On August 27, 2015, that is four years ago, Nigeria lost Professor Adebowale Adefuye, one of our most dedicated public servants, a fiercely patriotic, loyal and hardworking diplomat and an accomplished academic who brought to every assignment such level of energy and panache that won him the admiration of all and sundry including his critics. At the time of his death, he had just completed his tour of duty to the United States as Nigeria’s Ambassador, having been recalled along with other ambassadors, by President Muhammadu Buhari. The general belief was that President Buhari was going to give him another assignment. Before he was asked to step down Adefuye had organized President Buhari’s first official visit to the United States as Nigerian President to much acclaim.  For him, that was characteristic. He was a result-oriented diplomat who knew how to surpass the expectations of his bosses with nothing but sterling performance. He could talk. He wrote well. He worked hard. He was media-savvy. And he understood global politics in an educated and intuitive manner. He was well-prepared for the high office that he occupied by his scholastic background (Ph.D in History, Professor of History) and his rich exposure and experience spanning over 40 years. 

Adefuye was appointed Nigeria’s Ambassador to the United States in 2010 by President Umaru Yar’Adua, following the recall of General Oluwole Rotimi over differences with Ojo Maduekwe as Minister of Foreign Affairs and the very controversial rejection of Professor Tunde Adeniran as ambassador-designate to the United States. Before then, Adefuye was Nigeria’s High Commissioner to Jamaica, with concurrent accreditation to Belize and Haiti (1987 – 1991), Deputy High Commissioner at the Nigerian High Commission in London (1991 – 1994), Deputy Director of Strategic Planning at the Commonwealth Office, UK (1994 -2008) and Special Advisor with the Economic Community of West African States – (ECOWAS), (2008-2010). Adefuye’s exceptional skills and previous accomplishments stood him in good stead in his role as Nigeria’s Ambassador to the United States. He was Ambassador to the US at a period of testy, often frosty and contradictory relationship between Nigeria and the United States. It was his job to promote better relations between Nigeria and the United States, to look after the interests of Nigerians in the United States and to defend Nigeria. When Barack Obama emerged as the 44^thPresident of the United States in 2009, many African diplomats had imagined that his tenure would mark a new era of golden relationship between Africa and the United States. This was understandable given President Obama’s African roots. But this did not quite work out for Nigeria’s benefit as expected. Nigeria’s relationship with the United States under President Obama was quite uneasy and tepid for all kinds of reasons. 

In 2009, a year before Adefuye was posted to the United States, the underwear bomber incident had occurred involving a 23-year old Nigerian, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, now in jail in the US. Abdumutallab confessed to working with the Al-Qaeda to detonate plastic explosives hidden in his underwear while on a Northwest Airlines flight to the United States on Christmas Day, 2009.  That wasn’t a very good moment for Nigeria and Nigerians. Nigerians were looked upon in the United States as potential terrorists, and Nigeria as a watering hole for terrorists. Nigeria was placed on the US terrorism watch list.  By the time Adefuye arrived as Ambassador to the United States, the situation had even become worse with the escalation of Boko Haram insurgency, back home in Nigeria. In August 2011, there was a tragic bomb attack on the United Nations building in Abuja resulting in the death of 21 persons. The international community was outraged. In November 2013, the United States designated Boko Haram a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Adefuye in the face of all this, spoke up for Nigeria. He understood the implications of Nigeria being branded an outpost of ISIS or Al-Qaeda: implications for investments in Nigeria, and the national brand and identity. He would soon become very well known in the US State Department and across policy and diplomatic circles in Washington DC. He arranged President Goodluck Jonathan’s first and subsequent meetings with President Obama. He was instrumental to the re-energization of the US-Nigeria Bilateral Commission. 

It would be correct to say that Adefuye threw his entire weight, energy and intellect into the work. He wrote newspaper articles to defend Nigeria and even published a newsletter. It was a tough time to be Nigerian Ambassador to the United States. But Adefuye would not give up. He was constantly in touch with his home base, sometimes I used to wonder if he was in possession of a transponder that brought him back and forth. He was in every sense a diplomat. He always had something nice to say. Nigeria was also his passion. But the more he tried, the more Nigeria had issues with the Obama administration. In 2014, the Chibok girls were abducted – 276 of them. This further affected the relationship between the US and Nigeria. The US accused Nigeria of negligence in prosecuting the war against the Boko Haram. Nigeria was also accused of human rights abuses in Baga, and for that reason the United States refused to support Nigeria as much as it should in fighting the terrorists. There was a lot of blame game between Nigeria and the United States. Adefuye defended his country. He accused the United States of not doing enough to support Nigeria’s war against terror. He would soon be labelled by the Americans as an aggressive, talkative and argumentative Nigerian diplomat, but that did not deter him from speaking his mind.  In the event of the Chibok girls’ crisis in 2014, for example, then US Republican Senator John McCain had publicly advised that the US military should invade Nigeria and free the girls without reference to “some guy named Goodluck Jonathan.” Adefuye went after McCain. He told him off and accused him of ignorance. This was not the first time he would take such a stance. In 2011, Ambassador John Campbell, now of the US Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and a prolific commentator on Nigerian Affairs, published a book titled Nigeria: Dancing On the Brink. Campbell was US Ambassador to Nigeria between 2004 and 2007. In his book, Campbell made some apocalyptic predictions about Nigeria including the claim that if President Jonathan became Nigeria’s President in 2011, this could pose a threat to Nigeria’s stability and even result in a military intervention. Adefuye dismissed Campbell as a prophet of doom.  He accused him of “seeking attention” “bias”, “mischief” and “pessimism”. When later, John Campbell was to give a lecture at the Atlantic Council on the invitation of J. Peter Pham, Adefuye protested vehemently that Campbell was a bad choice. Following Adefuye’s death in 2015, Campbell refused to make a comment. Adefuye would have insisted that he did not need Ambassador Campbell’s opinion about him.   

Which takes me to the next point about Adefuye. He was a very loyal man, and he was especially loyal to both Nigeria and President Jonathan. I have been told by those who know that in the midst of Nigeria’s turbulence in 2010, over whether or not President Jonathan should be sworn in as acting President, or run for election in his own right in 2011, Ambassador Adefuye was one of those loyal persons in the background who insisted on the supremacy of the Nigerian Constitution and the idiocy of the cabal that was seeking to violate the Nigerian Constitution. As Ambassador to the United States, Adefuye was always happy to welcome President Jonathan and his team. Every September, we attended the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) in New York. Every ambassador considers a visit by the President a special moment. The Ambassador is the President’s representative in the place of posting. The President is the country’s chief diplomat. Adefuye understood these underpinnings. We were always well-received. In the United States, we have a peculiar situation that does not obtain in other countries. In Washington DC, there is the Ambassador of Nigeria to the United States. In New York, there is the office of Nigeria’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. Ambassador Adefuye and Professor Joy Ogwu worked together so well; even if there was any friction between Washington and New York, nobody noticed. Both Professor Ogwu and Professor Adefuye always displayed much tact and maturity, working together in Nigeria’s interest, which made the United States one of our favorite destinations during the Jonathan administration. In some other countries, the relationship among staff in Nigeria’s missions is so toxic and poisonous. 

I was privileged to have worked with Ambassador Adefuye. His posting belongs to the class of Grade A postings. The United States is also one of Nigeria’s most strategic partners. This meant that the perception of Nigeria among the political and business elite in the United States could have serious consequences for Nigeria’s place in the world as well as its influence in continental politics. Adefuye took that very seriously. He did everything to cultivate not just the policy establishment in the US State Department and Capitol Hill, he also cultivated the American media and the business establishment. He was fearless. He wrote rejoinders to unfriendly articles which he often shared with me before publication, and often shared his knowledge of the American media. I was President Jonathan’s Media and Publicity Adviser. Whenever the need arose to send a team to the United States to put out fires, and manage perception, Ambassador Adefuye would have done all the ground work, and he would be on the ground to assist. He understood media politics and perception management. 

I recall President Goodluck Jonathan’s visit to Jamaica. Adefuye was often drafted to join us on some of those important trips because of his vast experience. He had been High Commissioner to Jamaica, so he joined us on that trip to Jamaica. President Jonathan habitually held meetings on his arrival in any country: to review his speeches, the programme schedule and Nigeria’s priority interests. One look at the speech that we had prepared from Abuja to be presented before the Parliament of Jamaica, Ambassador Adefuye told the President that there were some omissions in the speech that should be corrected. He argued that the speech did not reflect the history of Jamaica and the cultural and historical affinities with Nigeria. He insisted that a reflection of this would connect  with not just the leaders of Jamaica but the entire country. He added that it is not every President that is granted the honour of addressing a country’s Parliament. No one could argue with him. He had served in Jamaica. He knew the country very well. It was my call to rework the keynote address. Professor Adefuye worked with me. He practically dictated Jamaica’s historical background and its cultural affinities with Nigeria as I hit my laptop’s keyboards. I was impressed. The final script was an improvement on our earlier script. He was indeed a very resourceful man. Apart from being an Ambassador, he also frequently offered advice to the President and the Villa. In retrospect, I would think he enjoyed unusual access to the Presidency because of his humility, loyalty, exceptional brilliance and aggressiveness. 

When it was obvious that the United States was not too forthcoming in supporting Nigeria with necessary hardware to engage the Boko Haram, Nigeria turned to Israel. There was no way this could have been done without Adefuye’s input. I recall the meeting with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in his office, with his National Security team and Nigeria’s top security team. PM Netanyahu was very friendly and enthusiastic about Nigeria. He wanted to help and he promised to support President Jonathan. We even got a chance to sit in his personal office, very small space, a cubicle by Nigerian standards, but PM Netanyahu had small bits of interesting history around his office. In the end, Israel could not help us with the Boko Haram war. The US under President Obama blocked Nigeria. We turned to Russia. But I would rather not say more on this, only to report that despite the issues with the Obama administration, Ambassador Adefuye managed to convert Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, as she then was, into a very good friend of Nigeria. He also encouraged many American investors to sustain their interest in the Nigerian market.        

Adefuye was not originally a diplomat. He was an academic. Nigerian professional diplomats are fond of territoriality. They resent the incursion of non-professional diplomats into their trade. Adefuye was obviously an exception to the rule. He distinguished himself and made a difference, performing far better than those who started out originally in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Adefuye obtained a Ph.D from the University of Ibadan in 1973, and was later a Fulbright scholar in the United States at Columbia University, the University of North Florida, and the University of Florida. He later taught history at the University of Lagos, Nigeria, eventually becoming a Professor of History and Head of Department of History (1985 -1987). He made his mark as a scholar as well. 

Perhaps his most seminal contribution to scholarship and knowledge may not be the many students that he taught and supervised, (that can be taken for granted) but his seminal contributions to research and intellection, notably for me, his main works: Culture and Foreign Policy: The Nigerian Example (1992), and History of the Peoples of Lagos (1987).  Cultural diplomacy is an often ignored and underplayed area of emphasis in Nigeria but through research and praxis, Adefuye was a leading exponent of the nexus between diplomacy and culture as a vehicle of international relations and soft power politics. Adefuye’s compelling hypothesis has since been affirmed by the rising acknowledgement of the diplomatic value of such cultural events as Nollywood, the Osun Osogbo Festival, the Calabar Carnival, the Eyo Festival and the global mainstreaming of Nigerian sports, cuisine, fashion, music and artistes. His writings on the city of Lagos represent an important contribution to the scholastic study of cities as diverse spaces, infrastructure units and the physicality and semiotics of cities. Adefuye was in addition a prolific researcher and it is not for nothing that a befitting tribute was paid to him, before his death, in a book titled History and Diplomacy: Essays in Honour of Ade Adefuye, edited by R.T. Akinyele (2018).                     

Professor Adefuye died suddenly, with cause of death identified as “cardiac arrest.” He died too soon. He was just 68. Death, the grim reaper, is treacherous. It often takes the good and leaves the bad and the ugly, and it has been consistently unfair in its Nigerian operations. We take solace in the kind testimonies and tributes that have attended Professor Ade Adefuye’s death. In 2015,   John Peter Pham, director of the Africa Centre at the Atlantic Council, who worked closely with Adefuye praised him for the “establishment of strategic dialogue between the US and Nigeria.” He added that “there are ambassadors who are here for years and pass on and no one notices that they were ever here.” That certainly wasn’t the case with Ambassador Adefuye. Wherever he served, Adefuye made his mark.  He left significant footprints. He is unforgettable. May the Lord strengthen and protect Professor Adebowale Adefuye’s family.  

This is not the best of times to be identified as a Nigerian, especially if you are a Nigerian in diaspora. It is indeed the worst of times to be Nigerian because of the kind of daredevilry that our compatriots have demonstrated in recent times, in criminal pursuits of such scale, texture, volume, and depth, not at intervals but at an alarming pace and regularity, not just in one country or continent, but from continent to continent, country to country, giving such impression that perhaps apart from the traditional Cosa Nostra, the Italian Mafia, or the Russian Mafia, or the Colombian Mafia, Nigerians probably run some of the most notorious underground crime networks in the world today. In the last few weeks alone, there have been so many reports of Nigerians being involved in one crime or the other, and apprehended for the same reason, and these are reported cases from Singapore, Malaysia, Ethiopia, Indonesia, the United Kingdom, Brazil, and the United States. There may well be many other cases that are yet unreported or that may never be reported. Nigeria is thoroughly embarrassed. The Nigerian brand is damaged. Our national identity takes a bashing, even if the crimes are committed by a minority. “What a country?”, you may ask? The sharp increase in the frequency and scale of these international crimes involving Nigerians is something worthy of closer interrogation. What is wrong with our people?

The Nigeria Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) reports that in 2018, 73 Nigerians were sentenced to death in Malaysia for drug-related offences. When the figures for 2019 are collated, that number is likely to be higher. In Sao Paulo, Brazil, there are 144 Nigerians serving various jail terms for drug crimes; and according to the NDLEA, all 144 convicts are from one Nigerian village – “Nnewi in Anambra State”. In Thailand, 650 Nigerians (650!) are in prison for drug trafficking. In Saudi Arabia, there are, according to reports, 23 Nigerians currently on the death row, again for drug-related offences. Saudi Arabia is a religious and spiritual destination for many Nigerians. It is shocking that some of those Nigerians who go to that country for pilgrimage also carry on them narcotic and psychotropic substances. Saudi Arabia has a very strict death penalty law. Not a few Nigerians have been executed in the Kingdom for drug-related offences. 

Many Nigerians live and work in the United Kingdom. Perhaps for reasons of historical affinity, Nigerians troop to the United Kingdom in search of a home away from home. But our compatriots are also gradually becoming far too notorious in that country. In March 2019, six Nigerians were members of a 10-man gang of fraudsters who were found guilty of online fraud, hacking software, in a total of 228 diversion frauds over a period of four years. They were convicted and sentenced. The gang was led by one Bonaventure Chukwuka. They robbed their 69 victims of a total of 10.1 million pounds. In May, a 28-year old Nigerian, Gloria Makanjuola, described in the UK media as a “Nigerian serial robber” was also convicted. Her specialization: theft of bank cards which she used to make contactless payments. There is also the report on three siblings (the Nakpodias) who in August 2019, were jailed in the UK for a total of 16 years for helping “the Black Axe syndicate” to launder about one million pounds through the UK banking system. The trio and their patron also face criminal charges in Greece for advance fee fraud.    

In the last decade alone, more than 10 Nigerians have been executed in Indonesia for drug-related crimes, four of them by firing squad in 2015, despite pleas for leniency by Nigeria, the United Nations and Amnesty International. About 153 others are still on the death row in Indonesia. Across Asia, it is reported that about 16, 500 Nigerians are in prison, and in South East Asia alone, up to 600 Nigerians are on the death row. 

But perhaps the most shocking report of criminal conduct by Nigerians would be two major cases reported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in the United States. The first case involves Obinwanne Okeke, 31, also known as “Invictus Obi” who has been arrested by the FBI over an alleged $12 million fraud. Okeke’s case is interesting in that he seems to fit perfectly into the typical profile of those Nigerians refer to as “Yahoo Boys”. These are young men who live large, and conspicuously, and who may on the surface run what looks like legitimate businesses as cover for the wire and internet fraud that is their main occupation.  Obiwanne Okeke, especially, just 28, when he launched out, cultivated the image of a role model for young persons in Africa. In 2016, in recognition of his investments in real estate, oil and gas and the construction industry in Nigeria, South Africa and Zambia, he was listed by Forbes Magazine among Forbes 100 Most Influential Young Africans. He was also nominated for the All African Business Leaders Award. In 2017, Okeke was recognized as a panelist at the Wharton Africa Business Forum. In 2018, he gave a TEDx talk in Lagos. Okeke was also later featured on BBC’s “Focus on Africa”. The BBC described him as “an inspiring entrepreneur”. Forbes must be ruing its error of judgment. The BBC must be wondering what is still inspiring about the guy. It is up to Obiwanne Okeke to defend himself.  

The second topical case is the indictment again by a US Federal Grand Jury of 77 Nigerians on August 22, 2019, for their involvement in massive conspiracy to steal millions of dollars through Business E-mail Compromise (BEC) scams, romance scams and other fraudulent schemes. The FBI has already arrested many of these persons while the remaining suspects are believed to be at large, in Nigeria and elsewhere. This is said to be one of the largest scam busts in the history of the United States, involving victims from about 11 countries. In the past, Nigerians talked about 419 (Section 419 of the Nigerian criminal code dealing with fraudulent advance payments and obtaining by pretense), but the scammers soon raised their game and began to engage in online scams, (the yahoo boys as Nigerians call them), then of course, there was the growth of romance scams, and now, the proliferation of of hackers and business account compromise scammers. Nigerians scammers are determined; some of their antics are unbelievable. One Amos Paul Gabriel, a 48-year old Nigerian was jailed for money laundering in Singapore. He went to jail but he remained a criminal even in prison. He has now been convicted and jailed again for defrauding a fellow inmate of $37, 800. He remained active even in prison! Obviously, imprisonment was not enough deterrence for him. 

In all of these cases, Nigeria’s name gets dragged in the mud. The collateral damage is collosal. It explains why for example, in South Africa, Nigerians are looked down upon and treated with utter contempt by persons who were beneficiaries of Nigeria’s generosity and solidarity during the fight against apartheid. South Africans accuse Nigerians and other Africans of coming to spoil their country and steal their women and businesses. In Ghana, next door, Nigerians are not popular either. When stories are told of how a group of Nigerians once robbed a bank in Dubai, and all these other stories of internet scam come up, security agencies, diplomatic missions around the world and other persons are likely to latch on to a stereotype about the Nigerian brand and identity, even if unfairly. Days after the arrests by the FBI hit the airwaves, the US Embassy in Nigeria cancelled all appointments for visa by Nigerians and by that effect also abolished its “Drop Box” policy for visa applications. There has been no public uproar among Nigerians. What can we say?

The Nigerian Government through its agencies has made it clear that it frowns upon any form of misdemeanor or criminal conduct by Nigerians either at home or in diaspora. It affirms its readiness to co-operate with international security agencies to track down any Nigerian, complicit in international criminal allegations. The Nigerian President, we are told, may also sign an Executive Order to address the issue of online fraud. But while government may have been hitting the right notes on this matter, the emergent public conversation has been dominated by ethnic and religious name-calling, further reflecting Nigeria’s fault lines and moral turpitude. 

The arguments that have been put forward in this heavily conflicted public conversation are as follows: (i) that it is not fair to tar all Nigerians with the same brush because the Nigerians indicted, convicted and punished abroad represent only a very small fraction of Nigeria’s 200 million plus population; (ii) some other Nigerians insist that it is mostly Igbos, that is Nigerians of South Eastern extraction, that are usually guilty of international crimes. They insist that all the 77 Nigerians indicted in the recent FBI case in the US are Igbos, and most of the drug cartels are led by Igbos; (iii) Igbos retort that crime has no religious or ethnic face. There are criminals in every community, and in every religion and so it would be unfair to put the blame on Igbos, and that in any case, the FBI failed to observe Federal Character which is a constitutional requirement for everything Nigerian! (iv) Nigerian Muslims have pointed out that most of the arrested and/or identified suspects in the US are Christians and Southerners, but they are also immediately told that Nigerians on death row in Saudi Arabia are basically Muslims and they are not Igbos, but Northerners, Yoruba and other ethnic groups; (v) some other commentators argue that Nigerian drug dealers and internet fraudsters get caught because they are petty fraudsters who can be easily caught. They argue that the biggest criminals in the world are not in Africa, but in Europe and the US, and that the FBI and similar organizations should focus more on the big scammers instead of trying to harass small-time fraudsters; (vi) there are other Nigerians who try to strike a moral tone and advise that crime does not pay, all that glitters is not gold and that every criminal should expect to be caught someday. 

Nigerians always find it difficult to form a consensus on anything. Football used to be a unifying force but with many Nigerians now addicted to European football leagues, teams and players, even football has become a source of division. Certain points need to be made. Nigerians behave like aliens in their own country. When they travel abroad, they are worse. Since the civil war, 1967-1970, there has been an abiding sense of alienation between the state and the people and the gradual erosion of a sense of what it means to be Nigerian. The country’s value system and ethical codes have failed. The leaders, military and civilian, have not set good examples, the institutions function at habitually sub-optimal levels, civilian rule has not led to expected rise in standards and values. Under the military, theft and impunity became the order of the day, under civilian rulers in the last 20 years, the threat of impunity has doubled, the collapse of morality has tripled. 

Nigeria is one country where gain without work is acceptable as long as everything glitters. It is one country where a man or lady, who had no job in January can suddenly become a multi-billionaire in dollars in August and nobody will ask questions. He or she doesn’t even have to pay tax or declare the source of income. He will get the best women, the best cars, the largest circle of friends, chieftaincy titles, national honour, and a government appointment. He will dine with the high and mighty, childhood friends in high places whose election campaigns he would have funded anyway, and in addition, he will enjoy massive police and military protection. The media will celebrate him or her. If the police try to arrest him, the military will set him free! To play big in this kind of a-normative environment, where the state itself is a criminal enterprise, where credibility is on decline, many Nigerians resort to criminality on a bigger scale, locally and internationally. When they get caught abroad, in places where the systems work, even if they are convicted or executed, they may still be treated as heroes by their relatives and kinsmen back home in Nigeria who will simply argue that they were just unlucky to have been caught. Nigerians are likely to blame a Pastor or shamanist for failing in his or her spiritual duty to the convict. One drug trafficker who was executed abroad was given a lavish burial in his community in 2016, in a golden casket and hailed as a savior!

Nigerian leaders need to provide good leadership and lead by example. Institutions in Nigeria have to be strengthened. Religious leaders, who wield so much influence over the Nigerian public mind, must stop acting like rogues and teach the truth. Nigeria needs a Ministry for Ethical Re-orientation!  Unemployment drives young Nigerians to the Devil’s workshop. We must do something about that.   In April/May, Zainab Habib Aliyu, 22, and one Ibrahim Abubakar were saved from being charged in Saudi Arabia in a drug-related matter after the Nigerian Government intervened. In Singapore, another Nigerian, Adili Chibuike Ejike, 39, barely escaped the death row because the court acquitted him. It is not every Nigerian criminal suspect abroad that will be so lucky. The rest will be punished, they will tarnish Nigeria’s image and they will inconvenience the rest of us.

The report that a commercial court in the UK has ruled that Nigeria must pay a UK firm, Process and Industrial Development Limited (P & ID) a sum of $9.6 billion or have its assets in the UK to the tune of that amount forfeited has generated more than a little interest. For a country with a foreign reserve of $45 billion and sovereign debt profile of over $80 billion that judgment debt is quite a lot, potentially capable of rendering Nigeria even more technically insolvent. Dayo Apata, Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of Justice and Solicitor-General of the Federation has told the public that Nigeria will appeal the judgement and apply for a stay of execution to forestall the enforcement order that has been granted. Whereas this may be a logical step to take, even if it may achieve nothing in the long run other than putting more money in the pockets of counsel, there are specific issues that have been thrown up by Nigeria’s (mis)management of the case so far and the ruling of the UK court. 

The first issue is Nigeria’s habitual disregard for the sanctity of contracts and terms of agreement, and the failure of Nigeria’s representatives in many cases to enter into agreements that are in the best interest of the country. The facts of the case in Process & Industrial Development vs. Federal Republic of Nigeria (2019) EWHC2241 (Comm), by way of summary are as follows:  In January 2010, the Federal Republic of Nigeria (FRN), through its Ministry of Petroleum Resources entered into a Gas Supply and Processing Agreement (GSPA) with P&ID. Under the terms of the agreement, Nigeria “was to supply natural gas (wet gas) at no cost to P&ID via a government pipeline to the site of P&ID’s production facility.” P&ID was required to construct and operate the facility, process the wet gas and return to the government of Nigeria, lean gas to be used for power generation at no cost to the government of Nigeria. P&ID was entitled to other derivatives stripped from the wet gas. The GSPA had a tenure of 20 years from the date of first supply of wet gas. Clause 20 of the GSPA provided for (a) the agreement to be construed in accordance with the laws of Nigeria; (b) in the event of a dispute over the interpretation or performance of the Agreement, which cannot be resolved amicably, either party will serve on the other a notice of arbitration, (c) the Arbitration award shall be final and binding upon the parties and (d) “the venue of the arbitration shall be London, England or otherwise as agreed by the Parties.”  Two years later, a dispute arose between the P&ID and the Nigerian Government, and as this could not be settled amicably, the former served a notice of arbitration on the Nigerian government on the grounds that Nigeria had failed to make Wet Gas available in accordance with the GSPA.      

The matter went before an Arbitration Tribunal, under the Rules of the Nigerian Arbitration and Conciliation Act 2004, with London, England as place of Arbitration. After affirming its jurisdiction in the matter, the Tribunal began its procedural hearing to determine whether or not there was any repudiatory breach of contract. At this point, there was an attempt by the Ministry of Petroleum to reach a settlement agreement with P&ID to the tune of $850 million, payable in instalments. This was submitted for Presidential approval a week to President Jonathan’s departure from office. It would have amounted to tying the hands of the incoming government to grant the approval for the payment of that sum. Meanwhile, the Arbitration Tribunal had bifurcated the case and by July 2015, it affirmed that indeed Nigeria had failed to perform its obligations under the GSPA and then unanimously decided that P&ID was entitled to damages with interest. It took the new Nigerian government more than 4 months to respond. The excuse given for the delay, by Ms. Folakemi Adelore, witness for Nigeria, was that there had been a change of administration in Nigeria and that Ministers, including the Attorney General had only just been appointed. Nigeria asked for an extension of time to act on the outcome of the Arbitration Tribunal. 

The Commercial court led by Phillips J. dismissed that appeal and the explanation for the delay at the time. Unsuccessful in having its way in England, Nigeria took up the matter at the Lagos Judicial Division of the Federal High Court of Nigeria, seeking essentially the same reliefs that were rejected by Phillips J. When notified of the proceedings in the Lagos High Court, P&ID dismissed the proceedings as “abusive and as a deeply unattractive attempt to forum shop”. There was a back-and-forth exchange of emails between the parties involved and the Tribunal over the meaning of venue or seat of arbitration. The Tribunal would eventually rule that London is the seat of arbitration “in the juridical sense”. The Nigerian government then went back to the Lagos High Court to set aside the Tribunal’s Procedural Order No. 12 and got favourable judgment. The Arbitration proceedings in London continued nonetheless to determine the quantum of damages and on January 31, 2017, the Tribunal issued its Final Award. The Tribunal insisted that P&ID would have played its own part in the contract if Nigeria had not repudiated its own obligations. It therefore ruled in favour of P&ID and ordered Nigeria to pay US$6.597,000, 000 being net present value of the profits which would have been earned by the P&ID. The Federal Government was also asked to pay interest on the amount at 7% per annum from March 2013. This final ruling was given in 2017. The Nigerian Government refused to pay and also failed to appeal the ruling! Why? 

It may be routine conduct in Nigeria to ignore court orders, and assume that nothing will happen but things don’t work like that in the international domain. In March 2018, P&ID went to the Commercial Court in England to institute proceedings for the enforcement of the Final Award as declared by the Arbitration Tribunal. The Nigerian Government again did not respond in time. It waited till October 2018 before it finally acknowledged service and applied for relief for sanctions. The matter would finally be heard by Justice Christopher Butcher. It should be noted that on all the issues raised before the court of Butcher J. viz: the seat of arbitration and the order of the High Court of Lagos, issue estoppel, the conclusions of Procedural Order No. 12, (that is the ruling of the Arbitration Tribunal), public policy, pre-award interest and whether or not, the Final Award in favour of P&ID was excessive and punitive, the Court found in favour of P&ID on all the issues. Justice Butcher’s ruling raises cogent and recondite points of law, in a learned and rigorous manner; but in one word, he butchered Nigeria. The manner in which he did so, I intend to indicate shortly.

For now, what is clear to me is the reckless manner in which Nigerian officials often enter into agreements, on behalf of the country, without paying attention to the small print of the agreement and thinking through the feasibility of the agreement entered into. The net result is that the country incurs liabilities that are detrimental to corporate interest. On the face of it, the GSPA with P&ID would have been beneficial to Nigeria, particularly in terms of the constructive use of associated gas and the supply of lean gas to the national electricity grid for both industrial and domestic use. The GSPA was signed by the Ministry of Petroleum on behalf of Nigeria: was the Ministry not in a position to know the volume of wet gas that would be required to fulfil Nigeria’s obligations? What happened to the proposed pipeline? It would appear as if Nigeria signed the agreement in 2010 and just went to sleep. Where international contracts are involved, and we breach the terms of agreement, we end up projecting the country as an unfit and risky destination for investment. Even the private sector has been accused of failing to respect contractual agreements, the most recent example being the case of Nigerian airline operators and Boeing which has more or less blacklisted Nigerian airlines from leasing its aircraft. As it is with the Federal Government, so it is with the states. The Lagos Metro line project conceived by the Lateef  Jakande administration in 1983  could have solved the perennial mass transit crisis in Lagos but it was soon politicized. When the Buhari military regime came to power, the project was eventually cancelled in 1985, without regard for the terms of the contract. The foreign contractor went to court and Nigeria had to pay a penalty of more than $78 million. The contractor was compensated for doing nothing!    

Another issue is the lack of diligent prosecution of cases in which Nigeria is involved by those whose duty it is to do so. I assume that this is due to our tendency to either politicise everything or focus more on personal interests, or failure on the part of either representing counsel or the Attorney General’s office. As stated, it took Nigeria in this case about five months to respond to the initial ruling of the Arbitration Tribunal in London. The excuse that Nigeria was busy with elections and that new Ministers were not in place until November 2015 naturally appeared strange and laughable. When final ruling was given, Nigeria also did nothing. It had to wait until P&ID sought enforcement. 

Butcher, J. in his August 16, 2019 ruling made heavy weather out of several acts of omission on the part of the Nigerian authorities. He observed in one instance, that “…the FRN had remedies for any procedural unfairness, but it did not utilise them”. Nigeria could also have objected to Procedural Order No. 12 or question the Final Award. In the words of Butcher J., “it did neither and the time for doing so is long past.” This is a serious indictment (see paragraphs 64 -66 of the ruling). The energy that should have been devoted to the Arbitration in London was diverted towards obsession with “seat of arbitration” and getting a favourable judgment from the Lagos High Court which in Nigeria’s contention was the “supervisory court”, a point about “sovereignty” both the Tribunal and the Court dismissed. Nigeria failed to pursue relevant questions: Questions for example about the quantum of damages. Or the tax that would have accrued to Nigeria through P&ID. Besides, what is the profit value of Nigeria’s 10% equity? And why were questions not raised about in-door management rules? It is also curious that Nigeria failed to insist on something quite obvious: the competence and the failure of P&ID to build the facility stated in the GSPA. Equity aids the vigilant, not the indolent. Could the Nigerian team have been making needless mistakes in order to help the other party? In a country that is perpetually in search of patriots, particularly in official corridors, this is a relevant question. 

The Commercial Court in London has held that the Final Award by the Tribunal in favour of P&ID is not punitive or excessive, rather it is compensation for damages suffered. The Court gave an order enforcing the Final Award. There is no guarantee that Nigeria will succeed with either its appeal or its request for stay of execution. Whatever happens, the (mis)handling of this case requires introspection and steps to be taken to ensure that this kind of embarrassment does not occur again, hoping that there are no such similar cases in other jurisdictions or in hibernation which may soon come to the knowledge of the Nigerian public. The success of P&ID may well embolden other parties with similar issues with Nigeria to go to court. Our case is not helped either by the politicization of the matter with the on-going trading of blames. It may be necessary for the National Assembly when it returns from its recess to conduct an inquiry into how Nigeria, with all the concerns about revenue and growth, is now faced with a judgment debt of $9.6 billion, with daily interest accruing.  Who are the state officials and their collaborators if there are any, who failed to ensure due diligence, both at the level of the contract and the management of the dispute with Process and Industrial Development Ltd? Why was wet gas not made available? Did the Attorney General’s office even vet the GSPA at all? From all indications, the dispute could have been settled out of court. Why did that option fail? $9.6 billion is about 20% of the country’s external reserves and 2.5% of GDP. Every single person, dead or alive, lawyer or state official, who has a hand in this mess must be called out.  

If anyone is looking for a perfect illustration and confirmation of the “coming anarchy” in Nigeria, that person needs not look farther than the on-going conflict and crisis of mutual distrust between the Nigeria Police and the Nigerian Army. Turn away, for a moment, from Boko Haram (Nigeria is still unable to find a solution to the menace of terrorism), turn away from bandits and kidnappers (it is sad that the state seems to be aiding and abetting criminality and impunity due to its incompetence, negligence, and impotence). But you can not turn away from the crazy drama being enacted by the Nigeria Police and the Nigeria Army, two strategic security institutions assigned the responsibility of safeguarding lives and property of Nigerians and the sovereignty of the country itself. Both institutions have been in conflict in recent times. I argue that this is disturbing.  

It is as follows: Nigerians woke up the other day to hear the sordid tale of how in Jalingo, Taraba state, soldiers from the 93 Battalion in Takum, Taraba state killed three policemen and three civilians, who had gone to arrest a notorious kidnap kingpin, one Alhaji Hamisu Wadume. The three policemen were members of an elite police squad, the Intelligence Response Team (IRT), and they had been involved in many operations in which they distinguished themselves namely the arrest of 22 kidnappers involved in the abduction of Chibok girls, the arrest of Evans, the notorious Lagos-based kidnapper and the rescue of the Magajin Garin Daura, the traditional head of President Buhari’s village who was abducted earlier in the year. These same policemen and their colleagues had been working on the Wadume case. They had investigated him and tracked him down. 

With the help of three civilians who volunteered as informants and guide, the police sent the crack team to go after Alhaji Wadume. When they got to Jalingo, the policemen reported at the police state headquarters and documented their mission. They then set out and arrested Alhaji Wadume and put him in handcuffs. The next step was to take him in and interrogate him in line with standard procedure. Mission accomplished? No. In Nigeria, the unexpected is known to happen, nothing is ever certain. Just as the police were busy tracking down the alleged notorious kidnapper, the Army in Taraba reportedly got a distress call reporting that kidnappers had abducted one Alhaji Wadume, and asking the military to come to the rescue. As it turned out, the 93 Battalion sent out a team to rescue Alhaji Wadume. The dispatched soldiers gave the police team the chase. The police version of the story at this point is that the police men identified themselves and told the soldiers that they were carrying out a legitimate duty, and that Alhaji Wadume who was in handcuffs was the suspect. But instead of the two teams to co-operate and work together, in line with the principle of “esprit de corps”, the soldiers opened fire on the policemen, at close range, killing three of them instantly. They also gunned down the three civilian-informants.  By the time the dust settled, the arrested suspect, who had been put in silver ware, disappeared into thin air. The soldiers also vanished, leaving “blood on the grass.” 

The police are rightly outraged. They have since issued statements and have gone on a twitter rage, to question the conduct of the Nigeria Army. They are angry that despite the police identification of the slain policemen as officers on lawful duty, the Nigerian Army chooses to refer to them as “suspected kidnappers”.  The police are asking the army to hand over the soldiers who pulled the trigger, effectively marking them out as cop-killers. They have also raised five questions for the Army Headquarters to respond to viz: “Where is the notorious kidnapper, Alhaji Hamisu Bala Wadume “rescued by the soldiers”?, (2) How could a kidnap suspect properly restrained with handcuffs by the Police escape from the hands of his military rescuers? (3) Why were the Police Operatives shot at close range after they had identified themselves as Police Officers on legitimate duty as evident in the video now in circulation? (4) How and why was Alhaji Hamisu Bala Wadume released by the soldiers?  (5) If Alhaji Wadume is a “victim of kidnap” as claimed, and properly rescued by soldiers why was he not taken to the Army base for documentation purposes and debriefing in line with the Standard Operating Procedures in the Nigerian Army?’  These questions are pertinent and there are many more that should be raised. 

The Nigerian Army has not been able to respond to any of these questions; their only close-to-intelligent response has been the self-indicting explanation that the whole incident is due to lack of co-ordination and communication between the army and the police. It is sad to hear that. If there is rivalry, conflict, lack of co-ordination and communication among the various law enforcement and security agencies in Nigeria, then the average Nigerian is in serious trouble. The country itself is in danger.  The utter vulnerability of the average Nigerian is show-cased by the fact that whereas the army and the police have been trading brick-bats in the Taraba matter, no mention has been made so far of the identity of the three civilians who were murdered by the soldiers. The police seem to be more concerned about their men. The Army are more concerned about protecting their men too. To compound the situation, whereas a joint investigating panel has been set up, the army and the police are at best working at cross-purposes. 

What has happened is unacceptable. Those who argue that the police should not complain because it is Karma at work, the police having a notorious reputation for the kind of brutality that has been inflicted on their men by the Army, are simply unfair. No human being deserves to be killed in such brutal fashion. It is also unacceptable that the three civilian-informants who were murdered have not been part of the story. In the course of the fight against terror and crime in the country, both the President and the service chiefs have always advised that the battle can only be won if the people themselves assist the security agencies with information. The death of those three informants in the hands of the Nigeria Army will certainly discourage every future informant! In the past, the Nigerian military used to attribute every act of impunity committed by soldiers to a certain “unknown soldier”. Under military rule, particularly, the unknown soldier could do as he wished. The Nigerian soldier was above the laws of the land. But the times have since changed. The Nigeria Army certainly cannot claim not to know the soldiers who committed murder in Taraba State. As the police have demanded, those men and the officer who gave them unlawful orders, if that was the case, must be named and made to face the full wrath of the law. The six victims of that Taraba massacre and their families deserve justice. In a democracy, an army of occupation, a gun-totting military on the streets of the nation, turning its guns on innocent persons is an aberration, and a threat.

But this is the price Nigerians pay for giving the military police work to do. The military and the police have two completely different training manuals and operational orientation. The primary job of the police is to ensure peace and safety, and to protect and serve. Soldiers are trained by their drill sergeants to shoot and kill the enemy: “One shot, one kill”, at close range. The culture of restraint at the heart of police training is unknown to the military. This is why it is dangerous to involve soldiers in the kind of police work that they have been doing in Nigeria. In the 70s, Nigerian soldiers lived in the barracks, usually located out of town. When they came to town, they were rare sightings. But that was until soldiers began to mix with civilians and soon got involved in politics. Gradually, Nigerian soldiers began to behave like those they call “bloody civilians”.  It was Alozie Ogbugbuaja, a police man who once drew attention to this when he complained that Nigerian soldiers had become “pepper soup drinking soldiers”.  The metaphor was so apt; it drew the ire of the state. Ogbugbuaja was punished for his effrontery. 

If anybody were to say the same thing today, however, I guess the person will be hailed for saying the truth. Soldiers are now so involved in “pepper soup” work it is terribly ridiculous. The other day, some soldiers assigned to escort money (N400m?) belonging to an officer were accused of having escaped with the money. The said soldiers are still at large. Whoever reported a case of kidnapping to the Army in Taraba, assuming that was true, had no business calling the Army. The call should have been directed to the police. When Governor Nyesom Wike wanted a notorious criminal called Bobrisky arrested in Rivers State, he didn’t call on the police. He called the Army.  In Abia State recently, a soldier reportedly killed a motorcyclist who refused to give him bribe. Once upon a time in this country, nobody would dare offer a soldier a bribe, and no soldier will ask for it. Today, soldiers now mount check-points where they collect tolls like the police. 

It is absurd.  The excuse that Nigeria is under-policed and therefore the police need to be supported by the military overlooks the difference in the orientation of the two teams. The result is the disaster we are witnessing. During the recent general elections, the Nigerian military was accused of having perpetrated violence in parts of the country. The militarization of open spaces violates Nigeria’s democracy. In Zaria in 2015, Nigerian soldiers trying to clear the road for their boss gunned down about 348 members of the Shiite movement! Our military should concentrate on their professional duty of protecting Nigeria’s territorial integrity, while the police should focus strictly on their mandate. Isn’t it curious that in the light of the Taraba incident the military is now advising Nigerian soldiers, travelling on pass, to hide from the Police by wearing mufti? Is that the end of police/army collaboration? If the police are overwhelmed by the crisis in the country, and unable to function efficiently, the leadership elite should think more creatively beyond the current resort to hollow rhetoric and ad-hoc measures. More police men can be recruited. Better training and equipment should be provided. Police stations should be rebuilt and made to wear a human look. Bad eggs within the force should be identified and flushed out, honest and hardworking police men and women should be encouraged and supported.      

Perhaps the time has come for Nigeria to consider the establishment of a National Guard, to serve as a bridge between the police and the army.  Where there is any incident that is beyond the capacity of the police, the National Guard can be called in.  In the United States, the National Guard is a cross between the police and the military; its members are basically civilians, but with enough training as both police and soldier. For a start, the proposed National Guard should not be a regime-protection mechanism, the type that was introduced briefly in 1993. It can be a merger of the National Civil Defence Corps and the vigilante groups in various states, trained differently and empowered. To set up a National Guard in Nigeria however, there must be a thought-driven review of context: who will control the National Guard? How will it be deployed? What kind of Nigeria can accommodate a National Guard: a truly federal system, a restructured Nigeria or a completely new Nigeria?  

“So, did you join the #RevolutionNow protests yesterday?”

“Which Revolution?”

“The #RevolutionNow protest led by Omoyele Sowore. The security people grabbed him ahead of the August 5 protests, but the Grand Coalition for Security and Democracy still came out in full force in Lagos and Abuja.”

“Yes. Yes. We did. But it rained in Abuja.”

“And were you part of it? The Coalition for Revolution in Nigeria”

“I am part and parcel of it. This country cannot continue like this. We need a revolution. Nobody can tell us that the change they promised in 2015, we now have it. The 2019 General election, did they get it right? No. Revolution is about change. We need to change this system. They told us in 2018 and 2019 that they will take us to the Next Level. But nothing has changed. Look at Nigeria. Look at our country! Our country has become a theatre of fear, regret and failure. Six months after election that they claim they have won, we are still fumbling and wobbling like the Super Eagles.”

“You didn’t answer my question. I asked you: were you part of the protests?”

“No. I wasn’t. It rained in my part of the town. And by the time I set out to join the group at the National Stadium in Lagos, I heard that the agents of state capture and their tools were already tear-gassing the people. Tear gas is not good for my system. The last time I inhaled tear-gas I sneezed for three years non-stop. I am not so young anymore. I have to be careful. But aluta continua! Victoria Acerta! But why were you yourself not at the barricades? We have a collective responsibility to save Nigeria from this drift, this creeping anarchy, this reign of confusion.”

“I am sorry. Speak for yourself. I am not a revolutionary like you. I am simply a realist, a pragmatist, a student of realpolitik.”

“Are you saying what the Buhari government is doing is okay? Have you not heard that we face the threat of a return to the Abacha days, and the possibility of losing everything that we worked for to secure this return to democracy?”

“You mean civilian rule?”

“You call this civilian rule? As far as we are concerned in the revolution, this is still military rule masquerading as civilian rule. When you look at anybody in this present darkness, do they look like any one of us? This is Sowore’s message. We must take back our country. We must seize the momentum. We must seize the day.”

“I am sorry. I don’t join revolutions.”

“Yes. You won’t because the Middle class has failed Nigeria. You talk like one of them. You belong to the class of non-citizens who think Nigeria must be kept the way it is so that they can thrive. You selfish Nigerians! They link up with the establishment and get subsidies for their businesses and imports. They contribute funds to support political campaigns and when the time comes they ask for returns and insist on entitlements. Those are the real enemies of Nigeria, the soldiers of the stomach vs we the people who want national progress, security and development. Our #RevolutionNow is about long-lasting changes in the system. We want to make Nigeria better.”

“Sowore says he is going to take back Nigeria. In other words, what he could not achieve through the ballot box on February 23 when he was Buhari’s rival as Presidential candidate on the platform of the African Action Congress (AAC), he wants to take through a revolution.”

“You are putting words in his mouth. You are an enemy of the revolution, just say so. He did not talk about regime change. We are focused on system change.”

“Did he say or not say that the government will cease to exist?”

“No. He talks about positive change for all Nigerians and better life for all. Minimum wage. Free tuition and access to quality education. Employment opportunities and justice.”

“Those are populist campaign issues. I disagree with you. The Presidential election ended on February 23. If anybody is aggrieved, the place to go is the tribunal, not the streets.”

“Sowore is the voice and the symbol of the emerging revolution in Nigeria today. He is prepared to lay down his life if need be. I stand by him, the same way Professor Wole Soyinka stands by him. Femi Falana SAN, Shehu Sani. Amnesty International Nigeria. Street credibility. We no go gree.”

“And you? Are you prepared to die for Nigeria? Where were you on August 5?”

“I have a very busy week ahead. Besides it rained in my neighbourhood. This climate change. Nobody can tell. And as I told you, I don’t do well with tear-gas. My bones are fragile too. I have not yet recovered from the last protest I took part in. “

“I don’t blame you. It is very easy to talk. The people I blame are the security agencies. They have turned Omoyele Sowore into a hero. He has become the symbol of the opposition in Nigeria. In Uganda we have Bobi Wine. In Sudan, they have the African Queen. In Hong Kong, there is Andrew Leung, leading the revolution from behind bars. In North Africa, the Arab Spring spread from Tunisia to Algeria to Egypt. In Nigeria, we now have Omoyele Sowore. I believe the Nigerian government has played into his hands. Big mistake. Big, big mistake. They could have managed the situation differently”

“You are beginning to sound like one of them. I must tell you that whatever you think, or believe, this Revolution will survive and when it is over, we will remember those of you hiding in your comfort zones to talk nonsense.”

“I am not talking nonsense. I don’t believe in the idea of a Revolution.”

“You don’t know the meaning of the word. It is a terribly mis-used and mis-understood word. This same ruling party, the APC, used the same word when they fought President Goodluck Jonathan. You didn’t complain then. You are a hypocrite. You are one of them.”

“Anybody that wants a Revolution should do so through the ballot box. Or go to court. I understand what Revolution means. The French Revolution. The American Revolution. The October Revolution of 1917. The Velvet Revolution in former Czechoslovakia in 1989. The Orange Revolution in Ukraine after the 2004 Ukranian Presidential election. The Arab Spring in the Middle East. The recent people’s revolution in Algeria, Egypt and Sudan. The on-going Revolution in Hong Kong. Tell me about one revolution that did not result in a cycle of crisis and violence. Nigeria is too fragile. One careless push right now, we could become another Somalia or the old Rwanda.”

“You don’t understand the meaning of Revolution, then. Don’t you get it? We are saying this government lacks legitimacy. It lacks the capacity to deal with Nigeria’s pressing problems. There is insecurity in the land. The people are hungry and poor. The government can’t even inaugurate a cabinet, six months after the elections. Rapists and bandits have taken over the land. Only a Revolution can save Nigeria.”

“That is treason. Mind what you say. I will be the first to hand you over as an accessory to the fact of treason.”

“A protest march is not treason. Free speech is not treason. Freedom of assembly is not treason.”

“I just need you to know that in this country, the threat to commit suicide is a felony. If you succeed however, you are on your own, totally free.”

“The people have the power and the right to express their grievances. If they won’t allow us to protest inside Nigeria, we will do so in every Nigerian embassy in every part of the world. No government should ever test the people’s resolve. No. Never again!”

“I see that the government will still need to arrest more people. Please don’t call me when they come for you.”

“Let them arrest all of us. This is not a one-man protest. This is a movement. This is how it starts. They have taken the bait. They will keep making mistakes. Nigeria is now on the front pages of the world media. After the 2019 election, chaos in Nigeria! The Coalition for Revolution owns the game right now.”

“Let me ask you: who are your sponsors? Who is the author of this hidden agenda?”

“There is no hidden agenda. The people of Nigeria are angry.”

“Please speak for yourself. Members of the Coalition of Northern Groups are not angry.

They say they are not part of the Revolution. The Arewa Consultative Forum (ACF) is also against the idea. You people cannot be allowed to blow up this country just because you lost an election.”

“Point of correction. We have gone beyond the election. And for your information, this is not an anti-RUGA protest. It is a struggle for the soul of Nigeria.”

“You cannot convince me that the declaration of a revolution is well-meaning.”

“I don’t know what you are afraid of. Have they given you an oil bloc, or they have promised you something? You are busy opposing the Revolution. Where were you when the US announced a visa ban on Nigerian politicians who promoted violence and rigging during the 2019 general elections in Nigeria?”

“Please. Please. Please. Nigeria is a sovereign state. The Americans have their own problems and Nigeria’s election should not be one of them. If I were the Nigerian President, by now I would have asked the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to issue a travel advisory on the United States telling Nigerians to stay away from that country where hate and white supremacy are on the rise. I will insist that Nigerians should stay away in particular from the troubled states of Texas, Ohio and California until further notice. America. America. America. Please.

Is Donald Trump better than President Muhammadu Buhari?”

“Yes”

“No”

“I say Yes”

“Let me hear word, with this copycat revolution. To keep Nigeria one is a task that must be done.”

“That’s analogue thinking. Wake up! We are in the age of social media. If you and your people block the streets, we will have a revolution on social media and you people will watch it online.”

“This is precisely the problem. The social media has become the space where anarchists and subversive elements are bred. Will I be correct to say that you are an online revolutionary?”

“Get it right: We are determined to occupy every space, including the offline space of revisionists like you. Your people made a mistake to have ordered the arrest of Comrade Yele Sowore. The Coalition of the Revolution cannot be intimidated. I hope you won’t spoil everything by saying we are terrorists.”

“Is Sowore also a comrade?”

“Yes. A comrade of the Revolution over a 30-year period, a tested fighter of the people’s revolution.”

“I am trying to get it.”

“You can say what you like.”

“But please, one more thing. This Sowore: does he have a family? Children? A wife? And why would he run to the gym to hide when state security came knocking on his door?”

“Irrelevant questions. The Revolution is all that matters.”

“Toh. It’s aw-right. Make all of us siddon begin watch this season film, then. Whether you like it or not, the Devil has rented a flat in people’s heads inside Nigeria.”

Senator Ahmed Lawan is the Chairman and President of Nigeria’s 9^thNational Assembly.  His emergence as Senate President was prefaced by a lot of politicking and brick-bats within the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) of which he is a member and between members of that party and the opposition parties particularly the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), the country’s former ruling party, now the main opposition. The PDP wanted a power-sharing arrangement if not a competition for space and influence in the entire National Assembly. Leaders of the APC insisted on a winner-takes-it-all proposition, especially with regard to the principal positions in the National Assembly. The APC went a step further: it insisted on anointing those persons the party’s chieftains wanted to be in charge of the National Assembly. The obvious reason for this desperation, and the attached emphasis on loyalty to the party, can be traced to the fact that in 2015, the politics of the leadership of the National Assembly was hijacked by forces led by Senator Bukola Saraki. Party leaders were left wondering what hit them. 

By the time the dust settled, Saraki and his team had taken over control of the Senate. Yakubu Dogara and his Democrats team dominated the leadership of the House of Representatives. Saraki as Chairman of the National Assembly and Yakubu Dogara as Speaker of the House of Representatives were both members of the ruling APC, but they were independent-minded and determined to lead an independent legislature. The Godfathers of the party who believed it was their divine right to dictate the direction of not just the party but the entire government could not control them. From 2015- 2019, President Muhammadu Buhari thus had a testy relationship with the National Assembly, especially the Senate as the Saraki-Dogara-led 8^thNational Assembly refused to be intimidated. The ruling establishment would not take things lightly. Saraki and his wife were charged with corruption. Saraki was taken to the Code of Conduct Tribunal. The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) accused Saraki of malfeasance and also investigated his wife. Key bills sent to the President for his signature were rejected and sent back. Budget proposals took months, because the Presidency and the Legislature could not agree on the details. Saraki and Dogara later moved to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Yakubu Dogara would also not show any iota of enthusiasm to become a sycophant of the Executive arm of the government. President Buhari is on record as having accused both men of “lack of patriotism”.    

For all of this and other reasons, you can forgive the chieftains of the APC for seeking to make life easier for the President by seeking to impose a pliant, malleable and “loyal’ Federal legislature on Nigeria after the 2019 general elections. The intention of the leaders of the APC, relying on the declared victory of President Muhammadu Buhari and the APC in 2019, is as we have seen, to protect the Executive arm of government at the Federal level. Hence, they named the principal officers of the National Assembly long before the votes were cast in accordance with Section 50 of the 1999 Constitution. They had their way. Everything went exactly according to the ruling party’s dictates. But then, this automatically created a moral dilemma for the newly emerged principal officers of the National Assembly. The dilemma is this: having emerged as anointed candidates of party leaders and the President, would they act in the national interest and run an independent legislature in line with the doctrine of the separation of powers? Will a National Assembly led by Ahmed Lawan and Femi Gbajabiamila perform its expected oversight functions and be accountable to the people of Nigeria? Or will it end up as a rubber-stamp Assembly, acquiescent and subservient? Ahmed Lawan and Femi Gbajabiamila promised to be independent and be the best that they can be, even if I recall that they both said also, that they would not go out of their way to antagonize the Executive. 

Since the inauguration of the National Assembly on June 11, the Speaker of the House of Representatives has been accused of using the platform of the Blue Chamber to do the bidding of a party chieftain. We refer to the crisis in Edo State over the proclamation order inaugurating the Edo State House of Assembly, and the threat by the House of Representatives to take over that Legislative Assembly, after a session that dripped with emotionalism and sycophantic bias. Before then, shortly after inauguration, the leadership of the 9^thNational Assembly had also been accused of sucking up too recklessly to the Presidency, seen as they were, going to the Presidential Villa to genuflect to the President. But the most shocking development since the June 11 inauguration is the manner in which the Senate has failed its first major test, with regard to the screening of Ministerial nominees for President Muhammadu Buhari’s second-term cabinet (2019 -2023). In 2015, it took President Muhammadu Buhari about 6 months to appoint a cabinet of 36 persons. Many Nigerians were disappointed. Such delay over an important task of statecraft creates uncertainty, promotes distortions and compels the investment community to become apprehensive. The absence of a functioning government and an Executive arm in charge of so many constitutional responsibilities slows down the country. The Buhari government practically struggled through its first term because it failed to hit the ground running. Buhari’s apologists choose to blame past administrations for this omission. There are Nigerians and international observers who disagree with them, and who submit that such delay should not be allowed to repeat itself ever again.  

This is why many Nigerians were alarmed when in 2019, after the election of February 23 which brought President Buhari back to power and the inauguration of his government on May 29, 1999, and the June 12 Democracy Day which he declared, that the President still failed to announce a cabinet. Every one waited with bated breath as history threatened to repeat itself. About the same period, there were Presidential elections in other parts of the world. In South Africa, President Cyril Ramaphosa was elected with 57% of the votes. He announced a new cabinet within a week: a cabinet that was remarkable for its gender-sensitivity, inclusion and reduction of size. In May, Prime Minister Narendra Modi was also re-elected in India. He promptly announced a new cabinet. Joko Widodo returned to power in Indonesia. He is showing, funny as he is, a better sense of purpose. The other day, Boris Johnson was elected by an overwhelming 66% of the 160, 000 votes cast by Tory members, as leader of the UK Conservative Party and as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom. He has since formed a cabinet, a youthful, gender-sensitive, and ethnically diverse cabinet and has held his first cabinet meeting. 

In comparison, Nigeria is still going through the ritual of identifying Ministers.  The Senate which is responsible for screening and approving Ministers in line with Section 147 (2) had to inform the President that it was willing to postpone its annual recess by a week, and screen the Ministers if only the President would bring a list. The leadership of the National Assembly even took the additional step of going to the Presidential Villa to have dinner with the President. The President told them he was “under a lot of pressure”, and he prefers to appoint as Ministers, “persons who are known to him”.  The following week, both Nigerians and the Senators made the Ministerial list an issue. The business community complained about stagnation. In one week, the stock market lost billions of Naira on account of creeping uncertainty. Eventually, President Buhari brought a list of 43 names who since July 23, have been appearing before the Senate for screening. 

The list is not worth the wait. The screening process is ridiculous, some say it is a charade, some of us feel that the screening is a waste of time. In 2015, President Buhari promised a lean government; he merged some of the Ministries and submitted a list of 36 Ministers. In 2019, he has submitted a list of 43 Ministers, which points to big government and bigger overhead and a reversal of principle. The 2019 list passes the test of the Constitutional threshold which requires the President to pick at least one Minister from every state of the Federation. But it fails the gender test: only 7 women out of 43 (about 17% and absolutely no improvement gender-wise over the 2015 list). The list also fails the general test of inclusion. The average age of the nominees is 50+ leaving the Nigerian youths who wanted a place at the Ministerial table with a short end of the stick. Those who wanted a Government of National Unity have also been disappointed. The Ministerial list is exclusively an APC list. South East Governors of the PDP and APGA who submitted names of nominees were tactically ignored. President Buhari in choosing those he knows has submitted the names of party loyalists and 14 former Ministers. Questions have been raised quite legitimately about the selection process and how and why President Buhari retained 14 Ministers and added a total of 29 names who do not necessarily inspire undebatable justification about integrity and competence.  

The screening process itself has been a huge disappointment and an anti-climax. Out of 31 Ministers screened by Monday morning, 18 were asked to just take a bow and leave. By the end of the exercise, we expect that up to two-thirds would have taken a bow. This screening process has been totally without rigour or colour. It is the Senate’s first major test under Ahmed Lawan’s watch and the result is woeful, if not absolutely ludicrous. Before now, the Senate had promised Nigerians that it would conduct a rigorous screening process. Instead, it has chosen to molly-coddle the nominees. The argument that the Rules of the Senate allow the Senators to ask persons who had been in the federal legislature before now to take a bow and go turned out to be an excuse for sycophancy and abuse of privilege. The Senate violated its own rules when it over-stretched that privilege. Female nominees were asked to take a bow and leave. We were denied the opportunity to hear them out – that’s sexist. One nominee was asked to take a bow because he comes from the same state as the Senate President and his brother has been a loyal and committed party man. That is nepotism!  Another nominee was described as “handsome”. What nonsense! The Senate President actually used his mouth to describe one nominee as a “beneficiary by chance”. What’s that? A minister by chance? That’s stupid.

Even the nominees who were subjected to some friendly conversation to give the whole thing a veneer of seriousness got at best a handshake.  Abubakar Malami, one of the returnee 14 stood before that Senate and gave a general interpretation of Section 174 of the 1999 Constitution in an attempt to justify the Buhari government’s routine disobedience of court orders. He made a disingenuous case for the superiorisation of national interest over private interest in a manner that ridicules the sanctity of court orders and Chapter 4 of the 1999 Constitution on Fundamental Human Rights. He misinformed the Assembly on the spirit and the letter of the law. He over-stretched section 174 beyond prosecutorial discretion. It is not within his remit to cherry-pick.  There are lawyers in that Senate. It is the job of the lawmakers to make laws for the good governance of the country. There was nobody in that Senate who could stand up and engage Malami on the overriding importance of Chapter 4, the most sacred part of the Constitution which cannot be amended without the concurrence of two-thirds of the National Assembly.   

Someone asked Festus Keyamo to recite the second stanza of the National Anthem, but the Senate President who had reduced himself shamelessly to the role of a goalkeeper of the Buhari FC, raised an objection and directed that the question should not be asked. I also don’t think that was an intelligent question but generally, the Senators could not come up with anything more intelligent other than to ask Junior WAEC questions because they were probing in the dark. Nobody knew the portfolios of the would-be Ministers. Hence, the entire exercise was at best a guess-work. Rather than insist that the President should provide the portfolios forthwith as many Nigerians had demanded, the Senate turned itself into a Presidential Liaison Office and started arguing that there is no such provision in the Nigerian Constitution. Is it everything that is written into the Constitution? Common sense is important in legislative work. But nowhere do the framers of the Constitution write expressly that the law must be interpreted in accordance with the rules of commonsense and equity, even when anything to the contrary would amount to a violation of the law. 

Ahmed Lawan’s Senate lacks the moral right to reject any Ministerial nominee. It would have been better, all things considered, if the lawmakers had just received the President’s list, endorsed it at one sitting, and proceeded promptly on their recess. The utterly incompetent screening process, the Senate’s silly extension of its scope of discretion and the sheer display of sycophancy - clearly confirm the impression that this is simpliciter,  a rubber stamp National Assembly. In the end, the Constitution grants the President of Nigeria the powers to choose his own team as he deems fit.  It is just that a cabinet list of party apologists and loyal associates is not in Nigeria’s best interest. Not seeing through that, Ahmed Lawan’s National Assembly is most urgently in need of soul-searching, re-set and sober reflection. This should be the next assignment for a seemingly heavily compromised 9th Assembly. 

Every profession has its icons. Chief Olusegun Osoba is one of ours in the practice of journalism in Nigeria. In a career spanning more than five decades, he has distinguished himself not just as an icon but as a living legend. It is difficult to work in a newspaper house in Nigeria and not hear about the exploits of Olusegun Osoba as a reporter: the man who discovered the corpses, after the coup of January 1966, of First Republic Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, and Finance Minister Chief Festus Okotie-Eboh. Osoba is known as the master of scoops whose stories constantly made the front pages of the Daily Times at a time that particular newspaper was synonymous with newspapering in Nigeria, the Babatunde Jose favorite who became a “son” on account of his diligence and commitment to work, and who got promoted to the position of the Editor of the Daily Times. Those who worked with Osoba and who knew him closely used to tell us stories about how his promotion to the position of Editor sparked a rebellion at the Daily Times. 

His own editor, Areoye Oyebola felt betrayed. Other superstars at the newspaper who thought they were in a line of succession walked out of the Daily Times in anger and took their protest to the military authorities of the time. I have been told by more than one of Osoba’s contemporaries that this led to the gradual politicization of the Daily Times and the eventual “capture” of that newspaper by the military government. The military incursion into the Daily Times subjected the newspaper to the agony of  “slow death”. Osoba’s distinction lay in his dexterity as a reporter, his hard nose for news; his love of the job; his vast network of contacts and sources. In 1964, he was the only reporter in the city of Lagos who had a telephone at home. He also had a Vespa scooter. You have to love what you do to be able to excel in it and turn it into a life-long commitment. Osoba loved his job. The story is told about how during the 1975 coup that toppled the Yakubu Gowon military administration, Chief Osoba rushed to the office. Alhaji Babatunde Jose, Managing Director of the newspaper was surprised that he was the only senior editor who showed up and together, the two of them worked on the production of the Evening Times and the next day’s paper. Alhaji Jose, the father of modern Nigerian journalism rewarded Osoba for his tenacity and professionalism. 

In the course of his career, Osoba later became known as the arrow head of a triumvirate known as “The Three Musketeers” in Nigerian journalism. The label - “Three Musketeers” – was coined by Chief Obafemi Awolowo and popularized by Chief Bola Ige to refer to Chief Olusegun Osoba, Mr. Felix Adenaike and Mr. Peter Ajayi – the troika who dominated the Nigerian media space, specifically the South West media in the 70s and 80s.  They were at various points and at the same time at certain points, managers of the Nigerian Tribune, Daily Times, Daily Sketch and the Nigerian Herald with a combined control of over one million newspapers per day.  Each one of them turned out to be a legend in his own right; together, they became a compelling force. At the Nigerian Tribune, Felix Adenaike was regarded by the newsroom as a four-star General. He was the GOC for more than a decade. After his retirement, I was privileged to work with him when he joined us at The Guardian Editorial Board as a consultant. Mr Adenaike came all the way from Ibadan and he was always punctual. He is one of the best editorial writers that I know and one of the most disciplined that I have ever worked with. 

His writing was un-editable, with every word in place and sense oozing from every paragraph. Mr Peter Ajayi is the author of one of the most memorable books on Nigerian journalism: his account of his years as the general manager of the Nigerian Herald titled Not His Master’s Voice: How To Kill A Newspaper.  Out of the troika, only Mr. Felix Adenaike and Chief Olusegun Osoba are still alive, both old men, with a life of unforgettable achievements behind them. So formidable, influential and impactful were they, individually and together, that their friendship and significance inspired the writing of a book titled “The Three Musketeers” by Agboola Sanni – 192 pages, 20 chapters (2018).  Agboola Sanni was a colleague of the troika, and although he talks about other issues in the book, his main submission is the role of Osoba, Adenaike and Ajayi as frontliners in Nigerian journalism. “The Three Musketeers” showed up before the Newswatch team – Dele Giwa, Ray Ekpu, Dan Agbese, and Yakubu Mohammed who launched another robust phase in Nigerian journalism. Osoba and his Musketeer brothers represent the bridge between the old and modern journalism in Nigeria. There are others as well- columnists who were more famous than the newspaper, sub-editors who enjoyed casting headlines that shot up circulation, night editors who made a difference…I am sorry to say, at the risk of self-deprecation that they probably don’t make them like that anymore. Something, at some point, happened in the newsrooms in Nigeria... 

Osoba went a top-notch higher in his career when he transited from being a reporter to editor to newspaper manager and finally landed in the arena of politics. Journalists like lawyers have always been involved in the making and unmaking of Nigeria since the first newspaper was established in Olusegun Osoba’s home-town of Abeokuta in 1859. Some of the most prominent persons in Nigeria’s independence struggle, pre-and post independence were journalists. They include Chief Obafemi Awolowo who once worked as a reporter, Sir Nnamdi Azikiwe who once owned a chain of newspapers across Nigeria (Azikiwe tells part of that story in his autobiography, titled My Odyssey), Chief Ernest Ikoli, Samuel Akinsanya (who later became the Odemo of  Ishara), Samuel Ladoke Akintola, editor of the Daily Service in 1943, Bisi Onabanjo, the feisty columnist who wrote under the nom de plume, Ayekooto, Lateef  Jakande, who turns 90 today, and who was Governor of Lagos State in the Second Republic. Chief Osoba, the subject of this commentary, is a friend of the 90-year-old Jakande.  Journalists are like soldiers; they are sworn to an unwritten code of brotherhood, except that these days, the spread of poverty and inordinate ambition in Nigerian newsrooms stands the practice code on its head: dogs now eat dogs and the kind of respect for tradition and achievement that existed in Osoba’s days and shortly after, has vanished. Again I digress. But what I am saying is that beyond his accomplishments as a journalist, Chief Olusegun Osoba in typical Renaissance fashion, has been part of the Nigerian story beyond the newsroom. He is a reporter wbo moved on to become a newsmaker in his own right. He is the reporter who became part of the story.  

In 2012, Dimgba Igwe and Mike Awoyinfa, two other icons in Nigerian journalism, belonging to another generation, decided to do a book to celebrate Osoba’s distinction. They titled the book: “Osoba: The Newspaper Years” (2012, 396 pp.). The book is a tribute to Osoba. It is also a commentary on Nigerian journalism. Indeed, over the years, so much has been written about the man, Olusegun Osoba. To some people he is known as a  “Musketeer”. In Abeokuta, he is known either as Akinrogun Egba or Oluwo Oba; among the Ijebus where his wife hails from, the “Customs Lady” to whom the intermission in the book is dedicated, he is Aremo.  In the progressive movement in Nigerian politics, he is regarded as a NADECO chieftain, or a pro-June twelver in Nigerian politics, that is a pro-democracy activist. In the Alliance for Progressives Congress (APC), the political party that he helped to establish and on which platform he helped Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari to win in 2015 and return to power in 2019, he is regarded as a power broker. In his home state of Ogun state where his anointed candidate, Prince Dapo Abiodun is now in office and in power as Governor of the state, Osoba is the indisputable Godfather, and for him, it is a kind of sweet victory having suffered terribly in the hands of his immediate successors in that state. 

Whatever happens however, either on the big or small stage, Osoba is already in a safe place in his chosen profession and the larger canvass of Nigerian politics. And whatever story you may have heard about him – apocryphal, factual or alternative, Chief Olusegun Osoba has now written his own biography telling his own story in his own words. The book titled Battlelines: Adventures in Journalism and Politics (341 pp) was publicly presented recently to mark the celebration of his 80th birthday anniversary. Osoba’s  Battlelines is a must read for every student of journalism, history and politics, and the general reader who  is interested in autobiography and the making of modern Nigeria. Osoba offers a ring-side and a direct participant view of some of the key developments in Nigerian journalism and politics in the last five decades. He tells the story of his own life in a manner in which only he can. Any other author would have done a little disservice to the subject. This is a book that needed to be written by Osoba himself as part of his legacy. It is dedicated to Apostle Joseph Ayo Babalola, his maternal uncle who taught him “inner spiritualism” and Alhaji Ismail Dr. Ismail Babatunde Jose who ensured he was “well trained as a journalist and media manager.” He says “the book is a tribute to doggedness”. It shows. It is a well-told story, in a classic, reportorial, well-illustrated style. 

It is most appropriate that Chief Osoba begins the book with what he loves most and what distinguishes him professionally when he says: “Reporting is my life. For me to be called a reporter is the greatest accolade. Reporting is the soul of journalism. To report is to be the eyes and ears, the nose and voice of a news organization. It is to bear witness…” In the over 300 pages that follow, Osoba reports himself. He bears witness on his own life, and not just himself but also many of the persons whose paths have crossed his in the course of the adventures and the many battles of his life. He admits that he has led “a good life”, and that journalism has been kind to him, but when you consider all the threats to his life, the animosity and the betrayals that he has suffered and endured, you may also be tempted to conclude that this book is the story of a man of divine favour, or what he himself calls “God’s abiding grace.”  

Chief Osoba makes a strong case for the writing of biographies, and I think he is absolutely right. The book is in four parts and an intermission in a total of 19 chapters and an epilogue and an addendum. It starts on a dramatic note: “Close encounters with death” – a gripping account of the many cat lives of the author, the risky nature of public service and exposure in Nigeria’s murderous political and social space. Beyond journalism and politics, the book further offers us a window into the heart and character of the author. He is proud of his upbringing, he pays tribute to everyone who has helped him through life and the adventures of his becoming, including the schools that he attended, the teachers who moulded him, and the cities that shaped his journey, particularly Osogbo and Lagos to which an entire chapter is devoted. Young journalists should read this book. I recommend to them in particular Chapters 4 to 6. 

The practice of journalism in Nigeria has changed a lot since the days of Osoba and his generation, but it is a remarkable tribute to Osoba’s staying power and relevance that as he turns 80, younger journalists whose mothers were not yet born when he was already riding a Vespa scooter around the city of Lagos are today, writing undergraduate and graduate thesis about his experience and achievements. In defining the adventures and the many battles of his life, Osoba tells his own side of the story, but he also settles scores. He is generous with tributes and acknowledgements to every one who helped him in the course of his adventures but he does not pull punches in dismissing those who may have wronged him, the only exception in that regard being Prince Tony Momoh. He does not spare Chief Areoye Oyebola whom he succeeded as Editor of the Daily Times, Wale Oshun who in his book Open Grave: NADECO and the Struggle for Democracy allegedly “injures” Osoba’s reputation, former Finance Minister Dr. Onaolapo Soleye and Afenifere Chieftain Chief Ayo Adebanjo who is the subject of an attached addendum.      

The book tells the story of Osoba’s gradual transformation from reporter to politician, the only one among the “The Three Musketeers” who made that transformation, their relationship with Chief Obafemi Awolowo, his own relationship with Chief MKO Abiola, from war to peace, from adversarial encounters to collaboration in the pursuit of progressive ideas and the defence of democracy (see Chapters 12 – 15). The tone of Osoba’s narrative is generally even-tempered and carefully measured, but he gets slightly emotional and the tempo rises when he writes about those who in his own estimation wronged him. Part Three of the book: Chapters 16 – 19 is devoted to his second coming as the Governor of Ogun State, 1999 – 2003 and the politics of that season, President Olusegun Obasanjo and all. The book ends in Chapter 19, with the story of the emergence of the All Progressives Congress, Nigeria’s current ruling party, and there is an epilogue and an addendum in which he writes a rejoinder to Chief Ayo Adebanjo’s comments on him in an autobiography titled Telling It As It Is.

Osoba’s story doesn’t quite end. You are likely to read the last paragraph feeling that there is still a lot more from where this has been offered. His writing should inspire others to tell their own side of the story. At 80, Chief Olusegun Osoba tells a story that says a lot about him and others and Nigeria. There are many useful lessons to be learnt from his life and example. This is a story that needed to be written and here it is in bold face, well-written, well-delivered.       

On Sunday, July 14, Nduka Obaigbena, the publisher of ThisDay newspaper, and founder/chairman of the Arise News Media group turned 60. Friends, family, associates and the top rank of the Nigerian elite including the Vice President, state governors and captains of industry turned up en masse to mark the occasion at a Thanksgiving Service held at the Church of the Christ Cathedral in Marina, Lagos. The celebration continued with a luncheon at the Sky Lounge of the Eko Hotels and Suites. A grand celebration was held at the same Hotel on Monday evening. Nduka Obaigbena deserves all the accolades that have been showered on him. When he turned 50, ten years ago, I thought that was the most impressive celebration I had ever seen, but ten years later, the entire city practically stood still to celebrate a man of great impact and consequence. From the President to the supplier of newsprint and the vendor on the street, we have concrete evidence of the essence of the man we call “The Duke”,  “Publisher” or simply “Chairman.”  Whenever the story of Nigeria’s media industry in the 20^thand 21^stcenturies is written there is no doubt that Obaigbena will occupy a place of respect, praise and admiration in the narrative. He wields in the Nigerian media industry and even beyond, such influence and impact, not because he has been a two-time President of the Newspapers Proprietors Association of Nigeria (NPAN) but because of his contributions to the development of the industry, his commitment, his entrepreneurship and his innovativeness. 

His life is an interesting epic about determination, hard work, creativity, and the ability to think out of the box. He is certainly not a theoretician; no, he is rather a man of direct action, impulsive and intuitive may be but merciless, exact and determined in the pursuit of defined goals, which oftentimes may be overshadowed by his own restlessness. He is essentially an artist, creatively imaginative with a pragmatic turn of mind. We are talking about a man whose unorthodox methods have produced admirable results and whose style is a catalyst for industry-wide innovation. He started quite early. He was in his twenties, barely 25, when he decided to venture into the business of publishing a news magazine. He called it ThisWeek. Every one had their doubts. The industry was dominated by the big names of the profession. The only thing Obaigbena had done at the time, was may be earning a small notoriety as a witty newspaper cartoonist. He was not one of the big boys. He did not have a recognizable family name, not even a fat bank account in his name. Nobody gave him a chance. 

But he would soon end up as a major discovery in the media industry. He put to work his major assets: his ability to identify talents and provide a liberal, friendly environment for the flowering of talent. He put together a team comprising some of the best and brightest in the media, and what happened? Every week, ThisWeek churned out some really wacky reports and stories in well-tuned prose. The market noticed. Other players in the market also noticed that a new kid on the block was beginning to shake the table. Obaigbena likes to shake tables through innovation and ideas. But the business model behind ThisWeek fell off the table. Ill-advised tampering with the exchange rate by the military authorities and poor management decisions combined to frustrate the project. ThisWeek was printed every week in London and couriered back to Nigeria. It was not sustainable.    

But that was not the end for Obaigbena who had now carved a niche for himself. His next major move, after a brief period away from the turbulence, was the announcement of the publication of ThisDaynewspaper. This was received with a mixture of doubt, skepticism and outright contempt. I recall that many in the industry predicted the early demise of ThisDay. “That young man has not learnt his lesson with the failure of ThisWeek?” “What does he think this business is all about?” For ten years, the pessimists kept prophesying the early end of ThisDaynewspaper. Their prophecies failed. ThisDaywas introduced at a time when there was a gap in the media industry – the National Concord, The Guardian, The Punchwere under siege on account of military repression. ThisDay filled the gap, focusing mainly on politics, business and lifestyle, breaking fresh stories and commentaries authored by skilled and ambitious journalists. Obaigbena had cleverly recruited seasoned journalists who had become jobless because of the proscription of those three newspapers.  This is why till today, ThisDay offers a mixture of The Punch,National Concordand The Guardian. By the time these newspapers were de-proscribed, ThisDayhad become well established in the market. 

But there was a lot more at the level of innovation. At a time, computers were considered best suited for fraudsters involved in internet scam, and the notorious 419, Obaigbena “forced” his reporters and technicians to start using the computer. Once upon a time in this country, media managers resisted the introduction of the computer, and the production team boasted about their ability to set typefaces using the old Goss machine. Obaigbena was one of the first, if not the first publisher, to move quickly to the 21^stcentury. He digitalized his newsroom and gave laptops to his reporters. He insisted that his reporters must move to the next level or ship out. It looked like tyranny then, but today, there is no journalist anywhere in Nigeria who would consider the computer an instrument of punishment. The Guardian is the first newspaper to introduce colour in its masthead: the blue colour- but Obaigbena moved beyond the mast head and started full colour printing at a time that was considered impossible in Nigeria. There were complaints about cost and the recklessness of a young publisher whose target market was the young and the stylish who do not necessarily read. But the innovation soon became standard practice in the Nigerian press. 

Obaigbena is also the first publisher to introduce simultaneous printing. The circulation department of newspapers in Nigeria used to be a source of nightmare for everyone. The circulation department set the deadlines more or less. They used to dictate when the newspaper must go to bed. If the newspaper was not ready at a particular time, it would not be able to reach the market. They exercised a kind of authority that was irritating to those who had to look for the stories, process them and put the paper together. When Obaigbena’s ThisDayintroduced simultaneous printing, other publishers followed his lead. Before then, Chief MKO Abiola, publisher of the then National Concord had set up Concord Bulk which was meant to be a central circulation system for all newspaper houses. It was modelled after a similar infrastructure in the United States but ego, rivalry, competition, politics and mischief stood in the way and the Abiola initiative failed. ThisDay set up printing presses in Lagos, Abuja and Agbor. The game changed.    

The back page of the Nigerian newspaper used to be the traditional space for sports news and reports. Obaigbena moved sports to inside back page and introduced back page commentary. It was as if he had committed an abomination. There was a loud scream across newsrooms. But the back page came to stay. Today, many newspapers in Nigeria are doing exactly the same thing. The back page of  ThisDay where I now write this column every Tuesday has endured over the years. The pioneers are Obaigbena himself, Olusegun Adeniyi, Amanze Obi, Victor Ifijeh, Eniola Bello, Louis Odion and Ijeoma Nwogwugwu.  Obaigbena has been able to create new brands on this page – and also use the platform of the newspaper to create an emergent generation of ace reporters and analysts. The biggest achievement of a newspaper is to create its own team and ambassadors. For many years, the Daily Times, The Guardian, Vanguard, Punchwere the leaders in this regard. ThisDaysoon became an award-winning newspaper in its own right and can also now boast of an alumni association working in other newsrooms and in other professions.

At 60, Nduka Obaigbena can look back and beat his chest, and then look around him with satisfaction that he has been able to make a mark and turn something that he enjoys doing into a legacy and a source of life-long fulfilment. He is like a fireplace from which others have tapped light and he has been most generous in allowing access to his space and resources. The point must be made that his influence goes beyond Nigeria.  He has endeavored with varying degrees of success to set up media operations in South Africa, New York, and the United Kingdom. He learnt some bitter lessons in South Africa but whatever challenges he may have faced as an entrepreneur form part of the totality of his essence: in this regard, his capacity to fail and rise again and move on to greater accomplishments.  I referred earlier to his restlessness. After ThisDay,he established the Arise Magazine, he set up the Arise Fashion Week, he dabbled into events management, setting up an events centre in Lagos and Abuja, he organized concerts – the ThisDay Music Festival-  bringing some of the topmost musicians in the world to Nigeria, from Jay Z to Chris Brown, Kelly Rowlands and Beyonce.  He would also bring world leaders to Nigeria to speak: Presidents Bill Clinton, George Bush, Vicente Fox, Prime Minister Tony Blair and Condi Rice. He has on his Rolodex some of the most powerful people in Nigeria and the world across industries. In the fashion world, he is a friend of the inimitable Naomi Campbell. In journalism, he has partnered with some of the most influential media houses in the world. In leadership, he has had cause to engage some of the world’s great leaders. The 25-year-old who came to Lagos after university in Benin is now one of the big boys of Nigeria! 

The Obaigbena that I know is not like the photographs that you see of him. He is a resilient spirit, a dogged fighter. This is perhaps the source of his staying power in the turbulent arena of Nigerian business and politics. He actually once ventured into politics on the platform of the National Republican Convention (NRC) but he fled and has since not looked back. He thinks Nigerian politics is dirty even if he has many friends in politics, and his media outfits focus on politics as a primary subject. He didn’t enjoy being a politician at all. He thinks politicians and the electorate are just interested in money and when you give them money, they are likely to ask for more money.  When I told him I wanted to run as Deputy Governor in Ogun State during the 2019 general election, his key advice was that I must not borrow money from anybody, and that I must not sell anything that belongs to me.  He insisted - his friend, Chike Ogeah was there - that politics is a casino. You can put in everything you have and you may not win.  I won’t say he is right or wrong. I guess in Nigerian politics when you win, you lose; when you lose you win. But that is another topic entirely. 

As a businessman, Obaigbena has also had his travails. He had cause to run away from the country when the General Sani Abacha government marked him out as an enemy of the state. Under Abacha, any one who published anything critical of the state or expressed a progressive idea or was seen to be supporting the progressive cause was a target for humiliation, assassination or economic destruction. Obaigbena’s employees have taken him to court or called him out for non-payment of their salaries. Company properties have been fifa-ed or a lien placed on company accounts. Terrorists, particularly the Boko Haram, have bombed the Abuja office of ThisDay,destroying the property.  The Muslim Ummah once placed a fatwa on the head of a ThisDay reporter. Ms. Isioma Daniel was accused of writing something sacrilegious. The lady had to leave Nigeria. There have been cases as well ofThisDaystaff dying under mysterious circumstances. 

If Obaigbena looks back, he will definitely see a lot and recall a lot. But through thick and thin, whatever may be the depth of the difficulty, he has demonstrated an uncommon strength of character.  I like the fact that he stands by his team. Even when a staff abuses him and walks away, when the same staff returns to him for help or seek to return to the company, he takes them back, he supports them. He doesn’t throw people away. At Arise News, the TV Channel where I am an anchor, when he threatens to sack anybody, the people just laugh. They will say behind his back: “don’t mind him, he will not do it and if he sacks you, after a few days he will start worrying about how you will survive without a job, the worst he will do is to surcharge you.” 

The same staff know of course that he does not take nonsense and he cannot be held to ransom. He does not consider anybody indispensable. He believes he can turn any talented person into a star and he is very proud of the fact that many of the superstars in Nigerian journalism and politics today once worked with him. What he has achieved in the print media, he wants to replicate in the broadcast industry. Arise Newsunder his watch, is beginning to rise. Many of the young talents who joined the team and could not even ad-lib or read the teleprompter a few months ago, are now beginning to sound like experts, young producers are beginning to offer opinion about best production practices… 

I cannot predict what Obaigbena plans to do next. It must be something in his head. But he is that kind of person who stumbles on a dream and insists on translating it into reality in 24 hours if possible and he expects the people around him to fall in line and make it happen. He is very aggressive with his ideas and dreams. But he is also above all, a very pleasant, kind-hearted fellow.  We admire him for all that he has done and achieved and the inspiration that flows from his anointed example. But now that he has turned 60, please, he must begin to leave some special legacies for younger men like us, especially those beautiful, pepper dem,ladies who flock around him like bees around nectar… Hen hen.  Congratulations, Chairman.     

The Supreme Court of Nigeria delivered the final judgment on Friday, July 5, in the matter of the September 22 Gubernatorial election, and the September 27 re-run in Osun State. On September 22, 2018, the collation of results indicated that the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Senator Ademola Adeleke had won the election by a margin of 354 votes, but rather than announce the results, the Returning Officer, relying on the INEC Manual, declared the election inconclusive. INEC subsequently ordered a re-run scheduled for September 27 in seven polling units in four local councils. Ahead of the said re-run, there was so much tension in Osun state and anxiety in other places. It was feared that INEC had colluded with the ruling All Peoples Congress (APC) to rig the election and deny the PDP victory. Members of the APC reached out to Senator Iyiola Omisore whose political stronghold was one of the contested polling units, and whereas he was a member of the PDP, it was assumed that his shift of loyalty to the APC could determine the outcome of the re-run in APC’s favour. 

There were suggestions of court cases to stop the re-run as planned and suggestions that the PDP should boycott and seek an order of court to compel INEC to release the full results of the already conducted election and declare Adeleke as the validly elected winner of the election. As it happened, the re-run took place as scheduled on September 27, 2018. There were allegations of voter intimidation, vote buying, violence at polling units, particularly in PDP strongholds.  Arrests were purportedly made. Local and international elections monitors and observers expressed disappointment. They were of the view that the election fell far short of international best practices. 

INEC didn’t declare the September 27 election inconclusive or flawed. It announced that Gboyega Oyetola of the ruling APC won the election. In less than a week, APC was able to turn the table. Both the PDP and its Gubernatorial candidate in Osun State protested that this was a case of electoral theft aided and abetted by the National Electoral Commission. They immediately went to the State Election Petition Tribunal to seek justice. The Osun election was particularly considered significant, held as it was, just a few months to Nigeria’s general election in Feb/March 2019. It was meant to provide Nigerians with a sense, if not a sign, of what was to come. It was a test of the government’s sincerity and INEC’s level of preparedness for the general elections. 

On March 22, 2019, the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal ruled 2 to 1 that the conduct of the Gubernatorial election did not fulfil the test of substantial compliance with the law and due process, and hence declared Ademola Adeleke as the rightful and valid winner of the election and further nullified the re-run of Sept. 27, 2018. The tribunal also berated INEC for the role that it played in the election. The APC and Gboyega Oyetola, now the incumbent Governor of Osun State promptly appealed the ruling. In May 2019, the Court of Appeal ruled 4-1 against the PDP and Senator Ademola Adeleke. This ruling was based on a technical argument: that the judge who gave the lead judgment at the Tribunal had been absent at the proceedings of the Tribunal on February 6, 2019, when issues of non-compliance were tabled, and could therefore not have been privy to the facts and details of the case. The dissenting Justice, Ita Mbaba, JCA dismissed this as unproven. He argued that to all intents and purposes, Justice Obiora’s name not appearing in the record for that day may have been an omission on the part of the registry. Justice Obiora himself was reported as having claimed that he was indeed present but that he forgot to sign the register. The victory awarded to the appellant by the Court of Appeal was of course unpleasant to the original petitioner. Hence, PDP and its Osun candidate took the matter to the court of final resort, the Supreme Court of Nigeria. 

On July 5, their Lordships gave their ruling, in a split decision, 5 to 2, in favour of the APC gubernatorial candidate, Gboyega Oyetola. This is one ruling of the Supreme Court in recent times that has been received with considerable shock. Judges are men and women of immense wisdom and dignity; it is their responsibility to deliver such judgments that are in keeping with the letter and spirit of the law in a manner that reinforces the value of the law as a tool of social justice, control and modulation. The apex court of the land in particular is not just a court of record, it is a policy court, and hence it is expected that whatever comes from that court carries all the weight of the law.  

Every judgment at whatever level is also necessarily of interest to many groups: the winning litigant, the loser, their lawyers, families, associates, supporters, other lawyers, law students, researchers, the media, government and other stakeholders. This probably explains why the Osun case has generated so much interest. One other reason is the technical excuse that the Court of Appeal gave for awarding the election to Gboyega Oyetola of the APC. It is not the duty of judges to rely on public sentiments for determining cases – their primary focus is the merit of the case, the evidence before them and the objectives of justice. But while this is the principle, judges cannot also pursue justice for its own sake alone. Justice must be done; it must be seen to have been done. The ruling in the Osun case may eventually become a cause celebre for the clear reason that it seems to fail this test. Has justice been done in the eyes of the ordinary man? What does the ordinary man think? 

It seems to me that the ordinary man in this case considers the ruling of the Supreme Court, an anti-climax. To the consternation of many, the Supreme Court Justices, 5-2, affirmed the ruling of the Appeal Court. Appellate judges may be reluctant to upturn the rulings of lower courts especially at the Appeal level except something is demonstrably wrong. But reliance on technicalities has often been seen by both laymen and the learned alike as a way of avoiding justice. A mechanistic application of the law, often disguised strictly as strict adherence to the law, often subverts the objectives of justice, equity and fairness, or limits the scope of the court. This is perhaps why there has been consistent protest over reliance on technicalities even from the Bench itself.  At the 2017 National Energy Workshop for Judges, Walter Onnoghen CJN (as he then was) warned judges against relying too heavily on technicalities, because doing so will affect “public confidence in the judiciary.” In March 2019, President of the Court of Appeal, Justice Zainab Bulkachuwa at the induction programme for Justices of the Appellate court, chairmen and members of election petition tribunals also warned election petition judges against the “practice of employing undue technicalities”. She even added that any judge found so guilty would be “dealt with”.    

When in the Osun case, the Court of Appeal came up with the technicality of the absence of a judge as the basis for nullifying the decision of the state election petition tribunal, many felt this was case of, to borrow a phrase from Lord Denning, “technicalities beyond belief.” (Lord Denning, What Next In The Law, Oxford, 2011). They looked up to the Supreme Court to correct “the wrong” that Adeleke’s supporters had protested about. More so as questions had been raised about this in the dissenting judgment at the Court of Appeal in the matter. Did the lower court investigate and establish the truth about whether or not Justice Peter Obiora was part of the sitting on February 6, 2019?  Should a litigant bear the burden of punishment for an omission by a judge at the lower court? These questions are pertinent because laws are significantly judge-made. “Judge-craft” is not an easy task but where judges establish precedence that could have implications for similar cases in the future, it may be correct to raise questions and demand clarifications. We may simply have before us in the Osun state case, a situation whereby the dissenting rulings throughout the duration of the matter may be of greater usefulness even if dissenting judgments do not prevail. 

Nonetheless, this is not the first time that the appellate courts of Nigeria will offer a ruling that leaves the ordinary man confused. Judges may insist on legal positivism and their discretionary powers, but there are limits to positivism, I so argue advisedly, as there have been instances where a policy court goes beyond “technicalities” to embrace the option of judicial activism. This was the trend during the golden years of the Supreme Court of Nigeria (with Justices Ayo Irikefe, Chukwudifu Oputa, Kayode Eso, Anthony Anyagolu, Otutu Obaseki, Babatunde Craig, Lawal Uwais, Augustine Nnamani, Adolphus Karibi-Whyte, Modibbo Belgore Nnaemeka-Agu,…).  This was the era of statesmanship, truth-telling and courage on the Bench. It is worrisome that the Supreme Court in reviewing the Osun state case limited itself and leaves the stakeholders no less confused than they are. What is the truth about the September 2018 Gubernatorial election in Osun state? Nobody knows. Even the winners can only rely on technicality as the basis for their victory. The losers also insist that the Supreme Court has not told anybody that Ademola Adeleke did not win. Was INEC right to have declared the election inconclusive? And did the Returning Officer act ultra-vires? Their Lordships are not on record as having addressed this in the lead judgment, not even obiter. 

In a country where there is so much disbelief and mistrust, alienation even, the judiciary cannot afford to lose the people’s trust and respect, or confuse them about its will to act as a force for progress and stability. The judiciary is unequivocally, the last hope of the Nigerian common man. But with regard to the Osun governorship case, what stands out is not that hope but the maturity and sportsmanship of the parties involved. The APC and Governor Gboyega Oyetola have been cautious not to over-jubilate. The PDP has also called for calm. Senator Ademola Adeleke has accepted his fate. This should be the spirit of Nigerian politics, with or without the courts.      

If the drama that overtook Senator Elisha Abbo’s life in the past week had not occurred, he would have been a symbol of the value of the Not-Too-Young-To-Run Movement in Nigeria. At 41, he is the youngest member of the Nigerian Senate. He is much older than Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, 29, of the United States House of Representatives, (D-NY, 14^thdistrict) and Senator Josh Hawley, 39 (R-MO) but any young person who won a major election in Nigeria in 2019 is readily a symbol of sorts for young Nigerians who insist that more young persons should be elected and appointed into positions of authority. President Muhammadu Buhari who signed the Not-Too-Young-To-Run Bill into law. He   can legitimately claim it as a major legacy of his administration. 

Elisha Abbo could have been a torch-bearer for the recruitment of more Nigerian youths, until a video-tape surfaced showing him in an Abuja sex toy shop, violently assaulting a nursing mother who had dared to ask him to calm down during an altercation with the owner of the sex shop. The video showed Abbo in an angry mood, hitting a defenceless woman as if he was having a boxing practice. The woman not only ended up in the hospital, Abbo also directed his police orderly to intimidate the woman. Elisha Abbo has since apologized to all Nigerians for behaving badly.  He wants to be forgiven. He has also been advised to apologise to his victim who is asking for protection from further molestation. The police have invited him for questioning with the indication that he may be charged to court. His party, the People’s Democratic Party has condemned his action, even if at the time of the incident, he had not yet been sworn in as a Senator of the Federal Republic. 

We all have a duty to be interested in the character and conduct of those we elect to lead us, be they young,  middle-aged or old. We cannot afford to have in the corridors of power men and women who are broken symbols, with a capacity to cause damage with the power and influence that they wield. But having said that, let me point out that the attempt to politicize the Elisha Abbo’s case is deplorable. He did not slap a nursing mother because of his PDP affiliation as his political opponents have mischievously argued. This is about his own personal failings and not politics. One APC Senator snatched the mace of the Senate in 2017 with the assistance of some intruders into the Red Chamber. The police never made an attempt to arrest or investigate him. That APC Senator has since been rewarded with a position of influence. Another APC senator who eventually switched loyalties once threatened to forcefully impregnate a female Senator and shame her husband. He later joked about her menopausal status. Such verbal violence is as bad as physical violence. In the same Senate, a ranking Senator defended his right to marry a 13-year old girl. In another case in 2004, a male Senator slapped a female Senator. He got away with it. In the House of Representatives, a female lawmaker also walloped the face of a male colleague. APC lawmakers are just as badly behaved as every other irresponsible lawmaker.  

Two incidents in the last week: the rape allegations against COZA Pastor Biodun Fatoyinbo and the case of battery and assault against Senator Abbo illustrate the menace of phallic hegemony and the abuse of power and gender relations in Nigeria. But Senator Abbo cannot claim ignorance of the law and should stop hiding under the banner of Christianity and forgiveness. If he was a good Christian, he would have behaved differently. My take: I believe the time has come for the Nigerian government to set up a psychiatry and counselling department in Abuja.  Nobody should occupy a position of value and consequence without going for a psychiatric test and anger management counselling. It is beginning to look like some angry men have seized control of the Nigeria’s 9^thNational Assembly. We should send them to counsellors and the shrink, one by one, just to be sure.