISPLACED PRIORITIES

Naija & her ways

79,000 Nigerian muslims spent $5,000 each to go to Saudi Arabia to stone and kill the devil with stones. $395 Million from a poor underdeveloped Country like Nigeria. Saudi economy is growing through Tourism. 50,000 Christians went to lsrael to Kiss Jesus statue there and attach JP to their names. $250 Million ==$645 Million – (over Half a BILLION Dollars)…  $1.3 billion. Let’s not convert it to naira because some of us will not sleep, but let’s try. (782 billion naira, over half a Trillion naira.)

This amount can be used to fund fresh graduates who have innovative Ideas and in turn, create millions of Jobs. Since we have been traveling to Israel and Saudi Arabia, has our Economy improved? What is Government’s business with pilgrimages?  What is wrong with us?

Africans (especially Nigerians) what is wrong with our logic?

THERE IS NO DEMOCRACY IN NIGERIA

Indeed, Nigeria, especially under the president Muhammadu Buhari administration, does not practise democracy at all. Rather, it practises electonocracy, judocracy, executocracy and legislatocracy. I will explain these terms which I have personally coined from my personal lexical dictionary. That was what informed  the aliases of “Ozek baba”,  “mobile dictionary” and “mobile Library”, that my late legendary mentor, iconic Chief Gani Fawehinmi SAN, SAM, GCON, fondly called me whilst working with him, up to becoming his Deputy Head of Chambers in 1985.

ELECTIONACRACY

“ELECTIONACRACY ” is a system of government where elections are held as a ritual at intervals  of 4 years in Nigeria, with the emergent elected or selected leaders, rather than giving the electors democracy dividends, merely stabilize themselves in power, commence primitive acquisition of wealth and forget the electorate that erected the leaders in the first place. They then begin another round of campaigns after pretending to work for 2 years. They are already looking forward to the next election when the electorate has not benefited from any democracy dividends from their first term.

JUDOCRACY

“JUDOCRACY” is a genre of government practised only in Nigeria, where Presidents, Governors, Legislators and LG Chairmen are thrown up as having “won” in an election. Their victory is immediately challenged. They get enmeshed in these legal callithenics for the next 2 to 3 years of their corruption-ridden governance. Then, suddenly, they are conceived, incubated and delivered in the hallowed Chambers and precincts of our law courts, rather than through the ballot box. The will of the people is thereby subsumed in the decision and judgement of courts of law, the non-representatives of the people.

EXECUTOCRACY

“EXECUTOCRACY ”, as practised in Nigeria, is an aberrant form of government, far removed from democracy, where the executive arm of government acts in torrerem of other arms of government. The Executive continually browbeat, intimidate, harass, marginalize and subjugate the Legislature and the Judiciary. It is usually headed by a maximalist, autocratic, absolute and dictatorial head, who views himself as Loius XIV of France. Loius XIV was so intoxicated with the effect of liquor-inebriating power that in 1655, he proudly stood in front of parliament and declared “L’etat, C’ est moi” (I am the state). He said this to indicate his complete hold on power to the exclusion of all other lesser mortals.

LEGISLOTACRACY

“LEGISLATOCRACY” is another peculiar genre of democracy as practised only in Nigeria. It is a fundamentally flawed legislative system where there is an overbloated and virtually jobless 360 members of the House of Representatives and 109 Senators, all of whom are not unsurprisingly permitted by the 1999 Constitution to sit for only 6 months out of 12 months in a calendar year of 12 months. This enables them to seamlessly engage in extra-legislative businesses and money-making ventures. These legislators, contrary to the clear provisions of the 1999 Constitution, legislate on EVERYTHING except making laws “for the peace, order and good government of the federation”.

The law makers carryout oversight functions under sections 88 and 89 of the constitution, not in furtherance of any public interest or any common good, but in pursuit of their private pockets after extorting money (during budget presentations) from ministries, MDA’s and other government establishments, both at the federal, state and LGA’s level.

Under legislatocracy, Mr President’s requests are sacrosanct and written on Hamurabi tablet of inviolability. So, like the agama lizard, the law makers can only nod their heads “yes, yes, yes”, to all presidential requests, however anti-people.  Legislatocracy ensures free padding of budgets to accommodate their insatiable baccanalina propensity to consume and indulge in primitive acquisition of vulgar wealth in a rentier economy.

Legislatocracy also ensures that rather than make laws, legislators fight over constituency projects. When given hundreds of millions to execute these projects, they end up digging few boreholes, repairing village culverts; buying motor cycles, hair dryers, grinding machines and wheel barrows, to their hapless clapping peasants and thugs that were used during the last elections. Nigeria’s peculiar legislatocratic system ensures that the law makers receive the highest pay amongst law makers across the globe, including older, tested and more established democracies of the world. They receive fat pays for part time work as provided for in the 1999 Constitution.

Meanwhile, an assortment of Non- State Actors – from armed serenaded bandits to kidnappers and terrorists – have laid vicious siege on large swathes of the country, holding hapless citizens hostage with their campaign of unremitting terror and brigandage.  No one and nowhere is either safe or immune – including the capital city, Abuja, the President’s home State (and home-town) of Kastina and Daura, respectively. Some of those abducted have remained in captivity for almost a decade (the Chibok and Dapchi hostages), Infrastructure such as prisons and trains/rail tracks are targeted seemingly at will – with little or no resistance from those paid to safeguard such assets and our very lives. With the next general elections half a year away, the political class has resumed their 4-yearly ritual of promise-making and mudslinging. Nigeria practices Electionocracy, plutocracy, gerotencracy, judocracy, Executocracy, and legistocracy but never democracy as defined by Abraham Lincoln in his November, 19, 1863, Gettysburg declaration of democracy being a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

THE ASIAN TIGERS: HOW THEY DID IT

I believe the answers to all these posers are self-evident, given the common history of backwardness and virtually complete non-industrialization (with the exception of Japan) which the so-called Asian Tigers shared with Nigeria at independence. This is because all the Tigers – South Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong, Malaysia and Indonesia – were, like Nigeria, under prolonged periods of colonial and/or military rule. Even Japan, which was a relatively prosperous and industrialized society, prior to the Second World War, had to start virtually from scratch afterwards, following its defeat in that conflict. Accordingly, these comparisons are in no way odious. The question, then is: how did these countries do it? In terms of strategy, it appears that the following are key to the seeming miracle achieved by these erstwhile developing countries:

• Investment in skills;
• Advancements in Technology;
• Engagement of specialized agencies;
• Establishment of pilot projects; and
• Involvement of International Agencies such as the U.N.
• developing, inter alia, efficient production techniques;
• Adaptation of foreign/imported technology;
• Massive investments in infrastructure and heavy manufacturing industries;
• Proper and prudent management of our natural resources (particularly oil and gas);
• A disciplined, relatively cheap, highly educated and skilled work-force, with reasonable wage demands;
• Targeting high literacy rate and high education standards;
• Private Sector-driven investment.

LESSONS FOR NIGERIA FROM THE ASIAN TIGERS

Scholars have suggested that Nigeria can benefit from the experience of the Asian Tigers in the following ways:

• Formulating and implementing deliberate government policies;
• Strengthening the development of agriculture;
• Encouraging industrial development;
• Developing small and medium scale enterprises (SMEs).
• Focus on exports;
• Human capital development;
• Creating a sound financial system;
• Maintenance of political, social as well as macroeconomic stability;
• Leadership that priorities citizens’ welfare;
• Encouraging a savings culture;
• Developing export-oriented industries to produce;

NIGERIA’S EARLIER PANACEA VIDE TRUE FISCAL FEDERALISM

Before the 15^th January, 1966 Military Coup led by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu Chukwuma from Okpanam, Nigeria operated true fiscal federalism amongst the then three regions-Western, Northern and Eastern Regions. They were later joined by the Midwest region which was excised out of Western region by popular Plebiscite and referendum on the 10^th of August, 1963. The Architects of that federalist feat were Dr Dennis Osadebay (later Prime Minister); Oba Akenzua II; Dr Christopher Okojie; Justice Kessington Momoh, Chief James Otoboh, Chief Humphrey Omo-Osagie; Chief Festus Okotie-Eboh (Omimi Ejoh) abd Chief Jereton Mariere and Chief David Edebiri, the Esogban of Benin Kingdom.

Section 140 of the 1963 Republican Constitution which replicated section 134 of the 1960 Independence Constitution provided that 50% proceeds of royalty received by the Federation in respect of minerals extracted from a region, including any mining rents derived by the federation belonged to a Region. Effectively, this made the Regions which also had their separate regional Constitution (with a Federal one at the centre) to control their resources. Only 20% was paid to the Federation; and another 30% shared by all the Regions, including those that had already shared 50%.

In the Northern Region, Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Northern Premier who had sent his NPC Deputy (Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa) to the centre to be Prime Minister, preferring to govern his people, utilized the resources of Northern Nigeria. With the famous Kano groundnut pyramid, cotton, Hides and skin, the imperious by cerebral Sardauna, who had valiantly fought for, but failed to become the Sultan of Sokoto at 29, losing to Sultan Siddiq Abubakar III, who reigned for 50 years till 1988. The great grandson of Uthman Dan Fodio (of “Conscience is an open wound; only the truth can heal it” fame), built the Ahmadu Bello University (ABU) which stretched from Samaru, Zaria, to Funtua in the present day Katsina. He set up the Northern Nigeria Development Company (NNDC); built the Yankari Games Reserve; the Ahmadu Bello Stadium; and the Hamdala hotel, Kaduna.

In the Eastern Region, Dr Nnamdi Azikiwe (First Premier 1954-1959) and later Dr Michael Okpara, and his Governor, Dr Akanu Ibiom and others with Dr Mbonu Ojike embarked upon major organ on revolution; they built the Trans-Amadi Industrial Estates and Presidential hotels in Enugu and Portharcourt. They built the University of Enugu; the Obudu Cattle Ranch and Resort, the Eastern Nigeria Development Corporation (ENDC);  Cement fatory at Nkalagu, breweries, textile Mills and Enugu Stadium. They could do this because they controlled their palm produce. This was time fiscal federalism at work.

In western Region, the late Sage, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, used proceeds from the coca product to build the Western Nigeria Broadcasting Corporation, the first television station in Africa, (1957); introduced free universal primary education and free health service; The liberty stadium and Cocoa House in Ibadan and the University of Ife (now OAU) were built by him. Because he controlled the resources of the West.

In the Mid west Region, Dr Dennis Osadebay spear headed the setting up of the Ughelli Glass Industry and the Okpellla Cement Factory, amongst others. What has changed? Why do we now operate a Unitary System of government, with centralized powers, a behemoth Central federal government and beleaguered, subservient states as federating units. Commissioners for finance congregate at Abuja at the end of every month to take state allocations under section 162 of the 1999 Constitution. Nigeria can never grow that way.

A BRAND NEW OR AN AMENDED AND RE-ENACTED CONSTITUTION?

Many solutions have been suggested, with constitutional amendment or reenactment top of the list. The reason is obvious: it is a country’s birth certificate; the foundation, basis or as we call it in law, the grundnorm. In this regard The 1999 Constitution is the product of the military led by General Abdusalami Alhaji Abubakar. The explanatory note to the said Constitution is worth considering as it explains the purport of the Constitution. The explanatory note to the 1999 Constitution (the subject matter of this article), states thus: “The Decree promulgates the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 199 into law and provides for the said Constitution to come into force on 29^th May, 1999.”The explanatory note above contains extra information to the effect that the explanatory:“…note does not form part of the above Decree but is intended to explain its purport.”The term “promulgate” means to spread an idea, a belief, etc. among the people. Whose beliefs and ideas are the military spreading and at what point did this idea or belief come into force? It is pertinent to note that the 1999 Constitution divested the military over the governance of Nigeria and re-enforces the original ideas and beliefs of the people at the time they got independence.

This is the elephant in the room. Several commentators have called for scrapping the 1999 Constitution completely and replacing it with a brand new one. I have gone on record with just such a proposal. This is because, I believe it is the only credible option as opposed to the haphazard amendments or alterations which we have adopted so far, which  – in my view – is little more than cosmetic patchwork, with respect. The present Constitution is simply fundamentally flawed, as it was handed down by military diktat, instead of evolving from the sovereign will of the Nigerian people. We ought to be allowed to produce a brand-new Constitution through our elected representatives in the National Assembly, as this is the only way of truly reflecting our sovereignty, independence, and an expression of the popular will. It is the essence of democracy.

For obvious reason, when such a Constitution emerges, it will be the strongest and most durable and effective bridge of all. This is because it will reflect the myriad of our hopes and aspirations.  Short of that, however, I believe the next best thing would be to amend the Fundamental Objectives and Directive Principles of State Policy contained in Chapter 2 of the present Constitution, to make its provisions justiciable – as opposed to the present situation, where they are not. Those provisions are far-reaching, as they comprise Political Objectives, Economic Objectives, Social Objectives, Educational Objectives, Foreign Policy Objectives, Environmental Objectives, National Ethics, Duties of the Citizen, Obligations of the Mass Media, Foreign Policy Objectives, the Government and the People and the Fundamental Obligations of the Government.

THE NIGRERIAN EXPERIMENT WITH CONSTITUTIONAL DEMOCRACY

THE COLONIAL ERA

Nigeria’s Constitutional history can be broken into two main eras: the colonial and the post-independence eras. The colonial era commenced from 1914 when the colony and protectorate of southern Nigeria was merged with the protectorate of Northern Nigeria and ended in 1960 at independence.

COLONIAL CONSTITUTIONS

During this period, Constitution making was carried out by the colonial power acting by and through the British officials in Africa. In this era, we had the Clifford Constitution of 1922; the Arthur Richard Constitution of 1946; the McPherson Constitution of 1951; and the Federal Constitution (otherwise known as the Littleton Constitution) of 1954. That was before Independence in 1960. We then had the 1960 independence Constitution and the1963 Republican Constitutions. None of the Constitutional arrangements during the colonial era, including the Independence Constitution of 1960, derived from the popular or sovereign will of the peoples of Nigeria.

In the words of Olu Ariwoola, J.S.C., as he held in the case of UGBA v. SUSWAM (2014) All FWLR (Pt. 748) Page 825 @ 863, “The Constitution is the heart and soul of the people. That explains why the Constitution commences (with the word) ‘We the people…’ all provisions in the Constitution were put in by the accredited representatives of the people.”

Many Nigerians including most of the erudite constitutional law lawyers have expressed serious reservation about the process leading to the making of the 1999 Constitution and the resultant lack of popular acceptability occasioned by the process of its making. Again, Chief Rotimi Williams, SAN, a foremost Constitutional Law Lawyer described the 1999 Constitution as a “document that tells lie against itself.” Professor Itse Sagay, SAN, categorically described the Constitution as a “fraud.” The erudite constitutional law lawyer and a foremost Professor of Law, Professor Ben Nwabueze, SAN, described the Constitution as an “illogicality”. That the 1999 Constitution is a “Unitary Constitution for a Federal System of Government.”

The Constitution was described as a fraud and a document that lies against itself at a seminar on the new Constitution organized by the Nigerian Bar Association, Ikeja Branch, on the 18th of June, 2009, because the Constitution purportedly stated in its opening recital that “We the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria having firmly and solemnly resolved… do hereby make, enact and give to ourselves the following Constitution.” Since the enactment of the 1999 Constitution, these pertinent questions have been asked repeatedly,

1. “where and when did that resolution take place’’?
2. “How did the people of the Federal Republic of Nigeria arrive at that firm and solid resolution purportedly expressed in the recital to the 1999 Constitution.

It is worthy of note that since the 1999 Constitution came into force, attempts have been made by previous administrations to remedy the situation. Two national (Constitutional) conferences have at different times been held unsuccessfully. The first was by the Obasanjo administration in 2005 tagged the National Political Reform Conference; and the second was by the Jonathan administration in 2014, simply known as the 2014 National Conference. I was a participant at both Conferences, including the Vision 2009 Conference. Attempts have also been made (and continue to be made) to amend the Constitution. Some of the amendments were successful and some unsuccessful. In 2017 alone, 32 new amendments to the Constitution were proposed by the Senate. Only 5 succeeded at the end of the day. Till date, there are still various Bills pending before the National Assembly for amendment to different provisions of the Constitution.

THE DIRE NEED FOR A NEW CONSTITUTION

Nigeria needs a new people-driven Constitution. It is not rocket sign. It has been done before.

COUNTRIES THAT SUBJECTED THEIR NEW CONSTITUTIONS TO CITIZENS’ REFERENDUM TO GAIN THEIR PEOPLE’S LEGITIMACY AND CREDIBILITY

IRAQ: The first Monarchial Constitution of the Republic of Iraq came into force in 1925 and existed till the 1958 Revolution which established a Republic. The current Constitution was adopted on September 18, 2005, by the Transitional National Assembly of Iraq, and confirmed by a constitutional referendum, held on October 15, 2005.It was published on December 28, 2005, in the Official Gazette of Iraq (No. 4012), in Arabic original, and thus came into force.

KENYA: There were three versions of the Kenya Constitution; with the most recent being the 2010 redraft. This replaced the 1963 Independence Constitution. This version of 2010 was presented to the Attorney-General of Kenya on 7^th April, 2010, officially published on 6^th May, 2010, and was subjected to Referendum of the Kenya people on 4^th August, 2010. It was voted for and approved by 67% of Kenya citizens. It was then promulgated on 27^th August, 2010.

ERITREA: The Eritrea’s Proclamation 55/1994 established a Constitutional Commission which organized popular participation in the process of a new Constitution. The Commission members and more than four hundred specially trained teachers instructed the public on constitutional issues and related political and social questions using local vernaculars. The process took three years to solicit the views of a broad cross section of Eritreans. The participation of a majority of Eritreans gave the people a “sense of ownership of the Constitution”.

SOUTH AFRICA: After the elections of 1994, the new Parliament – working as the Constitutional Assembly (CA) – began writing the final Constitution of South Africa. On May 8, 1996, the Constitutional Assembly completed two years of work on a draft of a final Constitution, replaced the interim Constitution of 1993 by the year 1999. The objective to submit the draft to the Constitution court was to ensure that the final Constitution was legitimate, credible and accepted by all South Africans. The process of drafting involved many South Africans in the largest public participation programme ever carried out. Nearly two years later, representatives of political parties negotiated the formulations contained in the final draft and ignited an integration of ideas from ordinary citizens, civil society and political parties represented in and outside of the Constitutional Assembly. The Constitution therefore represents the collective wisdom and will of the South African people because it was arrived at by general agreement and consent of all South Africans.

IRAN: A proposed new Constitution which would make Iran an Islamic Republic, introduce direct elections for the presidency, create a unicameral parliament and require any constitutional changes to go a referendum was proposed by the Iranian Government. To bring this about, a constitutional referendum was held in Iran on 2^ndand 3^rd December, 1979. The new Islamic constitution was approved by 99.5% of voters at the Referendum.

BANGLADESH: A constitutional referendum was held in Bangladesh on 15^th September, 1991. Voters were asked “Should or not the President assent to the Constitution (Twelfth Amendment) Bill, 1991 of the People’s Republic of Bangladesh?” The amendments altered the existing Constitution and reintroduced of Parliamentary system of government. It also abolished the position of Vice-President and provided that the President be elected by Parliament. 83.6% of Bangladeshis voted in the referendum, with a turnout of 35.2%.

MOROCCO: A referendum on constitutional reforms was held in Morocco on 1^st July, 2011. It was called in response to a series of protests that spread across Morocco which had begun on 20^th February, 2011, when over ten thousand Moroccans took to the streets in massive demonstrations demanding democratic reforms. A Commission was set up to draft proposals by June, 2011. A draft was released on 17^th June, 2011, which brought about fundamental changes upon people’s referendum.

EGYPT: In October, 2012, the Egyptian Constituent Assembly announced that its first draft of a new Constitution and launched a public awareness campaign called “Know your Constitution”, to educate the public.  On November 29, 2012, the Egyptian Constituent Assembly of finalized the drafting process of a new Egyptian Constitution.  One week later, on December 8, 2012, Egyptian President Mohamed Morsi issued a new constitutional declaration announcing that the constitutional draft would be voted on in a national referendum. In accordance with article 60 of the Transitional Constitutional Declaration of March 2011, a special Judicial Commission was formed to supervise the referendum process and monitor vote counting.  The referendum took place in two rounds on two different dates: December 15 and 22, 2012.  The majority of Egyptians thus voted in favour of the newly drafted Constitution in a popular National Referendum, a Constitution that brought about profound reforms.

TUNISIA: Tunisia’s first modern Constitution was the fundamental pact of 1857. This was followed by the Constitution of 1861, which was replaced in 1956, after the departure of French administrators in 1956. It was adopted on 1^st June, 1959 and amended in 1999 and 2002, after the Tunisian Constitutional Referendum of 2002. Following the revolution and months of protests, a Constituent Assembly drafted a new Constitution in 2014, adopted on 26^th January, 2014 after a referendum.

THE AMERICAN EXPERIENCE OF A PEOPLE’S CONSTITUTION

As a great contrast to the 1999 Nigerian experience, when America became independent from Britain in 1776, it held a Constitutional Convention under the leadership of George Washington, between May 14 and September 17, 1776, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 55 delegates represented the autonomous Confederates, with a view to creating a “more perfect union”. Broad outlines of a new union were proposed and hotly debated. This was how the American people achieved a federal system of Government, separation of powers among three branches of Government (Legislative, Executive and Judicial); bicameral, legislature; an Executive presidency; and Judicial Review. The Constitutional draft was signed by 39 of the 55 delegates on September 17, 1787; and thereafter released to the States and the American people to debate and ratify. It was this people’s Constitution that threw up great founders, such as George Washington (first president); Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and John Jay (the Federalists), Thomas Jefferson, etc.

The 1999 Constitutions lacks these. It is not autochthonous or indigenous Being imposed, it worsened the unitary nature of government, and concentrated enormous powers at the centre. While the 1979 Constitution had 67 items on the exclusive legislative list, and 12 items on the concurrent list, the 1999 Constitution increase this to 68 on the exclusive list, but retained only 12 items on the concurrent list. This indicates an unacceptable unbearably strong centre and very weak federating units.

CONCLUSION

The crux of the matter which is at the heart of the National Debate or the National Question is what sort of bridges do we need to build in order to surmount the different barriers which confront us as a nation? To the extent that those barriers are characterised as challenges, to what extent can those bridges enable us to overcome those challenges? We shall presently attempt a few answers.

BRIDGE-BUILDING AS A SOLUTION TO SECURITY CHALLENGES.

Peace-building, an aspect of Bridge-building, has been defined as “a process intended to resolve current conflicts and prevent future conflicts by addressing the causes of the problem and building a comprehensive strategy to encourage lasting peace”. The following have been identified as key to this strategy:

• Recognizing the burdens of long-term violence;
• Eliciting plans from locals;
• Conflict transformation;
• Insider-outsider links;
• Dealing with spoilers:
• Identifying obstacles to strategic peace building
• Elicit, evaluate, elicit, evaluate . . .

The foregoing factors are complimented by the following, which, in the opinion of International Alert contribute to achieving what it describes as ‘positive peace’, namely:

• Everyone lives in safety without fear or threat of violence, and no form of violence is tolerated in law or in practice.
• Everyone is equal before the law, the systems for justice are trusted, and fair and effective laws protect peoples’ rights.
• Everyone is able to participate in shaping political decisions and the government is accountable to the people.
• Everyone has fair and equal access to the basic needs for their well-being – such as food, clean water, shelter, education, healthcare, and a decent living environment.
• Everyone has equal opportunity to work and make a living, regardless of gender, ethnicity, or any other aspect of identity.

In the opinion of International Alert, these strategies “ultimately work to ensure that people are safe from harm, have access to law and justice, are included in the political decisions that affect them, have access to better economic opportunities, and enjoy better livelihoods”.  The organisation suggests the following ways in which these goals  can be achieved, viz:

• Bringing different groups together to build trust and promote reconciliation.
• Engaging in various forms of diplomacy and support for formal peace processes.
• Strengthening democracy and inclusive politics (e.g., inclusion of marginalized groups active citizenship initiatives, etc);
• Improving justice systems (e.g.  anti-competition activities, constitutional reforms, access to justice initiatives, truth commissions, etc);
• Working to improve community security and shape the behaviour of security forces.
• Working together with business and trade to create sustainable jobs or improve employment practices;
• Improving infrastructure and urban and regional planning;
• Creating free and inclusive media;
• Making development programmes in conflict areas more sensitive to conflict dynamics so that they deliberately contribute to peace.”

The organization concludes that: “peace building is done collaboratively at local, national, regional, and international levels. Individuals, communities, civil society organisations, governments, regional bodies and the private sections all play a role in building peace. I couldn’t agree more. This is because their prescriptions are an excellent template which fits perfectly into the Nigerian situation. It can be seen that peace building is an al- embracing, all- encompassing concept, whose components include every possible strand of the challenges which presently confront us, and which are likely to remain with us unless the appropriate strategies are deployed to tackle them.

In this regard (at the risk of digressing), it appears that the well-known concept of ‘soft power’ is actually another means of describing ‘bridge building’. Both mean essentially the same thing, as they de-emphasise confrontation and aggressiveness as deliberate strategies for resolving challenges. Even though ‘soft power’ is usually associated with international relations, I believe that its central theme is equally applicable within local, communal, and national levels, in resolving conflicts or averting them: in other words, in building bridges or peace building.

The unity, development and peaceful co-existence of Nigeria as a country are currently imperial. Our diversities in area of culture language, tribe, and religion, must be seen by all as a Dolly Parton’s Coat of Many Colours, blessing and not a curse, because variety they say, is the spice of life. Concerted effort must be put in place by formulation of policies and reforms that would help promote national integration and peaceful co-existence. However, one of the strategies that must be pursued to ensure a far-reaching national integration and peaceful co-existence are to create a meeting point that would ensure and enhance integration between one ethnic national or tribe and another. One of the ways by which this noble idea can be achieved is by putting up a strong advocacy and support for inter-tribal and inter-religious marriage.

HOW TO BUILD THESE BRIDGES FOR A NEW NIGERIA?

1. Purposeful and deliberate leadership.

The first step to getting things right is by electing someone that is detribalized: someone well-read and that has the capacity to manage diversity and in fostering kinship among variegated people. Nation building cannot be left to chance or to the whim of anyone. There must be purposive plans and actions towards uniting the people. We cannot ignore the importance of unity, especially at this time. For Nigeria, it has remained a pipe dream and an elusive quest. We long for it, or rather argue about it, but we haven’t actually put any effort into tearing down the walls of race and religion. Leadership goes beyond words. It is about carrying everyone along regardless of our religious/tribal differences. Political, leaders and religious leaders must do the difficult work of educating their followers about the need to live together. It is the elites, leaders that will do the onerous job of ensuring unity in our communities.

The United States of America we all want to go to have purposeful leaders. That is why things always work for them. The country is built in such a way that any person (a migrant inclusive) can become a president. We saw that in the life of Barak Obama. Though it is a capitalist state, every American knows that in moments of difficulties, his nation will come to his or her aid. So, leadership is not about occupying an office. It is about providing or building institutions that can cater for everyone, irrespective of their differences. It is about affecting lives. On the contrary, most of the past leaders in Nigeria have made our lives worse for Nigerians than it was before they got to the seat of power. We are retrogressing and if we do not change, we might have a failed state.

2. Respect for Human Rights and the Rule of Law

Without Human Rights, and the Rule of Law being respected, no Nation can grow or develop. No international investor can come to do business in Nigeria. Such a country is doomed.

3. We must stop burning bridges

Since the start of the current democratic era, the Igbo in the South East have been alleging marginalization, particularly in relation to the country’s leadership. However, we cannot blame this current administration alone given the fact that when Buhari chose his running mate twice from the South-East, in his bid to be the president of Nigeria, the South-East people still voted massively against him. And even after Buhari became the president in 2015, the people of the South-East continued to distance themselves from him. In view of this, it has been submitted in some quarters that the Igbos do not know how to build bridges. In the just concluded Presidential Election, the Igbos rejected APC and PDP massively. In other geopolitical zones, these parties got at least one state. The implication of this is that if either of these political parties gets hold of the seat of power, the Igbos have virtually nothing connecting them to the Federal Government.

4. IGBOS can be President.

After the short stint of General J.T.U. Aguiyi Ironsi as Military Head of State between 16^th January, 1966, and 29^th July, 1966 when he was assassinated in the counter coup led by Major Murtala Mohammed, no Igbo man or woman has been found worthy of being president of Nigeria. The nearest was Dr Alex Ekwueme being Vice President to President Shehu Shagari between 1979 and 1983. Why can’t the Igbo man or woman become president? We must all work on this major challenge assiduously.

5. The place for followership.

There cannot be purposeful leadership without purposeful followership. Nigerians from all social strata must participate in unifying Nigeria. In actuality, it is a blatant pursuit of illusion to believe that any one leader can bring Nigerians together without the equal contributions of the general populace. A detribalized leader alone without a detribalized followership cannot effect any change in our polity. The change we want begins with us. If we let go of everything that divides us and embrace unity, Nigeria will become a better place to live.

6. Implementation of the Federal Character Principle.

The Federal Character Principle enshrined in sections 14 and 15 of the 1999 Constitution has been honoured more in breach than in observance. Where is the place of the Igbos in the present Government? I do not know. Or, do you?

7. Tolerance and acceptance.

Another way of building-bridges is by practicing a culture of tolerance, and acceptance of people of all cultures and creeds. There is unity to be found even in the face of many differences. We don’t need to always agree with each other to live together. Rather we can and should tolerate the existence of those we disagree with. The challenge we have in Nigeria is that we have not accepted our uniqueness. Living together should not be seen as a competition or a desire to dominate others. We must deliberately maintain and cultivate peace, unity, good neighbourliness. Our diversity is a thing of beauty – Dolly Parton’s “Coat of Many Colours”.

8. The Facilitators

In this call to arms, none is excluded. However, as ever, the decisive actors (those who can make a difference) that instigate our strategy are officialdom – at all levels: executive legislative and judicial. Equally critical, however, are semi-official actors such as the NYSC, National Peace Committee, the National Human Rights Commission, the Legal Aid Council, National Council on Women’s Societies, National youth Council and the Nigerian Council on Inter-Religious Affairs, etc. All must be on-boarded to sensitize their constituents to the imperative of regarding themselves first as Nigerians before anything else. We should not recognize that bond only when our male senior National Soccer team is playing.

9. Fairness, Equity, Social Justice

Without fairness, equity, egalitarianism, and good conscience, Nigeria cannot move forward. She will continue to suffer the fate of Barbers Chair of Perpetual Motion on its axis, but without progress.

FINAL WORD

We must rejig and reengineer our weak fabric of a tottering, wobbling, groggy, dawdling, fumbling and crumbling country. Like Naaman the leper,   we must dip ourselves 7 times in the political, social, and economic River Jordan. The alternative is to separate peacefully.

Being Founders’ Day Lecture delivered at the Western Delta University, Oghara, Delta state on April 29, 2023.

Introduction

“You campaign in poetry and govern in prose” — Mario Cuomo

“It is easier to run for office than to run the office” — Tip O’Neill

“It is not the critic who counts, not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again; who spends himself in a worthy cause, who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.” –Theodore Roosevelt

“What is good governance? Who determines what is good and bad governance? What yardsticks are applied?” – – Issa Shivji

It is always a matter of utmost pleasure for me to be on a university campus to interact with scholars, students and administrators. It’s even more delightful that I’m doing so at the 15th Founders’ Day Ceremony of a university whose mission is “to produce men and women with intellectual, professional and technological capabilities who can apply their knowledge and skills to the resolution of national and international challenges”. This is credit to the Visitor Chief James Onanefe Ibori and the Urhobo Advancement scholars led by Professor GO Onerkhoraye and Professor GH Sarah who worked hard with him to establish this impressive institution and have continued to nurture the dream of “safeguarding knowledge for human advancement” since 2007.

When the pro chancellor of the university, Professor Eghosa Osaghae approached me to give this lecture, he said I was at liberty to speak on any topic of my choice. A number of topics ran through my mind as I set about the assignment at hand. First, I wanted to speak about the idea and ideals of the university in the Nigerian context as we grapple with what to do with the management of tertiary education. But I jettisoned the idea because I had done this at a lecture at the Osun State University a few years ago. On another level, I thought it might be best to focus on a topic that counsels young graduates going to the world out there. I wasn’t quite convinced that would appeal to my audience here, since this is the Founders’ Day lecture, not the convocation lecture. I even considered reflecting on our recent electoral journey, but I felt it was better to eschew anything that might hint of partisanship in an academic environment. I then decided to settle for a reflection on my experience of governing at the sub-national level having just left office barely six months ago. Besides, you never know who in this audience is going to be involved in politics and public policy management anytime soon.

Besides, management has been a challenge for us at all levels in our country and there are too many assumptions even in the academic environment about what happens in the states and in our local governments. Indeed, from the outside, people in government often look omniscient, omnipotent and all powerful. On the inside though, they often feel helpless, stretched beyond breaking point by the weight of expectations on the one hand and the sheer complexity and difficulty of meeting them on the other.

When running for office as the opening quotations attest, contestants always claim to know better than the person in the saddle. In fact, as a contestant, you are allowed, if not expected, to speak grandly about your vision and how you can turn things around overnight if voted into office. More often than not, no one asks you for evidence or challenge you to justify the many claims that you make on the campaign trail. However, if you are fortunate to win the election, that’s when the rubber meets the road. You would soon discover that governing is about finding real solutions to real problems that affect real people who expect you to solve all their problems every single day. That’s when the poetry and rhetoric of campaign shows give way to the tedious prose of heavy lifting work that people don’t see and therefore would not be on hand to clap for you. That’s when you find that your good intentions are not enough. People want results, and they want it with the urgency of now.

Preparation for public office

The tenure of an elected governor is four years. However, in reality the actual functional years hardly add up to two and a half years. That is why elected officials are often advised to hit the ground running. Whether you would be able to do these or not, would depend on how much efforts and time you have devoted to developing your own policy agenda. In my experience, some chief executives do come to office without a development agenda. Some only start to fish around for ideas after getting into office, while others just simply muddle through on a day-by-day basis. Almost all come to office with some kind of campaign manifesto. But these are hardly more than marketing tools. What eventually informs your action plan are derivations from the manifesto which has been taken through the mills of actual stakeholders and is a product of broad and deep consultation.

They are multi-year plans that have been fully-costed in the light of your financial realities. While the manifesto tells the people what you plan to do in broad terms, this action plan tells you and everyone in your team, not only what you want to do, but also how you want to do it, including the time lines for delivery.

In times past, it used to be the case that political parties had a common manifesto which stands as the political agenda of the party and the general principles of governance for all the candidates elected on the party’s platform. That’s when the parties were strong and process driven. In the Second Republic we had UPN with its free education, and NPN with its mass housing, etc. The Action Congress (AC) on whose ticket I ran for office was an offshoot of the Alliance for Democracy (AD), which could also trace its ancestry back to the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) of the Second Republic and all the way back to the Action Group (AG) of the First Republic. The AC, embraced a more grassroots model of economic development that promised dignified employment and a decent wage, good social services and social safety nets, modern functional education that provides marketable labour skills; increased agricultural output, revival of moribund industries, promotion of knowledge economy and provision of modern infrastructure.

My 2006 campaign manifesto document (Making Poverty History: Roadmap to Ekiti Recovery – The Eight Point Agenda) was anchored on the national manifesto of ACN in the specific context of Ekiti state and its local realities. In it, I highlighted in great detail what we were going to do in office in the areas of functional education and human capital development, modernising agriculture, improving healthcare, infrastructure and industrial development, promoting arts, culture and tourism development, gender equality and women empowerment.

I must admit that in preparing for office, I had a unique opportunity. The three and a half years that we spent in court gave us time to fine tune the various aspects of the manifesto. Through our elected representatives in the hung parliament (the 2007 parliament in Ekiti was 13 members for us and 13 for PDP in the 26-member parliament), we appointed a shadow team that produced annual budget which later formed the fulcrum of our budgeting when eventually we got in the saddle.

For those three years (2008 – 2010), we published alternative annual budgets to coincide with the release of the official state budget, basically to highlight our differing priorities and demonstrate to the people the difference between our people-oriented approach of doing development with the people and the government’s top-down approach of doing development for the people. This approach also became the hallmark of our budgeting process in the eight years we spent in office. I can say that this participatory governance approach is not only good for democracy and good governance, it is also good for politics. It makes it easy for the people, especially the critical stakeholders to own government policies and actions, and to volunteer as vanguard of change and on behalf of government. As a result of this approach, there’s hardly any community in Ekiti in my eight years in office where we did not implement physical projects suggested by the community and jointly executed with them. By the time we eventually won in courts and got inaugurated barely twenty-four hours after the court pronouncement, I already had a sense of specific steps to take in the eight areas of focus. We had a 100-day plan fully costed and a draft revised budget. We were indeed ready to hit the ground running

Let me say at this point that one of the important challenges that every governor would face early on is that of making key appointments. Apart from the challenges of ethnic or regional and religious balancing, you also have political IOUs to settle. Every governor would have to strike the right balance between appointing core politicians who had been involved in the long and torturous political struggle that brought the governor to office and the technocrats who will be required to undertake specific assignments for the smooth running of the government. While the local political context would determine what the right balance is, this is something every new governor must always be mindful of. But it would always be helpful if you understand what your key priorities are. This will help you to understand those appointments you can play politics with and those you have to assign to the best possible hands. The balance is that you cannot take all away from politics, and you cannot give all to politics. However, a key lesson from my own experience is that whether one is a technocrat in government or a core politician, all political appointees must be strongly connected to their communities.

I have argued here that you cannot get away with not having a clearly defined plan that articulates your priorities based on wide consultations. I will add immediately that governance is a process. It must therefore be dynamic enough to respond to new information and new knowledge that you would encounter in the course of implementation and as you deepen your interaction with the people; or even to a force majeure like the coronavirus pandemic which took almost two years out of the tenure of the governors of that period. The dictum therefore – for every new governor should be: Be prepared, but also be flexible!

Funding the vision and mission

One major challenge that every elected governor encounters is how to quickly mobilise adequate resources to accomplish the promises made to the electorate. The temptation is to mount an inquisition into what transpired on the watch of the immediate past governor. Whilst it is eminently sensible to review state finances if only to gain necessary understanding and ensure accountability, it usually ends up in arguments of “you be thief, I no be thief”. If you are not careful, you could spend your entire tenure chasing shadows instead of recovering any money that you thought could help with your projects. As most governors have discovered in office, it’s a distraction that one could ill afford. As chairman of the Governors Forum, I spent quite a bit of time interceding between new and immediate past governors on issues relating to financial accountability. My position is that it is always better for the incumbent to draw a line in the sand and just move on. Apart from the fact that such inquisitions hardly yield much fruits, it unnecessarily overheats the system and keep the outgoing governor alive in the consciousness of the public. If you bear in mind that no matter how bad he must have been, he must have his own supporters and people who were with him. Most importantly, he does not have a job. He can therefore afford to be the devil’s workshop. You cannot. He has all the time in the world. You don’t.

Given the sudden recovery of my mandate in October 2010 and the unplanned exit of my predecessor from office, a quick review of state finances revealed a state in severe financial crisis with many ongoing infrastructure projects unpaid for and contractors turning up with backlog of certificates. Meanwhile we had arrived, armed with our own ambitious programme contained in our own Roadmap to Ekiti Recovery, with emphasis on several social investment programmes like free education up to senior secondary school, free health programme for the vulnerable segments of the population, social security for the elderly, expanded infrastructural development and modernisation of the agricultural sector. We therefore needed a serious financial engineering to rescue the state.

There are three major ways you make money in government: You make, beg or borrow. What you make from your IGR and investment holdings is what you make. Your receipts from federation account and what you may get as grants from international development agencies are unearned incomes, which I classify as begging. Then the loans you are able to obtain are your borrowings. In all categories, Ekiti at the time I took over was in dire straits. This was the time that oil price had dipped in the international market leading to a significant reduction in oil revenue to the federation account. I must also add that, in any case, Ekiti is at the bottom of the States’ federation receipts ladder even in the best of time. Moreso, the internally generated revenue in Ekiti was nothing to write home about at an average of N109 million per month. And to make matters worse, it was also a period of agitation for increased minimum wage by the trade unions and there was little or no support from bi-lateral and multi-lateral development agencies to Ekiti State. Indeed, the situation was so desperate as we usually had nothing left after we had paid out workers’ monthly wages and operational costs.

Given this rather parlous context, we had to think outside the box. We started by intensifying our engagements with development partners and approached the financial market for a bond. Having been instrumental to securing the support of the UKAiD Governance programme for Ekiti State under Governor Adebayo as well as my own extensive involvement with the development sector in Nigeria, we started to re-engage many of the development partners who responded positively to the agenda we shared with them. The fact that we had a plan in place was a critical success factor in those missions. We got the World Bank to support our Education and Health programmes, including the support of our rural teachers allowance and our core subject allowance which were packaged as incentives to teachers willing to serve in hard to reach places and those teaching core subjects. We also successfully secured support from the World Bank and the European Union for a comprehensive urban water rehabilitation programme which upgraded our major water dams in the State and at the same time reconstructed water pipelines across the state.

We also secured a N25billion infrastructure bond that was spent on a comprehensive road rehabilitation programme, the Ikogosi Tourist Centre, the resuscitation of the Ire Clay factory, construction of the Government House, Obafemi Awolowo Civic Centre, the Ekiti Pavilion, the Markets and the Liaison Office in Lagos. Also, by 2014, we had successfully increased the IGR to N600m from the paltry N109m when we came into office in 2010. By the end of my second tenure in office in 2022, our IGR had hit an average of N1 billion per month.

The point here is that your plans are only as good as the resources you are able to mobilise to fund them. It is good to be ambitious, but it is also sensible to be realistic. No government can have all the money that is required to work. However, with a little bit of creativity, drive and careful management, it is possible to mobilise enough resources to fund your agenda within a clearly defined scope. It is also worth pointing out that even with the best of plans, things may not turn out the way one had hoped. As a state in a federation that relies on allocation from the centre, the state’s economy would always be tied to the vagaries of Federation revenue which in turn is subject to the volatility of the international oil market. This is why the most financially sustainable of our states would be those whose development agenda is not entirely dependent on the allocation from the Federation Account.

Like a business, the state also has to continue to find new ways of reducing the cost of governance and also of plugging leakages. We refrained from sacking workers because of the obvious political and social cost. Instead, we left exits to natural attrition. By introducing a biometric integrated payroll system, we successfully eliminated the scourge of ghost workers and reduced waste in payroll management. This way we were even able to increase workers minimum wage three times in the course of my time in office – from N7, 500 per month in 2010 to N13,500 per month in 2012 to N18, 000 per month in 2014 to N30,000 per month in 2019.

By the time I returned to office in 2018, we had established a credible record with our development partners which helped the state to mobilise more resources and many partners who left the state during my predecessor’s tenure returned with their support. Some of these included support for our technical education programme – IDEA, the Adolescent Girls programme – AGILE, the Rural Access to Agricultural Markets Programme – RAAMP for our rural roads, the NEWMAP – Erosion Watershed Management Programme, NG-CARES programme – all from the World Bank and the Ekiti Knowledge Zone and Agricultural Processing Zone initiatives supported by the Africa Development Bank. The challenge of donor funding and development partnerships is the often inexplicable delays in project implementation. There were projects for which we secured support at the beginning of my second tenure in office which did not commence effectively till my departure from office. This is one reason why continuity of people with institutional memory of projects is key.

With regards to public private partnerships, we approached the Legislature immediately we came into office with a PPP law and set up a PPP office. We subscribed fully to factors critical to ease of doing business which culminated in the establishment of the Ekiti State Development and Investment Promotion Agency (EKDIPA). We were bullish in selling the state capacity and unique points to the market. We presented ourselves at the Nigeria Stock Exchange and attended several investment roadshows and declared Ekiti as ready for business. In no time, we began to attract interests in the state from the private sector and signed partnership agreements with Promasidor Industries to revive our moribund Ikun Dairy Farm with a $5million investment including the importation of 500 jersey cows and the production of 100,000 litres of milk on a monthly basis in Ekiti. Others like JMK Farms built a rice mill and Promise Point and Arog built cassava mills. Agbayewa Farms established presence by investing $10m in the Agriculture sector and recruited over 200 workers in the state. In the 2022 Ease of Doing Business ranking, the State had climbed up the ladder to the 14th place nationally and as the most attractive investment destination in the South West in terms of investment climate and enabling environment.

Equally, Ekiti gained the confidence of the financial market. Having paid off our first infrastructure bond of N25b taken during my first tenure, we were able to secure another infrastructure bond of N25billion which was exclusively utilized to fund the Agro-Cargo Airport project, the Independent Power Project, the Land GiS programme, the first phase of the Ado-Iyin-Aramoko-Itawure Dual carriage way and the Agriculture Land Management Programme.

Although the fiscal headroom for borrowing was significantly reduced by the time I left office, it would have been most difficult, if not outrightly impossible to have accomplished all that we did in Ekiti if we had not adopted this complex mix of financial strategies to fund capital projects that were most needed for the growth and development of the State. Contrary to the views held by ideological purists or genuinely ignorant observers, the choice for us was not between markets and government but the effective combination of the two. Otherwise, all we would have accomplished in office would have been just payment of salaries to workers that are not up to 10 percent of our state population without any infrastructural development to show for the entire tenure.

In spite of our best efforts, there were still funding gaps as a result of the fluctuations to Federation account finances and reduced prospects of internally generated revenue in the Covid pandemic period. Indeed, in my last year in office, the oil company – NNPC – contributed zero to the Federation Account thus further complicating the financial vulnerability of most states, which led many states to inevitably pile up debts as a result of the pandemic.

One of the steps put in place to address this challenge at the level of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum was the World Bank supported States’ Financial Transparency, Accountability Stabilization (SFTAS) Programme, which incentivised states for ensuring transparency and accountability in their finances. In addition, the Governors Forum was also able to negotiate the netting off of states debts to the Federal Government against outstanding receipts from the FG to states owed over the years. With this, states were able to gain more fiscal headroom to stabilize state finances and put incoming administrations on a much firmer footing. In this context, we also worked with the Debt Management Office to determine common ceiling for States so as to avert the difficulty of borrowing beyond the state’s capacity to pay.

One major area of concern for most states which requires a concerted effort by all states is in the management of pension obligations and gratuity payments which is constituting a significant cog in the finances of states. It is my hope that the Governors Forum will continue to pursue the development of a comprehensive package that will represent a one-off settlement of these obligations whilst also encouraging states that are yet to subscribe to Contributory Pension Scheme to do so with this one-off assistance. This could come in the form of promissory bonds. From the political and social development point of view, it is important that states are able to find sustainable solutions to the problems of pensions so that they are able to wipe the tears off the faces of people who have served selflessly who are now caught in poverty as a result of this pension problem.

In the end, one can argue that we didn’t completely eradicate poverty in the State, and no one could in the period of two terms in office; independently verifiable evidence however points to a state that has significantly reduced multidimensional poverty. By the time we were leaving, Ekiti ranked fifth out of 36 least affected states by multi-dimensional poverty in the NBS study on multidimensional poverty. Our strides in the field of education has been acknowledged as the state with the highest enrolment and lowest out-of-school children by UNICEF and UNDP. Not to mention the health indicators which continue to reflect effective and focused management of resources in the health sector.

To consolidate on these strides and stabilize plans for funding under subsequent administrations, we also embarked on producing a fully costed 30-year Ekiti State Development Plan (2021 – 2050). This gives all interested development partners a clear sense of the State’s priorities and where each partner – public or private – could come in to assist. This will assist the new Government with the latitude to phase its development efforts and the predictability to give confidence to a variety of private and public sector financing as well as development partners’ support.

From my experience, it is obvious that some Governors will more or less lay a new foundation for their State’s finances. Some would be fortunate to inherit something that had already started working well. Whatever the case, the yardstick for a competent governor will be measured not only by the ability to spend money sensibly, but also by the ability to make money for the state. States now have to think like a business. If we are able to develop a compelling and comprehensive plan that will prove attractive to development partners, private sector investors and intergovernmental entities, we don’t have to surrender to the limitations and dictatorship of the FAAC allocation.

The power of leadership as service and sacrifice

I have emphasised the need to have a plan. But even this can only be derived from a commitment or at least, a desire to make the difference and leave the state better than we met it. It is worth pointing out that best intentions are never enough. It is so easy to get caught up in the appearances, attending meetings, social events, playing politics and even pushing files. In the end, there would be little or nothing to show for it. It is however, difficult to imagine a governor with a clearly articulated plan of his own getting into office and surrendering to frivolities. As you would find, leadership is mostly a thankless job. But we asked for it. The sacrifice that one is required to make is so huge that it is only with a clear ethical perspective and a sense of duty to something bigger than yourself that you can wake up every single day willing and able to continue to push.

At the beginning, the sirens, the privileges, the superficial honorifics, the power, all the special attention that you get would make one look back and feel that the gruelling campaign had paid off. But believe me, all these would soon lose their attraction as they become a routine part of your life. In no time, you would find yourself wondering, “so, why am I here?”, “If I leave here today, what would I be remembered for, what would I show for having passed through here?” If you are able to anticipate this in advance, it would be much easier to focus on what really matters in the end. I often heard people say that someone has changed after gaining political power. In fact, the historian, Barbara Tuchman wondered why ordinarily intelligent people tend to behave in a manner contrary to common sense once they gain political power. My view is that if people come to the office with a burning desire to help, and wakes up every day asking, “how am I helping my people?” It would be difficult not to focus on what really matters.

To make a wholesome difference, leaders must place great store on capacity, competence, character and compassion and above all courage to act in the overall interest of the citizens at all times, even if it doesn’t earn one popularity prize. While one must learn the art of manoeuvring for political survival, it is important to understand that genuine leadership is not a popularity contest. Leadership is neither the office nor the title. Leadership is sacrifice. Leadership is opportunity. Leadership is privilege and service.

Take governance beyond partisanship: The civil service is critical

Public bureaucracy should in theory enable political leaders to deliver expected outcomes for citizens: in practice, they can become cogs in the wheel of progress. Wherever a government succeeds in significantly impacting the lives of its citizens, the success is often not only based on the quality of the vision of its political leadership but also on the quality of the service rendered by the bureaucrats that implemented the decisions. A good example of this is the Obafemi Awolowo led Western Region of Nigeria and its Simeon Adebo led civil service.

Upon assumption of duty as Governor in 2010, one of my first acts in office was to request the renowned public service expert, Professor Ladipo Adamolekun formerly of the World Bank to help review the Ekiti civil service and develop a civil service transformation plan. Professor Adamolekun developed a merit based civil service transformation strategy [CSTS] and played an active role in helping to recruit and assess its leadership and higher echelon throughout my two terms in office. The civil service transformation strategy had six key result areas namely, effective governance of the civil service, organisational efficiency and effectiveness, professional and result oriented civil servants, ethical and accountable workforce with a changed work culture, improved competence of civil servants as well as improved public financial management.

To provide a launch pad for our Roadmap to Ekiti Recovery, we embarked on a holistic reform of policy formulation and implementation in the State. To ensure prompt service delivery, we established the Office of Transformation, Strategy and Delivery (OTSD), with the aim of re-shaping our government functions, re-engineering its processes and systems in order to ensure implementation of government’s developmental programmes in a more effective and efficient manner. OTSD worked on tracking progress, reporting problems and assisting in solving them where necessary by bringing agencies working in silos to collaborate for results.

The office adopted an all-of-government approach that focussed on service delivery. It also endeavoured to remove bureaucratic barriers impeding policy implementation by undertaking quarterly assessments of MDAs in respect of their work plans and key performance indicators. We transformed the budget process by putting the people on the front burner of policy formulation. For the first time, the Governor on an annual basis started convening town hall and village square meetings before budget preparation to discuss the people’s needs with the people themselves. Budgetary outcomes throughout my time in office reflected mostly the outcomes of such conversations and formed the basis of the 30-year Development Plan my administration bequeathed to my successor in office. This is a radical departure from the usual top-down approach where government officials allocate resources to the citizenry without their input. Another initiative embedded in the budgeting system was the adoption of results-based budgeting methods as against the historical incremental approach. By this method, MDAs actually justified their revenue and expenditure proposals to ensure efficient allocation of public funds to priority sectors.

In all, in the area of governance, our goal was to enhance participatory governance and accountability, thus motivating the citizens with ideas for better productivity. In this regard, we took a number of crucial steps that new Governors may find replicable in their states. First, we established a regime of legislation to guarantee a predictable environment of good governance and promote transparency and accountability. We domesticated the Freedom of Information Law, making it possible for citizens to access unclassified government documents – the first state to do so in Nigeria. We also enacted the Fiscal Responsibility Act, Public Procurement Legislation, Public Private Partnership Law and a Gender Based Violence Prohibition Law among eighty new legislations in my two terms in office. For the first time too, we were able to replace the Edicts and Laws of the old Ondo State of which we were a part with the laws of Ekiti State.

Second, we adopted a merit-based system of appointment and promotion of civil servants, including at the highest levels of the state bureaucracy. The chief bureaucrats, including the Head of Service, Permanent Secretaries, and the Accountant General and Auditor General were all selected through an open, competitive process. In an environment hitherto dominated by patrimonialism and clientelism, this was a transformative step and it has led to the rejuvenation of the civil service, such that we now have civil servants who are capable of driving the people-focused policies and programmes of the government and also compete well in local and international programmes like the AIG Oxford Civil Service Reform programme. You can only ignore the Civil Service at your peril. However, be clear about what you want and insist on results, not effort.

Implement tough decisions early

Whether you want to or not, every Governor will be confronted with taking tough decisions in the course of being in office. A key lesson drawn from the Ekiti experience on my watch is the need to take necessary but difficult decisions and implement them early in order to manage the inevitable backlash that’s bound to accompany such decisions. In our determination to achieve accelerated development, our review of the state performance highlighted areas in which we were underperforming. For example, teacher quality in our basic education system was flagged as a problem and we decided to implement a Teachers Development Needs Assessment to identify specific gaps in individual teacher’s quality in order to address the problem. We also introduced a merit-based system for civil service appointments and promotions and at the same time emplaced an integrated biometric payroll system as against the erstwhile, manipulable manual payroll system – all in my first term in office.

The expectation was that the initial euphoria surrounding the popularity of our government will see such tough decisions through. We were wrong. The lesson is that we did not start early enough. Two, we underestimated the entrenched powers and principalities in each of the sectors in a state whose economy and politics are often heavily influenced by civil servants. This is a key factor that new Governors in a hurry to deliver public goods must pay attention to. Whilst I will still insist that the tough decisions are taken early, the value of sequencing must be taken to heart. Sequencing enables tough decisions to be taken but in a manner that is not totally disruptive of status quo ante in one fell swoop. Very careful study of the local terrain and its power map must be done before implementing polarising reforms. Every reform has gainers and losers. More often than not, the losers are more vocal and more disruptive. We must understand that the statusquo that we intend to uproot exist to service certain interests. We must expect that those vested interests would push back. We must therefore anticipate how they are likely to react, and prepare for it accordingly. More importantly, we must realistically evaluate our ability to push through such reforms, relative to the strength of the resisting party and measure the cost before we embark on such actions. It is also extremely important to control the communication. In our case, we allowed the teachers’ union to sell the narrative that our ultimate objective was to sack teachers and not to correct gaps and re-train the teachers. In situations that will lead to loss of jobs, the exit strategy must be seen to be compassionate in the range of options offered. We learned these lessons from the teachers’ experience and we applied them effectively when we successfully merged three existing universities in the state into the single Ekiti State University in spite of the resistance in some quarters.

Public communication is imperative

In 2014 when I lost my second term election in Ekiti State, there were many who cast the polls as a contest between an aloof intellectual consumed by the minutiae of governance and infrastructural development and a people-pleasing populist who showed that he was in tune with the masses. Our administration was said to be too bookish and too focussed on reversing the poverty trend in the state and thus easily upstaged by a charismatic challenger who understood the power of “stomach infrastructure” – a euphemism for immediate gratification over long term development. However, what has transpired in my home state since 2014 has further fortified my belief that cheap populism and opportunistic demagoguery do not represent what is best in us as a people and hold no potential for actualizing the hopes and dreams of millions of Nigerians. It is a lesson every Governor must take to heart. Populism or playing to the gallery may take you so far and buy you short-term popularity, but it will not guarantee enduring legacy, which you would crave so much after leaving office.

Yet it is easy to believe that when elections are won on dodgy propaganda, cheap populism and criminal brigandage, voters who bought into the sleight of hands might see the error of their ways and self-correction would therefore naturally follow. Unfortunately, when lies become the oxygen of politics and governance, it is often the ethos of politics and the institutions of governance that are largely diminished. Since the voters are supposedly always right, what this does, if care is not taken, is allow them to justify their errors on the simplistic notion that “all politicians are the same” or “this is politics.” Even where there is evidence to suggest otherwise, as was the case in Ekiti in 2014, there still persists a level of self-righteousness that fails to acknowledge these egregious errors of judgement.

While the voter on the one hand must accept culpability for being cast adrift in the ocean of lies, every public office holder must understand the place of constant public communication and not indulge in the mistaken belief that the average voter is so discerning to separate the wheat from the chaff or that your work will speak for you. Your work will not speak for you in this new age of social media. You must speak loudly about your work. Governors must learn how to control the message simply because what really happened is not as important as what people think happened. In short, while substance matters, symbols cannot be ignored. Perception is everything.

If the people, that is, the citizens, are the targets of public policies, then there must be constant mutual communication between the government and the people. Public Communication involves the articulation of public interest which is indispensable in a democratic polity. It is the means by which the citizens would hold their government accountable, and it’s the means by which the government would demonstrate its trust in the wisdom of the people in a democratic process. Governors need to carefully put together a Communications architecture that covers policy, governance, political and community engagement. This architecture needs to be managed by an experienced communications professional and not just someone who has a grasp of one aspect of the complex communications architecture. The situation in each state will vary according to the needs and priorities of each Governor but it is something to pay attention serious to.

State building is a continuum: Real and enduring change happens incrementally

Despite our best efforts over my two terms of eight years in office, we cannot claim to have solved all the problems. But the important point here is that we don’t need to. We don’t need to solve all problems or even solve a problem completely before we can lay claim to progress. Incremental change is sometimes as important, if not more important than revolutionary change. A tweak in one factor that is able to set a state on the right course, represents progress. Another tweak that is able to move it even one degree forward is also a vital progress. It is important for us to recognise this marginal progress so we don’t give in to despair and despondency that no matter what we do, nothing would change. Take education for example. Actual results take several years to manifest in the real accomplishment of the children and evidence would continue to be gathered on whether which particular action has yielded what particular outcome beyond the lifetime of an administration. However, a policy that is able to improve the ability of children to read more words per minute this year than they were able to read last year must be noted as remarkable achievement. This is why sustainability is so central to government at all levels.

On my exit from office, Ekiti had the highest enrolment per capita of school children and lowest out of school children’s rates in Nigeria, it continues to have one of the lowest child and maternal mortality rates, lowest HIV prevalence in the country and one of the highest life expectancies partly as a result of our social security benefit scheme – the first of its type in any State in Nigeria established in 2011. This is backed by law so as to ensure continuity. The only way to continue to improve on this incremental change is if policies and programmes that produced them are sustained. But we know that all these gains can be easily lost or reversed if efforts are not sustained beyond the life of our administration.

One of the critical innovations that we introduced in Ekiti which became the first of its kind in the country was the Transition Law enacted by our House of Assembly. The 2019 Transition Law outlines the specifics of the relationship between an outgoing and an incoming government. In addition, the law prohibits abandonment of projects started by the previous governments but which remain uncompleted by the time the new administration takes over. To strengthen the principle behind the law, I ensured that all physical projects started by my predecessors were completed by my administration. For me, it speaks to strong financial management to save the state’s resources this way. I am glad to report that the new Governor in the state has followed the same principle and has made it a priority to use his first year to complete uncompleted projects. With the 30-year Development Plan, it is also easy to see how continuity in the area of project completion also contributes significantly to the state’s overall development agenda.

The old aphorism comes to hand here: Success without succession ultimately amounts to failure.

Leading with legacy in mind: Success and succession

However noble our motives for going into politics, however accomplished we may be as administrators, one truth stands unimpeachable: no (wo) man is indispensable. We serve by the grace of God and at the pleasure of the electorate. We must lead with one eye on today and the other on the future. As political leaders, this involves mentoring young leaders to carry on from where we stop. This has not been a particularly strong point of leadership in our environment. Too often, we are suspicious of the young. We marginalise talented youth that we should be grooming, seeing them as threats, instead of nurturing them as successors. We are often afraid to retain aides with superior intellect and archaic, paternalistic attitudes still dominate our leadership models and have aborted countless opportunities for positive change and innovation.

Leadership is a continuum. And for our leadership to truly stand the test of time, it must be driven by a trans-generational perspective. We must cultivate and nurture those who will take our exertions for a better society to higher levels. We absolutely must mentor young people. Indeed, the litmus test for our success as leaders is not how many people we are leading but how many people we transform into leaders. In other words, how many people we are empowering to realise their own potential as leaders?

Each generation of leaders must stand on the shoulders of those who came before them. Whatever our successes as individual leaders, they are incomplete until we have prepared the grounds for succession. This is how positive leadership cultures are perpetuated. Too many promising states and organisations have expired or atrophied with their charismatic leaders or founders because they fail to mentor the next generation to carry the baton of leadership. Both in and out of office, one of my favourite pastimes is nurturing and mentoring young leaders. This is also what we have put into practice in Ekiti State. What we can learn from countries like Singapore and states like Lagos is that nation building is a trans-generational task. It is not about gifted individuals. The myth of the All-conquering strong leaders hardly endures in any setting if not embedded in values and institutions. It is about leadership traditions based on ideas and values shared across generations. This is what ensures that leadership is continuously refreshed and society is continually renewed. This is how to create a national success story that endures for ages. And the time to start is now, if you haven’t already started.

Conclusion

Having spent two terms in office as Governor and also from my time as Chairman of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum with a bird’s eye view of what goes on in all states, my belief in the need to take governance beyond partisan considerations is more reinforced. Given the general disillusionment with governance reform, our immediate challenge is to rescue our people from underdevelopment.

In short, the process of delivery is important to politics since democracy is threatened if politicians repeatedly make promises they don’t then deliver to the citizens. This is why Delivery or Execution Science or Implementation Studies should be treated with seriousness in our teaching and research institutions. This is a challenge I’m placing before this august assemblage of scholars and practitioners and I hope this university would pick up the gauntlet and establish a post graduate course on delivery.

In conclusion, it is clear that even when we bring government close to the people in the context of federalism, some of the challenges at the centre get easily replicated at the sub-national levels. The way to respond to the challenges in summary is: first, have a realistic plan based on wide consultations but be flexible. Two, think through how to mobilise resources to fund your promises to the electorate, three, figure out the “how” and don’t ignore your civil service as an implementation organ, four, own your communication and engage the electorate in all their forms regularly. five, don’t be frustrated by gradual improvement. Change in government is often incremental, not revolutionary. What makes change enduring is sustainability. Six, sustainability rests on seamless succession since governance is a continuum. As most leaders have discovered, the threat of reversal is real, hence every effort must be made to ensure continuity of tangible progress.

Mr Vice Chancellor sir, what I have discussed above though is not a manual on how to govern. Although, there are principles of governance and service delivery contained therein which apply generally, contexts do matter; and what works in one policy environment may not apply in another. What I have shared in my reflection is a broad account of my experience and what worked and what did not work for me and the lessons drawn there-from. I intend this only as a broad guide which can then be interpreted in the context of other environmental and political realities. It is important that scholars of public administration take this further from practitioners like me and illuminate the intellectual space with the sole purpose of running government well so that our citizens can benefit and, by extension, increase their trust in political leaders and government.

When people quit offices, it’s apposite that they reflect on their encounters, experiences of their tenures; the gains and pains, challenges and solutions that worked and those that failed while they held sway.

It is generally believed that such detailed accounts help the society in multi-dimensional ways and such authors appear more fulfilled not only with the achievements recorded in those offices, but because of the new insights they have provided which could be of immense help to those coming behind.

It is in that context I am convinced that former Managing Director of the Nigerian Ports Authority, Mrs. Hadiza Bala-Usman has essayed producing her new book, Stepping on Toes: My Odyssey at the Nigerian Ports Authority.

But before I return to this book, it’s content and the controversies it is expected to ignite, let me say that post-tenure publications are as old as publishing itself and that the world is not in short supply of books which leaders, popular and notorious, had blessed the coming generations with, in attempts to give their stewardships.

From The White House, the seat of power of the American governments, has emerged many of such books which are still relevant on the bookshelves all over the world.

You must have seen A Full Life: Reflections at 90 by Jimmy Carter; An American Life by Ronald Reagan; Memoirs: Years of Decision by Harry Truman; White House Years: Mandate for Change by Dwight Eisenhower; A Time to Heal by Gerald Ford; and much more recent ones such as Bill Clinton’s My Life; and A Promised Land by Barrack Obama.

Indeed, dutiful First Ladies have not been left out of the race to document for posterity, events that hallmarked their offices with one of the most recent being Michelle Obama’s The Light We Carry or The Downing Street Years by Margaret Thatcher and Dare Not Linger: The Presidential Years by Nelson Mandela?

In Nigeria, My Watch by former President Olusegun Obasanjo stands out as perhaps most revealing and (of course, infuriating for some) out-of-office memoir given the wide conflicts with many especially those who worked in or around his government after the release of the book.

Let us also not forget that out-of-office memoirs are always controversial with peppering accounts that leave some of the concerned dramatis personae at the receiving ends of damning revelations and claims. If you are in doubt, check how Obasanjo took his vice, Atiku Abubakar, to the pillory as a “shameless liar,” “a corrupt man,” and one who is not fit to hold public office in My Watch.

Till date, Obasanjo’s portrayal of Atiku has continued to hunt him till the very last presidential election where his alleged skeletons in Obasanjo’s presentation continued to be held against him.

Don’t forget that till date, Obasanjo’s allegations against one of the Nigerian civil war time Generals, Alabi Isama, have left the duo permanently embittered with no signs for reconciliation till they will both will submit themselves to their Creator.

Chief Bisi Akande, in his book, My Participations, had raised dust in no small volume when he descended on his estranged deputy, Iyiola Omisore, when he wrote that, “Iyiola Omisore crept into my life like a silent malignant cancer. He came in full force. In a few months, I thought I knew him. I regret I did not know him in his true colours.”

Akande’s book became much more stirring given the time of its release and coupled with the fact that few months after, both the author and Omisore would be at the same table pushing for the victory of the then Osun Governor, Alhaji Gboyega Oyetola and eventually that of President-Elect, Bola Tinubu. Many wondered how Akande would have felt, compelled to work with a man he had so viciously devoured with that one injuring phrase, a “malignant cancer.”

Now back to Hadiza Bala-Usman’s book. By her pedigree, the former NPA boss isn’t expected to be frivolous. She is believed to be well-homed in the radical creed of her father’s revolutionary fervour; a radical academic and historian who died a fighter for social justice and good governance.

Of course, the story out there was that Hadiza was booted out over NPA’s’s non-remittance of about N165bn operating surpluses into the Consolidated Revenue Fund Account of the federation. That sounded good alibi under an administration that claims to be fighting sleaze. But one would also have expected the investigations to have been much more thorough enough to end in a logical note for the rest of us to know where that money ended up.

But Hadiza claims in her book that the above was mere subterfuge to get rid of her by Amaechi as retaliation for her unyielding stance on some issues bordering on transparency and allied matters. That is what my boss and a leading columnist, Azubuike Ishiekwene has described as “stepping on the toes of a big man.”

Indeed, one of the aides of the former Minister even insinuated that the manuscripts of Hadiza’s book was still in the works and that the lines which made their ways into the newsrooms on Tuesday April 11, were haphazardly arranged to meet the particular target of boxing Amaechi in the face as part of the do-me-I-do-you edging and elbowing that are ongoing in the All Progressive Congress especially as party stalwarts gather for the all-important butchering and sharing of the big booty of the 2023 general elections.

And why would that surprise anyone following keenly the politricks of the APC gladiators as the party winds down President Muhammadu’s eight years tenure? Didn’t you hear Amaechi’s damning revelation when he said that the Independent National Electoral Commission Chairman, Prof Mahmood Yakubu, and the police had conspired against Nigerians and that Mahmood could not have been an unbiased umpire given the trajectory of his journey to becoming the boss of INEC.

But Hadiza Bala-Usman’s book and the hoopla it will, no doubt generate, are not the only intentions of this piece. It is to essay a guess into the shape of things to come post-Muhammadu Buhari administration given the deals, counter-deals and other under-the-table fixings that are sure to have gone on in the eight years of the administration.

For an administration that rode to office on the credibility of its head’s perceived transparency dossier, should Nigerians expect a post-Buhari era of scandalous revelations, sleazy things where appointees’ hands have been dirtied, with hair-splitting facts? We may be close to a time when damning documents would be released to the public in torrents to show that the anti-corruption mantra has been, after all, a mere facade.

I have been told that Amaechi has been advised by his lawyers not to respond to Hadiza until he sees the entire publication. It then means that what is to come from the accused either proves Hadiza to be a liar or confirms that Amaechi was on a mission, very ignoble.

Was it not an interesting coincidence that the controversial book hit the town the same week Nigerians were asking questions how 12 airport fire trucks were procured at the cost of N12bn? Those who have raised the alarm claimed that similar equipment is displayed for far lesser costs in some other places demanding why Nigeria’s own versions would be this astronomically prohibitive.

But in what appeared like whipping up sentiments rather than explaining the reasons for the cost, the Minister, Hadi Sirika, had launched into lamentations how the absence of such fire trucks was the reasons parents watched their children burn into ashes when the Sosoliso Airplane came down in Port Harcourt some years back. I think Mr. Sirika needs to face the issues of the figure and not remind us of the tragedy that claimed those angels in the ill-fated Sosoliso airline crash.

Will the post-Buhari era tell Nigerians the whole truth whether Sirika’s ministry’s hands were clean in the fire trucks deal? We wait!

Under some ministers, serving and former heads of parastatals have tales to tell and there are possibilities of such endless narratives once the supervising ministers are out of their current positions on May 29.

I am aware of a minister who unceremonious eased out the head of one of the agencies under his supervision over something like Hadiza’s claims in her book. Someday, that agency head who preferred to leave than submit himself to the alleged humiliating experience his minister-boss preferred would tell Nigerians what truly transpired.

As a matter of fact, I am aware that the said minister had made attempts to ‘use’ the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission and the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Offences Commission (ICPC) to hype some corruption allegations against the said agency head but realised his victim was read to open to the public and spill everything forcing the minister to beat a retreat.

For instance, what was the true story behind the removal of Damilola Ogunbiyi of the Rural Electrification Agency and Marilyn Amobi, of the Nigerian Bulk Electricity Trading Company by the Minister of Power, Mr. Sale Mamman?

Many of these removals were carried out without recourse to the Federal Government’s directive on modalities for sanctioning or removing heads of agencies by supervising ministers as laid down.

I recall vividly that the Federal Government had insulated appointees against such arbitrariness with a circular which was made public in 2020. Yet, some of the removals sailed through without consequences. Did President Buhari ask questions when some agency heads were yanked off?

With “Stepping on Toes” by Hadiza Bala-Usman, even in the twilight of the Buhari administration, she may have watered the grounds for the shape of revelations to come any time after May 29.

Okanlawon, communication and strategy advisor, is publisher of NPO Reports and can be reached on This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. while he tweets via @sokanlawon

Evidence of the scope of the mess created by Nigeria’s Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) under the crooked leadership of Mahmood Yakubu began to emerge this past week. It all suggests network egregiousness on a monumental scale that easily rivals the elections of 2007 until now seen as the nadir in Nigeria’s journey of elective governance. 

As the National Judicial Council (NJC) released the names of the 257 judges who will sit to consider and decide on elections petitions around the country beginning in May 2023, it emerged this past week that so far 1,044 petitions have been filed against results declared by the INEC in the 2023 elections. That is already more than 70% of the 1,490 seats contested and it appears that these are not the final numbers.

The relationship between election petitions and the acceptability of elections in Nigeria is one of direct proportionality. Candidates and parties who believe that the results reflect the will of the people are generally disinclined to continue the contest and more expenditure through the courts. Those who do not so believe re-litigate the contest through the courts. The numbers tell the story.

Some 1,299 petitions, representing about 86.35% of the seats contested in 2007 ended up before the courts, a fact that prompted The Economist to describe Nigeria as a “democracy by court order”. With a mere 10 months to prepare and deliver the 2011 elections, Professor Attahiru Jega whom President Goodluck Jonathan appointed in 2010 to replace the rampant Maurice Iwu at the leadership of INEC, cut the number of petitions by nearly 58% to 751 in 2011. In 2015, the last election conducted under Professor Jega, there were only 677 petitions or 45.4% of the seats on offer.

By contrast, with four years to deliver the 2019 elections, Professor Mahmood Yakubu managed to grow the number of petitions from the 677 he inherited in 2015 to 811 petitions or 54.4% of the contested seats. Four years later, the bottom has fallen off the system of electoral administration under his watch, with the proportion of petitions guaranteed to be much nearer where they were in 2007. Only a fool will believe that the judiciary can clean up this mess.

In many ways, the drama that accompanied the Adamawa State governorship elections embodies everything wrong with the INEC under the watch of Mahmood Yakubu. In that contest, the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), who goes under the appellation of “Barrister” Yunusa Hudu Ari, on 16 April and with full protection from senior officers of the Nigeria Police Force and allied security services, announced fake results without numbers and without authority, forcing an INEC hierarchy steeped in electoral scandal to make song and dance of disowning the declaration.

The antecedents to this development, as well as the aftermath, should detain us.

Like the Chairman of INEC, “Barrister” Hudu Ari is from Bauchi state; and like the INEC chairman, he came from a supply pipeline that appears to bear the fingerprints of the Attorney-General of the Federation. In his home state, Bauchi, Yunusa Ari had worked as a civil servant, before retiring as a permanent secretary. He also previously served as secretary to the Bauchi branch of the Nigerian Bar Association, NBA.

But these were not what qualified him to be appointed a REC. His claim to fame is that he was chummy with the Attorney-General of the Federation. According to Leadership Newspaper, “Yunusa was classmates with the minister of justice and attorney-general of the federation, Abubakar Malami”, and “the age-long relationship between Yunusa-Ari and Malami played a crucial role in his emergence as REC”.

Less than eight months before the 2023 elections, in July 2022, President Buhari transmitted Yunusa Ari’s name to the Senate for confirmation as one of a cohort of 19 REC nominees. His identification with the ruling party was well known. Far from disqualifying him as the applicable laws required, these credentials of partisan propinquity made his nomination all the more appealing, guaranteeing his confirmation. Now that the elections are over, INEC admits that many of these RECs nominated by Buhari in 2022 “were clearly partisan and, to make matters worse, some were deployed to states where they had sympathy for the ruling parties.”

After Yunusa Ari’s criminal announcement of a non-existent result, the INEC headquarters intervened purportedly to disown his conduct and summon him to Abuja. From the venue of the announcement, meanwhile, Yunusa Ari headed to the airport in Yola all the time under high-level police protection, where he boarded a private jet. He did not turn up in Abuja to answer the summons of his employers, however. Instead, the same employers went public to claim that he had vanished and they could not find him. The police, under whose protection he acted up to the point of vanishing, suddenly announced an investigation into what happened.

If this all sounds like coordinated institutional hyperventilation manufactured for a cover-up, it is because it probably is. The possibility that Yunusa Ari could have acted this script all by himself and without coordination with other agencies or with people higher up the political and institutional food chain is less than zero. It is equally impossible that he could have left Yola on a private jet that then vanished from the airspace. Air Traffic Control had to have cleared the flight and the manifest had to have been filed with the Civil Aviation Authority, all federal agencies. Bringing him to account would entail unmasking this command chain of complicity and conspiracy.

Hours after Yunusa Ari’s fake declaration, Aishatu Dahiru, the serving senator whom he sought to benefit in the Adamawa governorship contest, went to the federal high court in far away Abuja, asking it to affirm her as the winner of the election. She did this by way of an ex-parte application, essentially asking the court to decide this matter without hearing any of the other parties in the contest or the INEC whose REC purported to declare her the winner. The court invited her to show how it had jurisdiction over her claim. Rather than do that, her lawyers elected to ask the court for permission to discontinue the case. But, instead of granting her application, the court dismissed it.

While he is supposedly a fugitive, meanwhile, Yunusa Ari has apparently been busy firing off missives to the police, and the security services, and suing his employers. His address is presumably undisclosed and undiscoverable. The leadership of the Nigerian Bar Association, whose membership he advertises when he ostentatiously describes himself as a “Barrister”, has studiously averted its gaze from the peregrinations of this its infamous member despite the demand of many of its members for the Bar leadership to take steps to discipline him. Similarly, the Attorney-General of the Federation does not appear to have taken notice.

If they were to choose to, the leadership of the Bar, as well as the Attorney-General of the Federation, would have remembered that Rule 1 of the Rules of Professional Conduct in Nigeria’s Legal Profession precludes every lawyer from “any conduct which is unbecoming of a legal practitioner”.

In a country in which the richest lawyers make their billions from inventing technicalities to justify crooked election results, it is no surprise that those who lead the Bar are unwilling and unable to notice that announcing fake election results and disappearing thereafter into thin air is not something that should be associated with a lawyer, especially not one who claims to be a “barrister”. But then again, anyone who feels a need to be addressed as “barrister” is probably far from fit for purpose, anyway.

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