As someone from Plateau State, where the solid minerals sector has long been exploited without fostering lasting economic benefits, I have always believed that Nigeria’s untapped mineral wealth could fuel the nation’s growth. With more than 44 types of solid minerals, Nigeria is endowed with resources that, if managed responsibly, could lead to transformative progress.

That potential appeared closer to reality when Segilola Resources Operating Limited (SROL) launched Nigeria’s first commercial gold mine in Osun State. SROL invested millions of dollars in transforming a dormant project into a viable, revenue-generating business, attracting international investor interest to Nigeria’s mining sector and showing the world that Nigeria is indeed capable of fostering a productive, ethical mining industry. SROL’s accomplishments have earned it a place among Nigeria’s Top 10 non-oil exporters, marking the first time gold has made it onto the list – a win for Nigeria’s economy and a crucial step in the country’s journey toward economic diversification.

Yet, despite these achievements, the Osun State Government (OSG) has launched a concerted attack on SROL through a string of public accusations, misrepresentations, and abuses of the judicial system. In a series of moves that can only be described as weaponizing state machinery, the OSG has repeatedly used its platform to discredit SROL, and in doing so, has undermined the economic stability and reputation of Osun State.

One of the OSG’s most egregious tactics has been its manipulation of the court system to push its agenda. In an unorthodox move, the OSG sought a magistrate court order to justify its actions against SROL. The magistrate court, cannot adjudicate on matters over a threshold limit of N10 million, making it an unusual venue for adjudicating complex corporate and regulatory disputes, such as the tax dispute of N3.2 billion in the Segilola/OSG matter. Such an approach suggests that the OSG was less interested in legal due process and more focused on leveraging the court as a tool for coercion. This misuse of judicial authority not only raises concerns about fairness but also sets a dangerous precedent for other states to employ similar tactics against companies operating within their borders.

Simultaneously, the OSG has weaponized media channels to amplify its baseless accusations against SROL, including claims of tax evasion and environmental degradation. Tax disputes are a standard part of doing business, and it has been confirmed that both parties were actively engaged in tax resolution talks to resolve any outstanding issues. Instead of following the established channels for tax resolution through to the end, however, the OSG abandoned the discussion mid-process and opted to publicize unproven claims, tarnishing SROL’s reputation and undermining investor confidence in Osun State.

Furthermore, the OSG’s environmental allegations lack endorsement from the Federal Ministry of Environment, the principal regulatory authority on environmental matters in Nigeria. Not only has the ministry refrained from supporting the OSG’s position, but the OSG has also cited reports linking environmental concerns to illegal mining in the area—activities entirely separate from SROL’s regulated operations. By continuing to conflate SROL’s actions with unrelated environmental issues, the OSG not only misleads the public but also deflects attention from the real environmental threats facing the community.

Perhaps most baffling is the OSG’s contradictory stance on SROL’s shareholding. Despite claiming a stake in SROL, the OSG has chosen to publicly undermine a venture in which it purportedly has an interest. This action reflects a concerning lack of regard for Osun State’s economic welfare, as it risks not only the viability of SROL but also discourages future investors wary of unpredictable state interference. The fact that SROL’s parent company is publicly listed adds to the gravity of this situation, as such behavior could send shockwaves through international investor networks, casting Nigeria in a negative light.

A quick look at SROL’s website reveals numerous community-centered projects. Beyond the compensation paid to project-affected persons, SROL has implemented livelihood restoration programs to support these communities, including fish farming, vegetable farming, and a cocoa rehabilitation program that provides improved-yield cocoa seedlings, agrochemicals, and necessary supplies. Notably, one of the videos on their site features a clip from an NTA broadcast showing Professor Jimoda, the Special Adviser to the Governor on Mining and Mineral Resources, commending SROL’s efforts and saying the company was “getting it right.” It raises a question: what could have prompted such a stark change in sentiment from the Osun State Government within just a few months?

In response to the escalating tension, the Federal Government established a fact-finding committee to mediate the conflict between SROL and the OSG. While this intervention was intended to ensure a fair and transparent resolution, the OSG has continued to press new allegations. Notably, the Federal Government has remained silent on the validity of these claims—an omission that suggests the matter remains unresolved and casts doubt on the OSG’s assertions of victory.

As the OSG continues its campaign against SROL, it is Osun State’s own image and economy that will suffer the greatest harm. Investors are acutely aware of how companies are treated in foreign jurisdictions, and the OSG’s actions raise legitimate concerns about the stability of doing business in Osun and Nigeria as a whole. By targeting SROL, the OSG is effectively undermining one of its own promising enterprises and risking Nigeria’s reputation as a viable investment destination.

The OSG’s actions display a pattern of legal manipulation, public defamation, and regulatory overreach that not only damages Osun State’s immediate economic prospects but also jeopardizes Nigeria’s broader ambitions to become a global mining powerhouse. The time has come for the OSG to cease this counterproductive crusade, return to constructive dialogue, and prioritize the long-term welfare of Osun and its people over short-term political theatrics.

Katako, a public affairs analyst, writes from Jos

The recent arraignment of minors for treason in Nigeria has sparked widespread outrage and condemnation from various quarters. Their arraignment has raised concerns about the handling of juvenile cases and the implications of such actions on the children’s future. The federal government’s position on the matter has been criticized, with many calling for the immediate release of the minors. Sadly, it’s going to come and go like all such matters, no one will be held liable or accountable.

The incident highlights the challenges of leadership in Nigeria, so, let me tell us the story of leadership—a satirical safari through power and promise.

Nigerian leadership. Say those words in any social setting, and watch the room split into chuckles, sighs, and, sometimes, heated monologues. Nigerian leadership is a tale that could rival any Hollywood blockbuster in plot twists, suspense, and emotional rollercoasters. However, it’s also a tale layered with the mystique of myths—idealized versions of what leadership is supposed to be versus what we often get.

We are a Comedy of Errors…Nigeria, a land of contrasts, a nation blessed with immense potential, yet plagued by a leadership conundrum that seems to defy logic. The recurring theme is a leadership that promises much and delivers little, a leadership that often seems more interested in personal enrichment than national development. This has led many to question the very concept of Nigerian leadership, to wonder if it’s not just a grand illusion, a mirage in the desert of hope.

The Nigerian leader, in popular imagination, is a peculiar creature. He (and it’s almost always a he) is often portrayed as a demi-god, a messiah who will miraculously transform the nation overnight. He is expected to solve all problems, from poverty and corruption to insecurity and infrastructure decay.

Yet, time and again, these leaders fail to live up to the hype. They are often more concerned with power retention than problem-solving, more interested in enriching themselves and their cronies than uplifting the masses.

The myth of Nigerian leadership has had a devastating impact on the country. It has led to a culture of cynicism and apathy, where people have lost faith in the ability of their leaders to make a difference. This has, in turn, led to a decline in civic engagement and a rise in social unrest.

Let us start with the allure of the “Messiah Complex”. There’s a strange ritual that occurs every four years. Nigerians from all walks of life gather, united in collective hope, as politicians-turned-Messiahs make promises that sound like poetry. We’ve been told of visions of transforming deserts into oases and turning debts into riches. We’ve heard of a future filled with functional electricity, pothole-free roads, and hospitals that will make a Swiss watchmaker green with envy. These messianic figures appear every election season with a well-rehearsed script and an arsenal of grandiose claims that even Aesop himself would have had trouble believing.

Every so often, however, Nigerians fall for the shiny charisma, the promises of change, and the proclamations of patriotism. The hope is intoxicating. “Maybe this time it’s different,” people think. However, the “Messiah” quickly devolves into the “Excuse Machine,” because just like clockwork, the mirage fades and the landscape of reality becomes all too clear.

The Myth of Transformation. A word often sprinkled into campaign speeches and government slogans, like salt in a pot of jollof rice. Politicians sell transformation as if it were a buy-one-get-one-free deal at a Lagos market. The truth, however, is more of a slow simmer than a fast boil. Promises are made with the certainty of a Shakespearean tragedy. Our leaders assure us of mega-cities, free education, and top-tier health care — not unlike New York, Tokyo, or Paris — only to end up delivering results closer to rural Ajegunle, where even basic amenities are hard to come by.

Every politician tells us they’ll be different. They swear to bridge the gap between rich and poor, elevate the standard of living, and make Nigeria great again (though no one quite remembers when Nigeria was “great” by their implied standards). They preach transformation, yet reality reminds us more of the song “Nothing New Under the Sun.” And while “transformation” sounds beautiful in theory, it often translates to moving from one ineffective policy to the next, with very little real change in sight.

Now, here’s a real mystery: Nigerian leaders often amass incredible wealth while they’re in service to the nation. It’s almost as if there’s an invisible ATM in every office. Take a simple councilor position, and it might magically pay enough to build a mansion, fly first-class, and send children to Ivy League schools abroad. It is the Paradox of Wealth and Service.

Surely, one must wonder: Is public office in Nigeria blessed with some hidden oil well that the rest of us common folk don’t know about? Or maybe, just maybe, the lines between “public servant” and “private business mogul” are so blurred that even Picasso would have difficulty painting it.

There is a cultural paradox here too. In Nigeria, if a person “makes it” in government, they become a hero in their village. While the rest of the country might bemoan corruption, friends and family back home celebrate their “son’s” success. This celebration of political “achievement” is ingrained, and while the culture venerates “serving the people,” the individuals themselves are often held up as “untouchable” figures, immune to scrutiny or criticism. It’s a complex paradox, and one that feeds the myth.

Another pillar of Nigerian leadership myth is the promise of security. Each administration vows to end the violence that has plagued parts of the country, whether it’s the Northeast, plagued by insurgency, or the Northwest, suffering under banditry. Every president is the Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces, yet they seem more skilled in speeches than in strategies. One might think, given their promises, that each new administration would make Nigeria one of the safest nations on earth. Yet, security remains elusive, like trying to catch rain with a sieve.

The real irony is in the way leaders themselves are heavily guarded while citizens fend for themselves. It’s not uncommon to see a convoy with enough SUVs to form a motorcade protecting one individual while the ordinary citizen walks home through streets dimly lit and streets less patrolled. And yet, Nigerians are resilient. In the face of so much insecurity, they go about their lives, praying that one day, security will be more than a lofty campaign promise.

Leadership in Nigeria is much like a soap opera — long, dramatic, and filled with cliffhangers. And just like the characters in these dramas, Nigerian leaders are often concerned with their legacy. But what does legacy even mean in the context of Nigerian leadership? The legacies that some leaders leave are more about buildings, statues, and airports bearing their names than about sustainable development. And when the next leader comes in, one of the first steps is often to dismantle, rename, or outright ignore the predecessor’s “legacy.”

What this means for Nigeria is a series of disjointed projects, half-hearted initiatives, and policies abandoned halfway. In place of real progress, Nigeria has a collection of monuments to political egos, a scrapbook of half-completed buildings, and a string of reforms that never quite made it to completion.

But here’s the twist: for all the comedy and tragedy of Nigerian leadership, Nigerians themselves are the true leaders. They are the ones who hustle, adapt, and thrive despite the odds. While politicians grandstand, ordinary Nigerians build businesses from scratch, create art and culture that captivate the world, and maintain a resilient spirit that no amount of hardship seems to quench.

The myth of Nigerian leadership persists because, deep down, we all hold out hope that one day, the leaders we elect will reflect the best of us — not the worst. Nigerians deserve leaders who understand that leadership is a service, not a birthright, a responsibility, not a ticket to personal paradise.

In the end, perhaps the myth will give way to reality. Maybe the Messiah Complex will be replaced by the Public Servant. But until then, Nigerians will do what they have always done — lead themselves, rise above, and continue to believe that one day, true leadership will emerge, not as myth but as reality, and Nigeria may win—Only time will tell

Prince Charles Dickson PhD
Team Lead
The Tattaaunawa Roundtable Initiative (TRICentre)

We had lately refrained from engaging in media fights but we are constrained to respond to the recent misinformation being circulated by IPMAN, PETROAN, and other associations.

Both organisations claim that they can import PMS at lower prices than what is being sold by the Dangote Refinery. We benchmark our prices against international prices and we believe our prices are competitive relative to the price of imports.

If anyone claims they can land PMS at a price cheaper than what we are selling, then they are importing substandard products and conniving with international traders to dump low quality products into the country, without concern for the health of Nigerians or the longevity of their vehicles.

Unfortunately, the regulator (NMDPRA) does not even have laboratory facilities which can be used to detect substandard products when imported into the country. Post deregulation, NNPC set the pace by selling PMS to domestic marketers at N971 per litre for sale into ships and at N990 for sale into trucks.

This set the benchmark for our pricing and we have even gone lower to sell at N960 per litre for sale into ships while maintaining N990 per litre for sale into trucks.
In good faith, and in the interest of the country, we commenced sales at these prices without clarity on the exchange rate that we will use to pay for the crude purchased.

At the same time, an international trading company has recently hired a depot facility next to the Dangote Refinery, with the objective of using it to blend substandard products that will be dumped into the market to compete with Dangote Refinery's higher quality production.

This is detrimental to the growth of domestic refining in Nigeria. We should point out that it is not unusual for countries to protect their domestic industries in order to provide jobs and grow the economy. For example, the US and Europe have had to impose high tariffs on EVs and microchips in order to protect their domestic industries.

While we continue with our determination to provide affordable, good quality, domestically refined petroleum product in Nigeria, we call on the public to disregard the deliberate disinformation being circulated by agents of people who prefer for us to continue to export jobs and import poverty.

Anthony Chiejina

Group Chief Branding and Communications Officer

3rd November, 2024

“Every elected Nigerian leader since the end of the first republic knows why crab does not sleep. What it stays awake doing is 24/7 recce for the safety of its head. Its eyes should be its binoculars – and they are. Even Olusegun Obasanjo as civilian president did not deny himself that wisdom, although he was very nuanced about it. He had three Inspectors-General of Police and all three were from his western region. His DG SSS from 1999 to 2007 was Colonel Kayode Are, his Abeokuta kinsman. For the army, Obasanjo, a southern Christian, in eight years, had four gentlemen as his Chief of Army Staff. He started in 1999 with Victor Malu, a Christian from the North; then he moved south and picked Alexander Ogomudia, a southern minority. After two years, two months, Obasanjo took the position back to the North. But he did not give it to those who might use it to injure him. He picked Martin Luther Agwai, a southern Kaduna minority Christian. Three years down that road, he went south again and picked Andrew Owoye Azazi, another southern minority. It was clear that he was deliberate about what he did. He was wide awake, mixing his nationalist broth with condiments of small nepotism here, a little of altruism there. The Obasanjo experience ended almost twenty years ago. This is the age of reason, apology to Thomas Paine. The gloves are off”.

Every elected Nigerian leader since the end of the first republic knows why crab does not sleep. What it stays awake doing is 24/7 recce for the safety of its head. Its eyes should be its binoculars – and they are. Even Olusegun Obasanjo as civilian president did not deny himself that wisdom, although he was very nuanced about it. He had three Inspectors-General of Police and all three were from his western region. His DG SSS from 1999 to 2007 was Colonel Kayode Are, his Abeokuta kinsman. For the army, Obasanjo, a southern Christian, in eight years, had four gentlemen as his Chief of Army Staff. He started in 1999 with Victor Malu, a Christian from the North; then he moved south and picked Alexander Ogomudia, a southern minority. After two years, two months, Obasanjo took the position back to the North. But he did not give it to those who might use it to injure him. He picked Martin Luther Agwai, a southern Kaduna minority Christian. Three years down that road, he went south again and picked Andrew Owoye Azazi, another southern minority. It was clear that he was deliberate about what he did. He was wide awake, mixing his nationalist broth with condiments of small nepotism here, a little of altruism there. The Obasanjo experience ended almost twenty years ago. This is the age of reason, apology to Thomas Paine. The gloves are off.

Wahala no dey finish for Nigeria. Because President Bola Tinubu appointed an acting Chief of Army Staff last week, my northern friend sent me a WhatsApp message from Zaria: “It comes as a surprise as Oduduwa takes over the lead agencies of the critical safety sector: Army (military), Police (security), DSS (Intelligence), EFCC (anti-corruption).”

My friend was talking fairness. I heard him and remembered the quaint saying about equity and clean hands. So, I replied him: “Can you name those who served in those four positions under Buhari and where they came from?”

John Milton, legendary blind poet of seventeenth century England, said something about truth and falsehood grappling. Truth, the stronger, will always put the weaker to the worse. My friend thought he had the facts on his side, and so, he answered me: “Buhari picked those security chiefs across the north east, north west and north central…”

That was a half-truth, and I’ve heard it said many times that a half-truth will always mean a half-lie. And a half-lie is a lie nicely dressed. I asked my friend: “When you people met in Kaduna earlier on Monday and took a position on VAT, rejecting Tinubu’s tax reform bills, did you meet as three zones? No. You met as one North, one region. Those appointments made by Buhari were for that one North.” As I typed that response, I remembered that ‘One North, One Destiny, One People, Irrespective of Religion, Rank or Tribe’ was the motto of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC), the North’s ruling party at independence. NPC may be long dead, but the North has dutifully kept its flame glowing. We still feel the spirit in every inter-regional discourse.

My friend argued more forcefully. He spoke as a northerner. I responded as a Yoruba man, not as a southerner, because there is nothing so called. I told him he was obviously not speaking for the other two zones in the South. I asked him if the North wanted the Chief of Army Staff position to go to the Igbo of the South-East. His response was that there was a time under Buhari when he campaigned for that arrangement. I asked him to speak for time present, not time past. “Would you want a South-East/South-South person to be Chief of Army Staff or Inspector-General of Police?” My friend did not reply me. He did not answer that question. I asked how he would feel if the positions go to the North today. He replied me with silence.

Finally, my friend quipped: “Personally, I pray for Tinubu to succeed but he doesn’t need to be nepotistic like Buhari, the disaster.”

Has Tinubu been unduly favoring the Yoruba in his appointments? Personal aides, yes. Security appointments, no. A list of 22 security appointees was circulated online at the weekend. Fifteen of them are from the North, five from the South-West, one from the South-East, one from the South-South. If anyone would complain of inadequate representation here, it should be the South-East/South-South corridor.

Sixty-four years after independence, Nigeria has remained a very delicate union of bickering partners. Despite several state creation exercises, the division along the original three regional lines has remained very strong. Today, the three arms of Nigeria’s armed forces have their chiefs chosen from the West (Army; East (Navy); North (Airforce). This would be fair enough except we are saying that one service chief is bigger than the others.

Army, SSS, Police, EFCC. For his complaint, why would my friend pick just four out of the 22 identified positions? Read my friend again. He described the four as “critical safety sector.” Buhari set the precedent by filling those posts with northerners; Tinubu has also filled them with westerners. If the East produces a president tomorrow, he will most possibly fill them with his regional brothers. But why?

Adebayo Faleti, late Yoruba playwright and culture scholar, wrote in his 1968 short story ‘Ogun Awitele’ (Foretold War) that war does not kill the coward; it also does not kill the fearless. The one who gets killed by war is the one who is careless (ogun kì í pa ojo; ogun kì í pa akin; aláìfòrànpòràn ni ogun npa). My playwright says war kills the careless. I will use the experience of Buhari’s predecessor, Goodluck Jonathan, to discuss this. When Jonathan became president, he, like most of his predecessors, was very careful not to rupture the tenuous tendons of whatever we had as a country. But Jonathan overdid it. He apparently wanted to be another national hero and proceeded to make many strategic appointments which undid him. Jonathan’s 2015 election time Inspector-General of Police was a gentleman from the north. When it mattered most, the falcon refused to hear the falconer. The super cop did not just see his kinsman, Muhammadu Buhari, to victory, he publicly followed him to collect his Certificate of Return from INEC in April 2015. The gentleman officer abandoned his defeated Commander-in-Chief. Blood is thicker than water. The policeman came out three years later to celebrate what he did. He declared that the police under him forced Jonathan to concede victory to Buhari. Hearing him in an August 2018 interview gives reasons for appreciating the true meaning of blood and water and what made one thicker than the other. The former IGP said: “We forced those who lost elections to accept the results. The Nigeria Police forced those who lost elections to accept the outcome. It was the action of the police that made them to have a change of mind and accept the results. The heroes of that election should have been the police…I attended the presentation of certificate to the president-elect…”

Nigeria was deflowered in 2015. The hymen of innocence, once lost is lost forever. If the police were strategic in determining election winners, what wise president would then hand its rein to ‘outsiders’? Jonathan’s successor, Buhari, learnt from the Ijaw man’s fatal error. He inherited Solomon Arase from Edo State as IGP, kept him for one year and as the stakes were getting high, he quickly took the position ‘home’ and gave it to Ibrahim Kutigi from Niger State. From then on till he left in 2023, the baton passed from one northern state to another. Was Buhari being street-wise to have kept the Inspector-General’s position in his regional pocket for seven out of his eight years in power? If Buhari was not wrong that time, should we expect Tinubu to do today what Jonathan did which burnt his nimble fingers day before yesterday?

Jonathan’s ‘harakiri’ in politics started long before that appointment. He did several things which no one had ever done before. It was therefore not a surprise that his eyes saw what no one ever saw before. The Ijaw man made Fulani man, Attahiru Jega, INEC chairman in an election in which his main opponent was a Fulani. The man was praised by his nemesis and he enjoyed it. As the West African Pilot of 2 April, 1964 warned in an editorial: “The road to ruin is often smooth. Those who travel it pay the fare.” Three years after he was dusted and ousted, Jonathan wrote in his ‘My Transition Hours’ (page 75): “For some inexplicable reasons, the INEC had been able to achieve near 100% distribution of Permanent Voter Cards in the North, including the North-East which was under siege with the Boko Haram insurgency, but it (INEC) failed to record similar level of distribution in the South which was relatively more peaceful.” Because Buhari was no Jonathan, when it was time for him to replace Jega in November 2015, the Fulani man from Katsina went for a Fulani man from Bauchi. After eight years of uncommon tutorial from Muhammadu Buhari on how to (mis)manage a people’s diversity, it is not possible for any subsequent president (from the south) to do bobo nice again – especially with appointments strategic to their personal and political survival. A new INEC chairman is due for appointment in November next year (2025). Watch out for Tinubu. He will not be a Jonathan.

Key security appointments have become an armour for the president of Nigeria. The lesson taught by history is that a leader, while cuddling his neighbour, must never allow kin-blood to be diluted with water of whatever colour.

The politics of appointment into the head of the army started soon after independence. How did the government of Tafawa Balewa handle it? Sidi H. Ali, author of ‘Power of Powers: A biography of Alhaji Muhammadu Ribadu’, Nigeria’s first minister of defence, wrote about the intense ethnic maneuverings and bitterness that attended the appointment of the country’s very first indigenous head of the army when the last expatriate, Major General Christopher Welby-Evarard, left in February 1965. “The four possible candidates were all brigadiers at the time. They were Ironsi, Ademulegun, Ogundipe and Maimalari. Ironsi was the most senior of all…After all the bickering, Ribadu came out to announce the appointment of Ironsi as the commanding officer of the Nigerian Army. This, of course, was received with mixed feelings…” (page 18). If Balewa were to come back from the dead today and is asked to pick his army chief, would he still go for Ironsi? Among the four gentlemen officers of 1964, who do you think Balewa’s choice would be?

Balewa is not coming back but his democratic successor was Shehu Shagari who came in 1979 and had Lt.-General Alani Akinrinade as his Chief of Army Staff. Shagari soon replaced the Yoruba man with his kinsman, Gibson Jalo. Jonathan inherited a chief of army staff, Abdulrahman Dambazau, from his late boss, Umaru Yar’Adua. He couldn’t sleep until he picked someone from his area, Azubuike Ihejirika, to man that goal post.

Every elected Nigerian leader since the end of the first republic knows why crab does not sleep. What it stays awake doing is 24/7 recce for the safety of its head. Its eyes should be its binoculars – and they are. Even Olusegun Obasanjo as civilian president did not deny himself that wisdom, although he was very nuanced about it. He had three Inspectors-General of Police and all three were from his western region. His DG SSS from 1999 to 2007 was Colonel Kayode Are, his Abeokuta kinsman. For the army, Obasanjo, a southern Christian, in eight years, had four gentlemen as his Chief of Army Staff. He started in 1999 with Victor Malu, a Christian from the North; then he moved south and picked Alexander Ogomudia, a southern minority. After two years, two months, Obasanjo took the position back to the North. But he did not give it to those who might use it to injure him. He picked Martin Luther Agwai, a southern Kaduna minority Christian. Three years down that road, he went south again and picked Andrew Owoye Azazi, another southern minority. It was clear that he was deliberate about what he did. He was wide awake, mixing his nationalist broth with condiments of small nepotism here, a little of altruism there. The Obasanjo experience ended almost twenty years ago. This is the age of reason, apology to Thomas Paine. The gloves are off.

But, I think the people who are reading north and south into today’s appointments had better shine their eyes and see where the real danger is. The fish gets rotten from the head – and it is always progressive. Under Buhari, the president’s wife ran the alternate presidency while a regional cabal revved up the old engine of the man we elected. Today, we are not sure whether it is the man we elected or the wife or the son (with their business friends) that is at the top. After this set, we may have grafted on the trunk of our democracy a hereditary oligo-monarchy.

And we cannot say a president should not have a family – and friends. Wither the way then? Igbó rèé, òna rèé (the bush is here, the road is here). Where should we face?

The founding fathers of the United States feared what we see now. In her review of Adam Bellow’s ‘In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History’, Joanne B. Ciulla says “nepotism was very much on the minds of America’s founding fathers. The last thing they wanted in their new country was hereditary rule.” She writes further (and this is interesting) that “one of the many qualities that made George Washington attractive as the first president was the fact that he did not have any children (who would share his powers or even seek to succeed him). When John Adams ran against Thomas Jefferson, his detractors feared that, because Adams had a son, he might try to start a dynasty.” Indeed, in that election dubbed ‘Revolution of 1800’, Jefferson, who did not have a son, defeated incumbent President John Adams.

But that cautious beginning notwithstanding, America has evolved to mint its own brand of ‘safe’ nepotism. Ciulla writes: “Let’s cut to the 2000 presidential election in the U.S. It pitted a son of a president against the son of a senator. When George W. Bush won, he appointed Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, to be chairman of the FEC; Elaine Cho, wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, to be Secretary of Labor; and Eugene Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, to be the chief labor attorney. In addition to these appointments, Bush made the Vice President’s daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, deputy assistant secretary of state, and her husband chief counsel for the Office of Management and Budget. At the request of Senator Strom Thrumond (and to the dismay of some people), Bush gave Thurmond’s twenty-eight-year-old son the job of U.S. Attorney for South Carolina.” The American system, from the above, draws a line between “bad nepotism and good nepotism.” Ciulla says the US now defines nepotism “not as hiring a relative but as hiring an incompetent relative…”

That is in the US. Here in Nigeria, competence is discounted. The concern is more on the history and the geography of the hired and the motive of the appointing authority.

In all these nepotism matters, the peace of the country and the happiness of the people are the casualties. Every hour spent by the leader ignoring competence but checking the bloodline or the ethnicity of the man for the next post is the hour just before darkness. And, if the nepotist succeeds in burying his long heel in this sand, it is bye bye to peace and amity. As Olusegun Obasanjo said in 2019 at the height of Buhari’s glass ceiling-bursting nepotism: “If you cannot trust me, why should I trust you?…The person who is our leader now is saying he cannot allow another ethnic group to work with him because he cannot trust them. If he cannot trust my tribe or your tribe, of what benefit is he? And he is saying my tribe and yours should come and vote for him. He can ask for our votes, but he cannot trust us to work in good positions. Life is give and take.”

“If they go about solving the problem this way, how many more problems will they have created by the time they are through” -James Baldwin, 1924-1987, VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS, VBQ, p201, available online.

By any objective measure known to adults globally, what we have on our hands with regard to fuel problem is a fiasco. You cannot ask any of those in control of our fate in this regard a straight question and receive a reliable answer. Two Presidents, the Minister of Petroleum, the Minister of State for Petroleum, the Minister of Finance, the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, the Debt Management Office, DMO, the Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Alhaji Aliko Dangote, all the regulatory commissions and agencies of government. The conspiracy of falsehood started since the Dangote Refinery was nearing, but still far from, completion in March 2023.

As many Nigerian observers will recollect, President Buhari commissioned the Dangote Refinery using the language that gave the impression that fuel production would start within a few months. We now know the truth. Buhari and Dangote just wanted the former President to be the one to have his name on the refinery plaque instead of his successor. Among the promises made or implied were the following: The refinery would end fuel scarcity and queues at filling stations; it would crash the price of petrol which was about N180 per litre at the time and create 150,000 jobs-directly or indirectly. The impression was also given that Nigeria’s four refineries would be resuscitated to complement the Dangote Refinery supply; and, government would no longer dictate fuel price. It all sounded great then; but my Fellow Nigerians have failed to understand one abiding truth.

“Every government is run by liars; and nothing they say should be believed” – I. F. Stone, 1907-1989, VBQ p80.

Of all the entries in my book of quotations, this I perhaps the one most frequently used; and for easily demonstrable reasons. In Nigeria and elsewhere in the world, the totally honest politician is almost impossible to find. Since politicians run for office, the electorate in every country is condemned to choosing between all the available dissemblers running for office. That, however, is in even a so-called democracy. In totalitarian regimes, the people are destined to accepting the falsehood published by their captors. Nigerian politicians are not the worst by any means; in fact they are better than those in Cameroon or Afghanistan. When it comes to peddling untruths, they are ranking amateurs. That is why what they say is so often easy to disprove – as in the issue of petroleum resources and fuel. Everything that was said by virtually everybody in government and the private sector providers had turned out to be false.

WAS DANGOTE REFINERY ESTABLISHED TO STOP IMPORTATION?

“I am beginning to wonder how many fools it takes to make the term ‘My Fellow Citizens'” – Honore de Balzac, 1799-1850, in LOST ILLUSIONS.

Most of the 220 million Nigerians alive today are not in any way better than their forefathers. Ask anybody if there was free education in the old Western Region?

And, ninety-nine per cent of the time, the answer would be “yes”. I thought so too until August 1964 when I took my Economics la Course at the university in the US. The lecturer would usually start his first class by telling a story which I will repeat below. A young prince, 12, became king when his father, just 40, suddenly died. Not wanting to make terrible mistakes in governance, the monarch gathered all the leading experts in every field – including economics – and instructed them to summarise the ideas, principles, laws etc in their fields. All returned three months after with truckloads of documents; which overwhelmed the poor youth. He asked for further reductions. They returned with twenty four pages of Executive Summary. Finally, like all those with absolute power; he ordered that the ideas be reduced to one sentence. The economists quickly put their heads together and the leader raised his hand; after being recognised he pronounced: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” For that matter, there is no such thing as free education, free health service and there should be no free ride on highways. I raised my hand out of ignorance to state categorically that “there is free education in the Western Region of Nigeria, Sir.” Dr Cohen looked up; and said:

“You are the third Nigerian who would repeat that statement in my class. How many more fools are there in your country; who cannot distinguish between ‘free and public education?’ What is practised in Nigeria is public education, just like several countries in the world. The taxpayers are paying for that gimmick.” I would have gladly crawled into a hole if one had opened up. I learnt a simple economic principle the hard way. Later, in the third year, I received another knock on the head to drive home a truth which has escaped many Nigerians today. The professor teaching Business and Economy, when opening the section on ‘Entrepreneurship’, would kick off by announcing that the capitalist investor is motivated primarily by his desire to make as much money as possible.

He does not start a business for any other reason. That is why it was at first amusing, and later alarming, to me when several self-deluded Nigerians, including President Buhari, the CBN Governor, financial/economic analysts and commentators, assumed that the Dangote Refinery was being established to stop fuel importation, to create jobs and to grow the Gross Domestic Product, GDP, of Nigeria. Starting with that fallacy, they quickly jumped to the fatal conclusion that Dangote must be given 100 per cent support to achieve his objectives; apparently without regard to the individual and collective interests of “Fellow Nigerians”. Well, the Dangote Refinery is here. Why then are we paying N1, 200/litre for petrol which we fetched for N180/litre before it was established? I must have been one of the few Nigerians who knew right from the beginning that Nigerians were being taken for an unpleasant ride. For reasons I don’t now want to disclose, it is my candid view that the establishment of Dangote Refinery is not the salvation we expected. Most certainly, it will not crash fuel price as expected.

WHERE IS GOVERNMENT IN ALL THESE?

“Leadership is always mysterious. Leadership can be summed up in two words: Intelligence and integrity, or to use two synonyms: Competence and character” – John Brademas, US Congressman, VBQ p125.

Think of anyone in top government positions – Presidency, Ministry of Petroleum Resources, National Assembly, CBN and the Departments and Agencies – who had an official role to play in getting Dangote, the four refineries and Nigerians into this quagmire. Think again of the words – intelligence, integrity, competence and character. Then, ask yourself: Which of these attributes can be applied to any of them? All of a sudden, it becomes clear why our present predicament is inevitable; and the self-delusion, which one of their yes-men call “optimism”, is totally not in the national or personal interest. They should have known that the Dangote Refinery would not alone solve our fuel problems; that the four refineries were septic tanks into which they were throwing public funds without the scantiest hope of returns. Yet, they granted Dangote all sorts of concessions; promoted the idea that, once started, it would crash fuel prices and stop imports. The tissue of lies has been exposed because all lies have an expiry date; and the time is up for these ones.

The Minister of State for Petroleum Resources and the GMD-NNPCL promised Nigerians that the Port-Harcourt and Warri refineries would begin fuel supplies by December last year. Ten months after, there has been no fuel from the two.

In July, the National Assembly was told that crude oil production would reach two million barrels per day, mbpd, and Nigeria would be exporting fuel by December. Who, in his right senses, now believes the two? More to the point: Why are they still in office?

A shocked world watched as the Nigerian government exhibited in court at least 28 malnourished and unkempt children it has kept in prison and detention centres for three months for allegedly engaging in public protests.

The children are charged in blatant violation of Section 204 of the Child Rights Act of 2003 which states that children under 18 should not be tried in the criminal justice system, but rather in the child justice system. 

Their arraignment also violates this Act which expressly states that children under 18 cannot be sentenced to capital punishment, imprisonment or corporal punishment.

But the Nigeria Police has turned itself into a court and over-ruled this Act. The Force Public Relations Officer, ACP Olumuyiwa Adejobi, in defending the arraignment of minors said: “Under Nigerian law, individuals who have reached the age of criminal responsibility are answerable for their actions, regardless of their age. This principle aligns with global practices where accountability is upheld for young individuals who commit serious offences. As seen in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, age does not exempt individuals from facing legal consequences.”

The Nigeria Police reference to the United Kingdom, UK, shows the failure of our education system. Since when has the UK become our standard of civilization? It is a country built on a mentality of dominance, exploitation and subjugation of other peoples. 

In one of the greatest struggles of humanity, the UK and its American clone supported, financed, armed and shielded the Apartheid regime in South Africa. They also designated the liberation movements and liberation fighters like Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Ruth First and Joe Slovo as terrorists. We Nigerians stood in sharp contrast to all these and fought, along with other peoples, until Apartheid was decisively crushed. So if such countries send children to prison or the gas chamber, how can that be the standard we should adopt in handling the Nigerian child?

The children were part of the 76 brought to court on charges of treason, terrorism, and arson which carry the death penalty.

 All accused were malnourished. When four of the accused slumped, the unfeeling police claimed they were merely staging a Nollywood drama. ACP Adejobi said this was “deliberate and scripted” to draw negative attention. So, did they also stage-manage their malnourished and starving bodies? 

A police force that should apologise for reducing Nigerian children and suspects to near skeletons talks about drama. Does that not speak volumes of the malnourished thought process in the force? A police force that could not see what the rest of the world was seeing.

When the police lawyer told the world that the cry against arraigning minors should not arise as anybody above seven years is ripe to be charged, he gave the false impression that Nigerians have no human feelings.

First, our laws presume an accused innocent until found guilty. So why are the accused treated like convicts? Why is the police subjecting them to such inhuman treatment that can lead to some of them losing their lives even before taking a plea? Are we sure some have not already ‘travelled’ before the rest were brought to court on Friday November 1, 2024? 

Justice Obiora Egwuatu granted bail of N10 million bond and one surety to each of the “adults”. He ruled that the surety to be presented by each of them must be at least a Level 15 civil servant with verifiable address in Abuja. For the underage defendants, he ordered that they only require their “parents or guardians” to stand as their sureties. 

Quite thoughtful of the judge. But given the sorry state of the 76 persons before him, what I expected him to do was first to call in doctors to examine the accused and ensure they are fed as starvation is not part of our legal process.

Secondly, as a justice of the court, did he think the faces before him could meet such stringent conditions? Besides, the children and adults have already spent three months in prison custody on the orders of Justice Egwuatu. Did the judge reflect that he was sending minors to prison custody rather than a remand home? Does he think the ends of justice would be served by such bail conditions?  

Lord Denning said: “When a judge sits to try the case, he himself is on trial before his fellow countrymen. It is on his behaviour that they will form their opinion of our system of justice.”

Mercifully, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN has stepped in and directed that the police hands over the case file. But is he just learning about the case? Was his office unaware that children have been held in prison and police detention for three months? Is he aware that the government he serves as Minister of Justice is asking for the death penalty for children and youths it claims committed treason during constitutionally-sanctioned protests?

I have read arguments that the children committed treason by carrying Russian flags. Is that why they should be killed? Are foreign flags, particularly American and British flags, not flown in our hotels and taxis?

There is also the demand for the lives of the children on the basis that they called for military rule. My position is that if a 14-year-old makes such a call, what we need do is explain to him why such a call is wrong, not to demand for his life.  Please, nobody should sermonise to me why military rule is dangerous; I lived through it. I was a human rights and pro-democracy activist when the military held sway in the country, killing the innocent, making orphans of children, destroying the economy, privatising our national wealth and reversing our gains as a people. I was threatened a number of times by the Directorate of Military Intelligence, detained by the State Security Services, SSS, lost friends like Bagauda Kaltho, whose corpse has not been released 28 years after he was murdered. I know the bestiality that is military misrule for which human life meant nothing. 

These children don’t know what military rule is, so we need to educate them. 

We need to teach them that the military, in one day, shot dead 118 Nigerians on the streets of Lagos just to stop a pro-democracy protest on July 6, 1993. We need to teach them how the military set up death squads killing innocent people like Mrs Kudirat Abiola and shooting defenceless people like Mr. Alex Ibru and Senator Abraham Adesanya. These are lessons we can teach the children here on earth and not after they are despatched to Heaven as their arraignment suggests. 

The simple demand to  government is: set the captives free!

Controversial cross-dresser Idris Okuneye has reportedly departed Nigeria just days after being released by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC).

The embattled cross-dresser shared a video of himself aboard what appeared to be a plane, revealing a screen that hinted at his destination. In the video, he announced that he was traveling on a first-class ticket.

“See you soon, Nigeria. This girl bought a first-class ticket three times; that’s over 30 million. Raise the bar for this girl,” he declared. 

In another video featuring a picture of his international passport, he remarked, “That passport disfigured my picture.”

Bobrisky’s departure comes on the heels of his recent arrest by the EFCC. His legal troubles began in April 2024 with a six-month sentence for naira abuse, but reports indicated he spent only three weeks in Kirikiri Prison before being discreetly relocated.

In September, tensions escalated when social media influencer Martins Otse, known as VeryDarkMan, released an audio recording that purportedly featured Bobrisky discussing bribing EFCC officials to dismiss money laundering charges.

On Thursday night, Bobrisky was stopped and removed from an Amsterdam-bound KLM flight at Murtala Muhammed International Airport while attempting to travel to London.

[Vanguard]

“The partiality that inevitably affects judges has been noted in cases with a political flavour.” – David Pannick, KC, Judges, p. 44 (1987)

The state as we know it enjoys three notional monopolies. One is a monopoly of legitimate taxation. The second is a monopoly of the legitimate instrumentality of violence; and the third is a monopoly of legitimate dispute resolution. In Nigeria, all three monopolies are now contested by non-state entities.

Of these three monopolies, many focus on the legitimate instrumentality of violence but it is the capacity of a state to resolve disputes lawfully and peacefully among those who live in it that makes the other two monopolies worthwhile. That is why courts, administrative and even traditional institutions exist.

David Pannick, KC reminds us that “as part of the function of deciding disputes, the courts provide a public service, at almost no charge to customers (who pay for their lawyers but not for the judge and the courtroom).” This is the ideal. Nigeria’s judicial system is in a profound crisis of legitimacy today because of ample evidence suggesting strongly that the requirement that litigants should not pay for the judge or the courtroom may not apply to certain categories, especially among political litigants. 

To be clear, the most important reasons for which people sometimes end up in court often are not things to which it is possible to assign any value – dignity, equity, justice, memory, safety or human life. These are all invaluable. Without them, organised society fails. Jurisprudence is the system for organising knowledge about judicial decisions that ultimately deliver and govern these invaluable public goods.

However, judicial business is not confined to these. Many disputes that end up in court involve property or things of material value, such as land, inheritance, shares, stocks, or chattels. Some others may extend to intangibles of value, such as status or reputation. There could also be cases concerning access to political power from which perch the people involved hope to reap benefits that are material in consequence. 

These are all things for which the currency of transaction or exchange is money. In Nigerian parlance, that is called “kudi”. When a court system prioritises disputes affecting things measured in the currency of money over things that are entirely invaluable, it replaces a system of jurisprudence in favour of a preoccupation with “kudisprudence”.

By way of full disclosure, I did not invent this expression, “kudisprudence”. I was introduced to it by a friend and schoolmate of long-standing who also happens to be a diligent senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). He has not licensed me to disclose his identity, and I am obliged to respect his anonymity. 

Two cases occurred this past week to illustrate how this distinction between jurisprudence and kudisprudence affects judicial decision-making in Nigeria. On 30 October, the police arraigned a member of the house of representatives, Mascot Ikwechegh, on charges of assault against a gig-economy driver working with Bolt. A now viral video clip showed Ikwechegh had assaulted the driver in words and deed. He called the driver vermin in different forms and threatened to “disappear” him without consequences, before proceeding to satiate on the driver his thirst for physical violence.

For those conversant with that Nigerian rat-killer, the material on the video clip portrayed Ikwechegh as the member representing “Otapiapia” Federal Constituency in the Rat Killers Assembly. On his arraignment, the court granted him bail on an oral application in the sum of N500,000 with sureties who only had to show evidence of utility bills for proof of their residence. The case was adjourned for one week.

Two days later, on 1 November, another court in the same Abuja was host to proceedings charging at least 114 children according to the British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, with treasonable felony. These charges arose in connection with the #EndBadGovernment protests which occurred last August around the country. Arrested in different locations in northern Nigeria reportedly, these children were transferred to Abuja where they had been detained en masse for 93 days. 

On arraignment, they all looked “visibly unwell and malnourished.” In their short spell in court, at least four of them suffered fainting feats. Having beheld all of this, the presiding judge promptly rewarded the children with bail in the sum of N10 million each or a total of N1.14 billion, with two sureties each of whom must be a senior federal civil servant of at least Grade Level 15. He adjourned the case to 24 January 2025. These terms were manifestly such that none of these children can hope to comply.

This is a court system in which material things, such as status, make all the difference between receiving justice or being on the end of the administration of law even when it is manifestly unjust. The parliamentarian received jurisprudence from a court system that was happy to serve malnourished children with anything but that.

There is an even more worrying scenario to which the expression “kudisprudence” may be applied. That can be the case where a judicial decision follows upon a bargain – implicit or explicit – between a judge or magistrate on the one hand and a party (disclosed or undisclosed) on the other. This was the sense in which Stanislav Andrzejewski, the former Polish soldier and prisoner-of-war who founded the Sociology Department at the University of Reading in England coined the word “kleptocracy” in 1968, which he defined as “a system of government [that] consists precisely of the practice of selling what the law forbids to sell.” Among the things a kleptocracy can buy and sell in its political open market, Professor Andrzejewski included “even judges.”

The fact that kudisprudence in the second sense occurs in certain courts in Nigeria is not in question. Many disciplinary cases concluded by the National Judicial Council (NJC), no less, testify to this fact. The only issue left to be determined is how pervasive this is. One thing seems clear: political cases increasingly appear to suggest – very much as David Pannick writes – a higher predisposition to what look like outcomes of kudisprudence. 

For evidence of how this system of kudisprudence can work, a recent report by the advocacy group, Citizen Gavel, names a notorious former governor and current minister who has a long track record of “building judicial infrastructure and offering other forms of support” to the judiciary in acts of generosity that “often coincide with periods when he has faced significant legal challenges. This raises the possibility that these actions may have indirectly influenced judicial decisions.”

In its nature, judicial quid pro quo does not necessarily occur on social media or with receipts. Verified cases are more likely than not to be fewer in fact than the number of actual incidents. Many more followers of the recent goings on in Nigeria’s judicial system may themselves have evidence to conclude that it has evolved from a system of jurisprudence to one preoccupied with kudisprudence. 

On its own, that would be sufficient cause for worry; but the reason the system now suffers an overwhelming sense of crisis of credibility is because it cannot be ruled out that this preoccupation with kudisprudence in the first sense is not the result (in a significant number particularly of political cases), of kudisprudence in the second – transactional – sense. 

David Pannick concludes that courts offer to “those who are greedy, vexatious, exhibitionist, aspiring to canonisation, or just plain impossible a platform to perform.” Every one of them has a right to a court system that regards the public interest in justice as something that money cannot buy.

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

Across the world, there is a consensus that Nigeria is a very strategic country. Its enormous population size of more than 200 million people clearly sets it apart as one of the most populous destinations on earth, and home to the largest concentration of black people in the world. Our beloved country is also renowned for its large mineral deposits and extensive gas reserves, economic and political influence in Africa, especially in the West African region. This great nation also enjoys longstanding trade and diplomatic relationships with the most dominant global powers including the US, China, and the European Union.

Beyond all of these, and as important as they are, my estimation of the most important strength of Nigeria lies in the dynamic adaptability, intellect and resilience of our people. Our true greatness, I dare say, comes from the power and reach of ordinary Nigerians, the individuals whose energy, passion and imagination are creatively expanding the frontiers of our awareness, interactions, and the cultural memories we shall leave for future generations. Through the traffic gridlocks along Lagos roads to the ever-busy markets in Aba and Kano, the most common descriptions that capture the Nigerian spirit are energy, resilience, creativity and industry. Outside the shores of our country, from Washington to Boston, London, Brussels, Rio de Janeiro and Shanghai, Nigerians are remarkable for our exceptional ability to adapt to new environments and realities, systems and cultures.

Nigeria, many who are familiar with the country and its dominant ethos will agree, is a very beautiful country; but it is also a deeply controversial place. To the incurable optimist, Nigeria is the most fantastic place on earth — good weather condition, friendly population and a fine mix of urban and sub-urban locations. At the opposite end of the pole are implacable cynics, those who can effortlessly place all the troubles in the world within Nigeria’s geographic boundaries. This latter group are very likely to remember Nigeria as the origin of most of the scam proposals that hit their emails, a place of poverty and hopelessness, and definitely, a country with very corrupt political and business elites. In all honesty, there is no exact way to exhaustively look at Nigeria. To be able to understand it quite objectively, one must appreciate the good without attempting to downplay the not-so-good. Nigeria is troubled and that’s very true. But it is also a place of opportunities, a land of dreams and a cradle of hope for tens of millions of people. To properly situate Nigeria’s objective reality is a very difficult assignment; it requires one to take a step back, and then gaze into the future to imagine what could be, as against what is, and what was.

Nigeria at the beginning of the new millennium was a place of hope, a land brimming with expectations. Many had looked forward to the future with great optimism around the middle of 1999 as the country, after years of uncertainty with its attendant cost in human lives and material resources, returned to democratic rule. The return to democracy at the end of the 20^th century was believed in many quarters, and for good reasons too, as the ultimate elixir to catapult Nigeria to its true place of greatness. The rich promises of democracy, and the enthusiasm with which it was embraced after years of anticipation, convinced many that the 21^st century was ours to take.

In view of our ugly experiences with military dictators headlined by false and unfulfilled promises, corruption and plain disregard for civil rights, millions of Nigerians pinned their hopes of national revival on the shoulders of the newly elected democratic leaders, believing firmly that the participatory governance model will usher in a new era of mass prosperity, restoration and expansion of our stock of public infrastructure, and ascension in the order of global importance. It has been 25 long years since Nigeria took this path; sadly, the outcome has been a far cry from what was expected at the turn of the new millennium.

Democracy in Nigeria has regrettably left very sour taste in the mouths of millions of patriotic citizens. Many lives have been lost through violence, often in pursuit of core democratic ideals such as exercising one’s right to vote or be voted for. Millions have fled their communities and the country altogether — believing that it is safer to watch things from afar, without the risks of getting involved. For scores of millions of others, their faith in democracy has been greeted with eviscerating poverty, insecurity and job losses. The basic amenities that are taken for granted, even in neighbouring African countries, are a distant reality for millions of our people.

Across Nigeria, there is disillusionment with how the country has fared over the last 25 years. In 1999, it would have been impossible to suggest that after twenty five years, we will still be struggling with public electricity supply, petrol scarcity or that the public schools and hospitals would be where they are today. Unfortunately, that is our reality. Getting out of the quagmire requires some truth telling, an honest assessment and an admission that we could have done better — and then evaluate the options before us.

Across the world, there is a great reawakening amongst the Nigerian diaspora community, the body of professionals and the army of educated but thoroughly dissatisfied young people who are simply frustrated with the reality and misery of their daily existence. Many Nigerians living within and outside the country are coming to the awareness that the destiny of our country is too important to be left in the hands of career politicians and their cronies. This is not a good time to talk about patriotism to millions of our compatriots because of the bad experiences, unpleasant memories, and ugly reports we are regularly fed with, some bordering on the most bizarre and ridiculous. Our situation, to say the least, is very distressing.

Although doubts and cynicisms remain about what to do and what outcomes may be achieved in the renewed agitation for a country that serves the yearnings of its citizens, the new consciousness that we deserve better, could be a great turning point in our journey to national restoration. It needs to be said at once that the efforts to turn things around will not yield immediate results and not much will be achieved if we imagine that the quest for a more functional society should only be restricted to just a few persons or groups. While I would agree that like in every significant venture, some persons will, for variety of reasons, make more sacrifices than others, it must nevertheless be made known that there is a role for everyone in the on-going struggle to reclaim our country from the grip of the vicious forces that have held it down for ages, and finally set it free to attain its fullest potential.

Although it is true that Nigerians must, as a matter of patriotic duty, stay at the forefront of this enormous struggle to tilt things along a more productive path, it has to equally be acknowledged that we shall need all the help we can get from our friends around the world to rebuild our country from the ruins of the bad decisions of yesteryears. The crises of today, including challenges in governance, economic upheavals, widespread insecurity across several parts of the country, hunger and poverty, and other pointers to national failure, can be traced to the misjudgements of the past — especially in our choice of leaders across the national and subnational levels, and the terrible decisions made by those leaders on our collective behalf. We can no longer afford to play the ostrich. Nigeria is where it is today because we had either refused to fully acknowledge, and take up our obligations as patriots, or had gone about it the wrong way in the choices we made over the years. The good news however is that our country is not beyond redemption, irrespective of whatever doomsday cynics say.

Nigeria, and its democracy, can be recovered and restored but that will only happen when we come to terms with the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship. The inescapable truth is that our duties as citizens, leaders, friends and lovers of Nigeria can no longer be put off. The only way out of the present quagmire which has made millions of Nigerians refugees in their homelands and hundreds of thousands of others unwilling migrants overseas, is to appreciate that as citizens, we have all it takes to turn the tide around.

The theme of our intervention today rightly acknowledges that all is not well, that democracy has not taken us to the destination we desire — that what started as a beautiful dream, has become for millions, a terrible nightmare. Freedom comes from knowledge so we have to ask ourselves the hard questions that will ultimately bring us to the place where responsibility replaces blames and all fingers pointed outwards, towards others, redirected at ourselves.

Democracy can be likened to a medical prescription. In regular medical prescriptions, there are responsibilities the patient must undertake to bear such as avoiding certain foods and beverages, and other exposures that may hurt the potency of the drugs administered. This same system of regulations and responsibilities applies to democracy. Unfortunately, that is where we have largely failed because we had assumed, perhaps in error, that once this prescription is taken, all will be well, irrespective of what we did, or refused to do. Regrettably, that has not worked. The failures of the last 25 years, vis-à-vis the progress recorded in other democratic societies across the world, even within Africa, tells us clearly that the fault is not in democracy, but in the way we have interacted with it. Like the man who hopes to overcome his health challenges by diligently taking his drugs, the time has come for us to go through the prescription booklets, read the fine prints to find out what we may have missed. Returning to the basics will help us to get our acts together in terms of how we make choices at the polls, and interact with public officials, whether elected or appointed. We may also need to re-evaluate how we engage with the broad spectrum of stakeholders, officials and institutions including the law enforcement agencies, political parties, law makers and of course, the courts. From a careful study of governance systems across the world, one thing I can say with certainty is that democracy and docility cannot go together.

The most enduring appeal of democracy is the voice it gives every adult in the society — an opportunity to have a say in how public affairs are conducted. The ultimate good for the majority cannot be attained in a culture that promotes docility over courage, especially when things are not going according to plan. It is, however, important to state quickly that courage must never be misrepresented to mean violence and destruction. As a matter of fact, democracy abhors violence expressed in any form, verbally or physically.

The tremendous advances in information and communications technology offer us an important leverage previous generations never had. The key advantage for me is the reach and influence of new media platforms — the power to share our thoughts and views on any major issue with millions of people across geographical boundaries. If what you say or write from a small corner of your room anywhere in the world can be read or heard thousands of miles away with very little effort on your part, why then does anyone need to burn down public buildings or destroy the property of fellow citizens to get the attention of leaders? It may be news to many but I can assure you that even the most hardened, unconscionable dictator pays attention to the expressed opinions and views of the public because every man or woman of power understands the power of small voices amplified by technology and persistence.

To rebuild the damaged foundation of our democracy, we need to regain our voices. I am not ignorant of the frustration and disappointment millions of our young people feel in the light of recent electoral outcomes where you contributed financial and other valuable resources to support your favourite candidates in state and national elections but unfortunately, things did not go the way those who designed the structural foundations of democracy envisioned.

As somebody who had faced the challenge that comes with electoral injustice, I know exactly what many of our young patriots are going through but my story also teaches some important lessons in persistence and faith, especially in the face of disappointment. We must refuse to give up on democracy, and on our dear country. The young people of Nigeria, at home and in the diaspora, will be the largest and most enduring influence on the texture and dynamics of Nigeria’s democracy in the next 25 years. It is these young, seemingly uncoordinated voices on various social media platforms that will determine what becomes of our democracy in the next few decades. Admitted that the social and economic troubles of the moment have made the pursuit of certain democratic ideals herculean, my conviction is that nothing will stop the present generation of young Nigerians from fulfilling their destiny, having discovered it in the miseries and setbacks of the present age.

These are excerpts of a paper presented by Dr Otti, OFR, the Executive Governor of Abia State at the October 2024 “Nigeria in the World” Seminar