From Accra to Cape Town images of Nollywood, Nigeria’s popular movie footprint, are a common staple in homes across the continent as are the sights and sounds of its pop icons who are also amongst Africa’s biggest. 

When politics is on the menu, however, it does not appear that the rest of the continent has the same appetite for what Nigeria has to offer as it does for the country’s jollof rice, its captivating movies or perhaps the Afrobeat of superstar, Burna Boy.

Between February and March 2023, Nigeria held its general elections; the seventh since 1999 when the country transitioned to constitutional democracy, after three decades of military rule briefly interrupted by a four-year spell of civilian rule.

I was curious to see how Africa’s media would cover Nigeria’s election for a number of reasons.

One, Nigeria is the continent’s largest democracy. It has nearly 20 percent of Africa’s population and is home to one of every four black persons in the world. 

The country also has the most dispersed number of black persons, with the highest diaspora population in the US closely followed by Kenyans and Ghanaians. A common Nigerian joke is that if you arrive in any part of the world where there is no Nigerian, make your stay brief.

Two, the country is Africa’s biggest economy. With a portfolio of $6 billion, it is also the largest continental shareholder in the African Development Bank (AfDB), and very often its biggest cashier in times of crisis. This intervention goes back to the liberation struggle through apartheid to multiple regional wars.

Three, apart from the size of Nigeria’s economy and its population, it also makes multilateral sense to be interested in the outcome of the country’s general elections and to follow the story closely. 

Perhaps one of the biggest issues on the continent today is the African Free Continental Trade Agreement (AfCTA), a protocol that is supposed to boost intra-African trade by up to $450 billion yearly and also create new opportunities.

In spite of the excitement in parts of the continent, Nigeria’s outgoing president, Muhammadu Buhari, has however treated the protocol with skepticism, if not disdain. It would be in the continent’s interest to know if the incoming president would be as lukewarm as Buhari has been.

Also, it was more than mere symbolism that the continent’s richest man and Nigerian, Aliko Dangote, after voting in the presidential and National Assembly elections on February 25, granted a press interview in which he said, “People who don’t come out to vote at elections have no reason to complain when things are not going well.” Nor should African journalists who ignore the continent’s biggest political story.

And if these reasons are insufficient, recent events on the continent, especially the rise in unconstitutional changes in government, have shown that general elections are quite often the trigger point. 

At least 10 African countries have presidential and or national assembly elections this year; two of Nigeria’s neighbours – Sierra Leone and Liberia – have presidential elections later this year, while half a dozen others have local elections.

What happens in Nigeria could have a knock-on effect on its neighbours and maybe even beyond.

It’s common to hear of how poorly the Western press portrays Africa and how Western journalists report mostly stories about disease, death and destruction, judiciously sprinkled with prejudice about tribe, religion and poverty. 

Yet, the paradox of this charge even in the runup to Nigeria’s recent presidential election, is that politicians don’t seem to think they would have a good outing until they have paraded themselves before the foreign press in what appears to be a craven desire for validation. London’s Chatham House, a private think tank, for example, is the favourite staging post of Nigerian politicians.

But I digress. The point is, in a season when Nigeria’s new electoral law provided five months – the longest runway yet between the start of campaigns and elections – how did the media cover it? 

Nigeria’s media, famous for vibrancy as it is for its fleetingness and partisan cacophony is not yet out of election mode, especially following the bitter post-election wrangling among the major parties – the ruling All Progressives Party (APC); the People’s Democratic Party (PDP); and the new table shaker, the Labour Party (LP). Anyone following the Nigerian media, especially social media, might be forgiven to think Armageddon is at hand.

CEO/Editor-In-Chief of Media Review and member of Nigeria’s National Ombudsman, Lanre Idowu, said coverage was not rigorous enough, especially because of the large number of political parties (18 in all) involved.

“That it was so easy for candidates to pick and choose who could interview them weakened the place and importance of the media as agenda-setters,” he said. “Sections of the media overreached themselves in the way they reported the elections, not showing sufficient conflict-sensitivity.” 

Well, if charity failed at home, how much attention did the continent’s media pay, considering what was at stake both at the bilateral or multilateral levels?

The tragic, short answer is, not much. I wasn’t particularly surprised. Yet, for all the reasons I have given and perhaps more, I was hoping that improved interconnectivity, if not increased commerce, travel, and self-interest, would spark a greater level of attention amongst the continent’s journalists in the coverage of Nigeria’s elections.

I took particular interest in four anglophone countries with a fairly vibrant and robust tradition of press freedom and randomly browsed coverage, just before, during and after the polls, to see if I would be disappointed. I wasn’t. 

Not by Ghana, Nigeria’s western neighbour, which has its own district and local elections later this year. One or two TV stations, particularly, Joy FM, used feeds from a few Nigerian sources and conducted some live interviews. But the bulk of the Ghanaian press tucked the election stories inside, scrapping whatever little content they could find from online sources. 

The Editor of a major Ghanaian newspaper, The Chronicle, Emmanuel Akli, explained why: “The Ghanaian economy is in a very bad shape,” he said. “The press is struggling. Readership is very low. Advertising is even worse. We are all struggling, and that includes Daily Graphic the biggest daily. We can’t even cover internal issues well, never mind sending reporters to cover elections in Nigeria!”

Sierra Leonean journalists didn’t fare better. They relied mostly on reports from the foreign press, mostly BBC, for their coverage. Abdul Rahman Kamara, Manager at Sierra Leone’s Star TV, said, “It is always the wish of journalists to cover stories beyond the shores of Sierra Leone, but financial limitations have been the challenge.”

The tragedy is not only the disservice the limitations do to historically close relations between both countries, but also, content from major foreign networks are often the echo chambers of their home governments.

Kamara agreed that African journalists need to do more about the African story otherwise the foreign media will hijack the narrative: “Doing so,” he said, “requires a consensus that we set our own agenda through media conglomerates sharing the ideas and putting Africa first.”

South Africa’s press tried to do a better job of it, with Mail & Guardian reporting the anxiety in Nigeria while voters waited for the results. Times Live covered the story of the main opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) candidate, Atiku Abubakar, leading a protest against the results after they were released. 

Yet, the coverage which was significantly slanted in favour of the LP candidate, Peter Obi, was nothing to be compared with the massive interest in the over one-year-old war between Russia and Ukraine, for example, or the Julius Malema protests.

A senior South African journalist, Ferial Haffajee, put it this way: “South African media is pretty myopic. There was some interest in Peter Obi’s chances as an outsider who resonated with young people. There was more coverage of the cash crisis (in Nigeria) and its possible impact on the election’s outcome. Burna Boy is bigger news here to be honest.”

Kenya did much better. Perhaps because of the country’s own recent history of electoral violence, journalists there were particularly sensitive to what was going on in Nigeria. 

In an article in one of the East African country’s leading newspapers, Nation, for example, entitled, “Why Kenya should closely follow Nigeria elections”, the writer, Muliro Wilfred Nasongo, provided insights covering everything from what the elections mean to Nigeria to why Kenyans must follow the outcome.

Nasongo’s piece was a breath of fresh air in a moment of eccentricities when African journalists either unable or unwilling to tell an important continental story appeared to have outsourced responsibility, yet again, to foreign media networks.

It won’t be long before Nigerian journalists, and perhaps journalists in the subregion, would face yet another test.

The Sierra Leonean general elections, which may well be one of the country’s most hotly contested in decades, come up in June. Only 32 years ago, that country was the theatre of a bloody four-year-long civil war. The war may have been caused by the scramble for bloody diamonds but it was sustained and prolonged by a weak and corrupt political system.

In light of reports of the desperation by the ruling Sierra Leone People’s Party (SLPP) of Julius Maada Bio to forestall peaceful transfer of power, a vigilant continental media could help ensure that Sierra Leone does not become the sixth African country in three years to slide into chaos over disputed elections.

While the continent rocks the Afrobeat of its music stars, Sierra Leone’s general elections in June shouldn’t be another outsourced African story.

In an article titled, “Presidency: Supreme Court has resolved FCT 25% quandary: (https:// the eagleonline.com.ng), my younger friend, Dr Kayode Ajulo, specifically mentioned my name (amongst other senior lawyers), whom he respectfully referred to as “revered to be authorities in their fields”. He even generously described us as “legends of Inner Bar (who are) jurists who have become oracles of constitutional law whose names have refused to leave the pages of law reports”. I thank Ajulo for his kind effusive words of praises and adulation.

Were this kind recognition all he said about me and the other “oracles of constitutional law”, I would not have bothered to write this rejoinder. But, he soon thereafter most unfairly descended on us with unrestrained upbraiding as follows:

“And when they lend their respected voices to public issues, their words are taken as gospel by laymen who lack the qualification and the intellectual rigour to interrogate their opinions of these senior lawyers are Yeah and Amen”.

“However, this electioneering season has been an eye opening one for some of us. It has been a season or unraveling and miracles as to how some legal professionals have either by deliberate action or absence of proper research, interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution as regards election to the office of the President and requirements of the candidate for that highest  public office in the land”.

“We have seen those that should know and those who have held exalted and enviable positions hold curious opinions on Constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass ones intellect”.

“For some of them, politics have been mixed with law in order to please certain quarters of the political class. But this is a dangerous mix. There is politics, and there is law. While they can sometimes intersect, they should not be muddled up when discussing pertinent legal issues that affect the nationhood of the country and the collective development of her citizen”.

This write-up of mine should, therefore, be seen as my RIGHT OF REPLY of (see section 39 of the 1999 Constitution, as altered). I honestly believe Dr Ajulo went too far in categorizing all senior lawyers whose views are not in tandem with his as holding “curious opinions”, either “by deliberate action or lack of proper research”. He also accused us of being tainted by partisanship or politics, merely for expressing our views. And to think that such views to him constitute “curious opinions on constitutional issues that embarrass our industry and harass our intellect”, was far too rude, self-opinionated and too vainglorious to be swept under the carpet. He erroneously (perhaps, arrogantly), elevated his personal views over and above all others’. Where is that coming from? Narcissism? Politics? godfatherism? I do not know. Or, do you?  The truth is that it is, rather, Ajulo’s views that were not only political, but heavily politicised. His entire piece read like a piece of a political party's manifesto. It failed woefully to exhibit the attributes of the rigours and intellectual breadth and depth of scholarly research which he so gleefully talked about in his needless diatribe.

My simple take on this is that when a debate on a serious controversial national issue gets to a crescendo such as we now have it, various dimensions of and opinions on the issue under discourse must be vigorously pursued, explored and interrogated. Consequently, as regards this raging ruckus and scrimmage as to whether the 25% votes required by S.134 (2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution ( as amended) is applicable to the FCT, Abuja, I have now decided to navigate further, some uncharted routes, by going mathematical to find X. This will surely emphasize to Ajulo, and others who hold similar or same views as his, that this matter is not just about to go away, or be buried, or swept under the mat, until it is, perhaps, finally laid to rest by the Supreme Court. Even at that, Scholars and Analysts will, for centuries to come, still interrogate it, in the same way, that the debate over the case of AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI & 2 Ors (1979) LPELR-653 (SC), still rages till date (44 years later!).    

Contrary to the simplistic and cavalier manner with which Ajulo dismissed the 25% compulsory requirement (even while paradoxically also extensively discussing it himself), it will not vanish into thin air just like that! He gravely errs in thinking that the debate is simply about how to “interpret one of the simplest provisions in our Constitution”. We must tackle it headlong. Let us therefore now take the argument further. I have always believed that it is in the clash of ideas that the truth- the naked truth- finally emerges.

There is no doubt that the provisions of section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution is rooted in mathematics. It requires that a winning presidential candidate shall have "not less than one-quarter of the votes at the election in each of at least two-third of all the states in the Federation AND the Federal Capital Territory Abuja". (Emphasis supplied).

As lawyers, we should not shy away from embarking on this mathematical pathway to resolve the steaming controversy. Yes, mathematics is part of lawyers' job in resolving disputes; and Nigerian courts are not strangers to mathematical judgments. Afterall, the 1979 presidential election involving Shagari and Awolowo was wholly litigated, won and lost on the basis of the Supreme Court's mathematical interpretation of what amounted then to 2/3 of the then 19 states of the Federation. The Supreme Court, in delivering judgment in favour of Shagari, ruled that the requirement of votes to win the Presidential election was 25% in 12 states, and no more. It cautiously avoided the attendant fractionalization of Kano State, so as to avoid absurdity in interpretation. My deep research has just thrown up a judgment where the court was called upon to interpret and translate 1.00 to percentage. The Honourable Justice Nelson Ogbuanya of the National Industrial Court, in resolving the mathematical legal question, held that “1.00 of an amount means one whole number and not a fraction; and when converted to percentage, it means 100% and not 1%". See “https://guardian.ng/features” law Court rules that 1.00 base salary to mean 100% in mathematical judgment” - The Guardian 26th November, 2019). 

Let me therefore state very clearly here, that contrary to what is being peddled by many commentators as purportedly settled judicial decisions on the status of FCT, Abuja (many of them critiquing my earlier write-up (see www.”ruebenabati.com.na-(opinion)- The 25% of FCT, Abuja conundrum-Mike-Ozekhome; Barristering.ng.com”) such decisions are not authorities for the very recondite and recherché issue posed by the 2023 presidential election results, which border on mathematical interpretation of the provisions of section 134(2)(b) of the 1999 Constitution, as altered, regarding the required percentage of votes which must be secured by a candidate in the presidential election in relation to the 36 states of the Federation and FCT, Abuja. There is no known judicial authority which has decided and settled this abstruse, arcane and enigmatic legal puzzle which is similar to the one that was thrown up in the aftermath of the 1979 presidential election. But that era differs remarkably from the current scenario, as, unlike section 126(2) of the 1979 Constitution which ended with 2/3 of all the states in the Federation, the 1999 Constitution added a fresh, rider, “And the FCT, Abuja”. Both the 1979 Constitution and the unused Babangida’s 1989 Constitution never added FCT, Abuja, since although same was created by Decree No. 6 of 1976, on February 5, 1976, by the assassinated General Muritala Mohammed, it came into existence on December 12, 1991, after the 1979 Constitution had been promulgated; but before the 1989 Babangida Constitution which never saw the light of day.

There is also no doubt that the FCT, Abuja, is not, strict sensu, a State (it has no State-like governance structure). However, by S.299 of the 1999 Constitution and many judicial decisions, it is "to be treated as a State":  See BABA-PANYA V. PRESIDENT FRN (2018) 15NWLR (Pt 1643)423; BAKAR V. OGUNDIPE (2021) 5 NWLR (Pt 1768) 9. A Community reading of section 2(2), 3(1)(4), 134(2)(b), 297, 298, 299, 301 and 302 of the 1999 Constitution shows that the FCT is accorded a special status as quite distinct from that of a normal state; notwithstanding that it is to be “treated as a state”.  

In dealing with this my new vista which now takes on a mathematical dimension,  there are agreed parameters to note and apply, as answering  a mathematical question requires patiently adopting  methodical approach, using certain  laid down formula. This is what is called 'operation show your work before putting QED on your answer'. The mathematical question thus posed by S.134 (2)(b) of the Constitution is this: what does it mean when it requires a winner of the presidential election to secure not less than (i.e at least) 1/4 ( 25%) of votes  in each of at least 2/3 of all the states in the Federation (36 states) AND the FCT, Abuja? The first step is to note that there are two parts- the variable and constant figures. In mathematics, while constant is a fixed figure, variable figures are imprecise. But, the variables must, nonetheless be ascertained before proceeding to conclude or ascribe a fixed figure in a given arithmetical equation. It is this inability to ascertain the variable figure that usually makes some students afraid of, and intimidated by, mathematics. In the end, they always failed to find X (the constant), with the resultant hatred for mathematics. To find X, the variable figure must be worked out and ascertained in a fixed figure, such as the constant figure.

It is clear that while “2/3 of all the states in the Federation” is the variable figure, which if worked out would give 24 states and thus become a constant figure, the “FCT, Abuja”, is always the constant figure, which stands as 1.

Working out the equation to show that the two parts (both variable and constant figures) are separate and distinct in their respective values must be applicable to the 25% votes requirement. This would be subjected to the BODMAS (Bracket, Order of power or roots, Division, Multiplication, Addition and Subtraction) Rule. This Rule is employed to explain the order of operation of mathematical expression.

Here, Bracket plays the role of “AND”, which serves as coordinating conjunctive verb in English syntax, to ascertain the two parts separated by bracket: See BUHARI v. INEC (2008) 19NWLR (Pt 1120) 246 (for the definition “And”); and EYISI & ORS V. STATE (200) LPELR-1186 (SC) (for the definition of “Each”).

In applying this formulae:

The number of states =36;

2/3 of 36 as variable =24;

FCT, Abuja as constant =1

So, the 25% of 24 States AND FCT, Abuja (1), will be expressed as: 25 % (24)(1) in mathematics. This is interpreted in English as 25% of 24 and 1, but not 25. The 24 represents states, while 1 represents FCT, Abuja.

The intention of the lawmaker is quite clear here.

The FCT, Abuja, is the seat of power of the Nigerian leadership. It is a cosmopolitan convergence of all federating units of the nation. It is to be merely treated like a State; but not as a State for the strange purpose of counting the total number of States to become 37 instead of 36 States and the FCT, Abuja, as wrongly argued by some analysts. The FCT, Abuja, is the political nerve centre of Nigeria. It has been imbued with such a special status as a miniature Nigeria in such a way that any elected president must have to compulsorily win the required 25% vote in the FCT, Abuja, after winning 25% votes in 24 States.

The reasons for this are not far-fetched. FCT, Abuja, is the melting pot which unites all ethnic groups, tribes, religions, people of variegate backgrounds; and other distinct qualities and characteristics in our pluralistic society. It is indeed a multi-diverse and multi-faceted conglomerate of the different and distinct peoples of Nigeria, which according to Prof Onigu Otite, has about 474 ethnic groups which speak over 350 languages. The FCT, Abuja, is thus regarded as the “Centre of Unity”, which is a testament to its inclusiveness of all tribes, religions, ethnic groups, languages; and peoples of different backgrounds. Simply put, FCT, Abuja, is a territory or land mass that is made up of individuals from every State and virtually from all the Local Government Areas in the country. It is itself made up of 6 Area Councils, quite distinct from the 768 LGAs in Nigeria, thus bringing the total to 774 LGCs in Nigeria. Consequently, scoring 25% of votes cast in the FCT, Abuja, is a Presidential candidate’s testament to being widely accepted by majority of the Nigerian people. The President is not expected to be a tenant in his seat of power. Will he pay rent to the 24 states he scored 25% votes? I do not know. Or, do you?

The framers of the 1999 Constitution certainly desired for Nigeria, a President that is widely accepted, with national spread; and not one that is a regional kingpin with support only from of his tribe, region, or ethnic group. The provisions contained in section 134 of the 1999 Constitution are meant to reflect this. In the same vein, the framers of the 1999 Constitution viewed the FCT, Abuja, as a melting pot; a sort of mini-Nigeria. Thus, like a commentator aptly posited, the position or status of the FCT, Abuja, assumes that of a COMPULSORY question that a presidential candidate must ANSWER in the electoral examination. With the FCT, Abuja, serving as the seat of the Federal Government-with all ministries and MDAs situated in it - it represents a Dolly Parton’s “Coat of many colours”. This is why the Federal Character provided for in sections 14(3),(4); 153(1); and 318(1) of the 1999 Constitution is also reflected in the administration of FCT, even though the Gbagyis are the original Aborigines of the FCT.

The only logical conclusion that can be drawn from the above is that sections 134 (2)(b) and 299 are not mutually exclusive or contradictory, as some commentators posit. Rather, section 299 actually supports and complements section 134.

Whether FCT, Abuja, is regarded as a super-state, full State, pseudo-State, quasi-State, or semi-State, is to me, immaterial. Even if it is none of these, what matters is the clear intention of the Constitution-makers.

Had the law makers intended that the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, will be treated simply as a “State” and no more in section 134(2)(b) of the Constitution, they would have simply stopped there. There was no need to specifically add the new phrase, “AND the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja”, as in section 134(2)(b). The Constitution would simply have provided for “two-thirds of all the States in the Federation”, and stopped there. But, it did not.

From a historical perspective (I am a student of history), recall that the AWOLOWO V. SHAGARI case and section 299 of the 1999 Constitution which states that its provisions shall apply to the FCT, Abuja, “as if it were one of the states of the Federation; including the BABA PANYA and BAKARI cases (supra), often cited with éclat, but out of context, did not deal with the issue of elections, or what percentage of the votes was expected of a presidential candidate. They merely dealt with the issues that were presented in those cases. No more. It is trite law that a case is only an authority for what its peculiar facts present: BABATUNDE v. PASTA (2007) 13 NWLR pt. 1050 pg. 113 @ 157; ADEGOKE MOTORS v. ADESANYA (1989) 3 NWLR (pt. 109) pg. 250; UWUA UDO v. THE STATE SC. 511/2014; SKYE BANK PLC. & ANOR. V. CHIEF MOSES BOLANLE AKINPEJU (2010) 9 NWLR (Pt LL98) 179; OKAFOR V. NNAIFE (1987) 4 NWLR (Pt 64)129; PDP V. INEC & ORS (2018) LPELR-44373(SC); LAGOS STATE GOVT. & ORS V. ABDULKAREEM & ORS (2022) LPELR-58517 (SC); ILA ENTERPRISES LTD & ANOR V. UMAR ALI & CO. NIG LTD (2022) LPELR-75806 (SC).

For example, when section 48 of the 1999 Constitution provides that the “Senate shall consist of three Senators from each state AND one from the FCT, Abuja”, why didn’t these canvassers of FCT, Abuja, being merely a state, argue that once we have three Senators from “each state”, we should discard the “AND” which gives one Senator to the FCT, Abuja, and thus deprive the FCT, Abuja, of its Senator? This provision is one amongst several others which shows that the FCT, Abuja, is to be treated distinctly and separately from the other 24 states. There is no ambiguity in section 134(2)(b) such as to bring in aid, existing canons of statutory interpretation, such as the “Golden Rule”, “Mischief Rule”, etc. It is axiomatic that all sections of the Constitution must be wholly and holistically construed together so as to avoid leaving out some portions, or rendering them nugatory. See THE ESTATE OF ALHAJI N.B. SOULE v. OLUSEYE JOHNSON & CO & ANOR (1974) LPELR-3169 (SC). The reason is that law makers are presumed not to use superfluous, otiose or extravagant words in provisions of the Constitution or statutes which they make.

CONCLUSION

It is my considered opinion that the scope of consideration of the FCT, Abuja, as a State, only applies to the enjoyment and vesting of executive, legislative and judicial powers by relevant bodies in the FCT. It does not apply to all matters, extents, and for all purposes. Further, an interpretation that Section 299 of the Constitution applies for all purposes is too narrow. It is not holistic or inclusive. It will render many other parts of the Constitution redundant, futile, unproductive, meaningless and therefore, unnecessary. Certainly, such could not have been the intention of the Legislature or law makers.

Section 134(2) of the Constitution must therefore be interpreted to mean that for a candidate to win the Presidential election, such a candidate must obtain 25% of the votes cast in two-thirds of all the States in the Federation (24 States); AND further, in the FCT, Abuja. This is a compulsory requirement for a valid return as President. It seems to me that INEC was not properly legally guided when it declared a President-elect. The Nichodemus announcement and declaration was obviously too hasty, premature and rash.

A great writer (Onwa Nnobi) was most apt when he stated:

“If 5 credits AND English Language are prerequisite to gaining admission into a higher school of Learning; and you make 10As in 10 subjects, but get F9 in English Language, does it qualify you for admission? It is not just commonsense and logic. It is incontrovertible”. I cannot give a better example. But, let me try two more examples of mine:

If I request to see 24 Corpers in my law firm AND OKON, it means I want to see 25 persons in all; but Okon must be one of the 25 persons. So if 24 or 25 persons in my law firm show up, without Okon, have I had all the persons I wanted to see? The answer is NO. To satisfy my request, Okon must show up in addition to the 24, thus making the 25 persons I desire to see. Okon is a Constant; 24 Corpers is a variable. The variables must be worked by BODMAS-Rule to find the constant.

As a second example, if I tell my dear wife to treat Andrew (my ward living with us) “like my son”, does that really make Andrew my biological son? I think not. Let me end this piece in response to Ajulo’s apophthegym of the “unwrinkled face (which) is not good for a resounding slap” with some words of advice.

Ajulo ought to know, from the deep recesses of his conscience and inner mind that what we witnessed on 25th February, 2023, was not democracy in practice. Abraham Lincoln, who made his famous Gettysburg speech on 19^th November, 1863, had described democracy as government of the people, for the people and by the people. He must be turning in his centuries-old grave. The last election was nothing but a sham and shambolic election of “first-kill-maim-allocate-thumbprint-ballot-papers-select-and-win-at-all-cost-and-let-them-go-to-court”. It was not democracy, but “electionocracy” and “selectocracy” in action.

The new refrain in town has since become “GO TO COURT”; an obvious addition to our warped political lexicon. The election in my humble view, was the shame of a country that has been held down for decades by the jugular by insensitive and insensate elite state captors. It was a purported election in which a supposed Nigerian president-elect allegedly scored 8,795,721 (only about 9.409% of the registered 93.40 million voters). And WITHOUT THE FCT, Abuja! So, that means less than 3.998% of the entire population of the Nigerian people comprising of 220.075.973 million people as at 27th March, 2023- the very people he seeks to govern! That is a mere 454,163 votes more than Chief Abiola’s votes scored about 30 years ago, when Nigeria’s population was only 102.8 million people. It was virtually half of President Buhari’s 15,191,847 votes in 2019; and even far less than the votes of the then runner-up, Atiku Abubakar, which was 11,262,928. What an election! If Ajulo does not recognize this odorous putrefaction and stone-age retrogression, in our electoral system, then it is him, more than any other lawyer, that belongs to one of the “senior lawyers” he so derogatively, perjuratively and derisively referred to as those who “give certain legal opinions that they do not believe in, just because they have been tainted by politics”. I totally agree with his conclusion that “it is the common man on the street that suffers this dangerous game of deliberate obfuscation and misinterpretation of our laws”. Welldone. Mercifully, I am very proud to announce to Ajulo and others that going by my very well known antecedents which are self-evident (simply google me), I do not belong to such a lowly class of ego-masseurs. I am certainly not one of those cheap obsequious fawners, brown-nosers, or toady characters that hang around political merchants and buccaneers of corridors of power. Not being a card-carrying member of any of our existing political parties, I am simply a patriotic Pan-Nigerian who interrogates issues and speaks truth to authority and power, with history and posterity as my goal. My parting proverb to Ajulo, more in the form of an anecdote or epigram, is this:

Once upon a time, an exuberant youth beat his drum so loudly, proudly, ceaselessly and fascinatingly with such reverberating noise that an elderly man sitting nearby told him to reduce the noise. The youth told him pointedly that he bought the drum with a huge sum of money. He exhibitionistly announced the name of the rare drum. The elderly man smiled, shook his greying head slowly, and calmly told the young man the name of the very animal whose skin was used to make the drum. Let us watch our words and actions, no matter how trying and tormenting the times are.

In the Question and Answer session featured on this page last week was the issue of people who are mentally challenged. It was one of the questions I treated. In my further contemplation of the subject, I recalled a contribution to a publication in which what drives the brain was discussed by a professor though it did not touch on mental affliction that much beyond describing it as loss of psychic self-activation. The fascinating article by Professor Dieter Malchow was on whether or not it is the brain that decides for us as human beings. The editor of the publication in his introduction says: “When we think that we are making a conscious decision, the decision was already made long beforehand. Some neuroscientists conclude that the brain decides for us…” Prof. Malchow makes references to P. Haggard/M.Eimer: ‘On relation between brain potentials and the awareness of voluntary movements’; Chun Siong Soen: ‘Unconscious determinants of free decisions in human brain, Nature Neuroscience’; and Dr. Raymond A. Moody: ‘Life after life.’

Mankind is living in unique times, indeed, in the proverbial End-Time with the pressure of influences, a great many are hardly aware of even though they are afflicted by attendant perplexities practically daily. The world has just witnessed a devastating earthquake in Turkey spreading to Syria, in which 47,000 people died, severe winter storms, flooding, and landslides in California over which Joe Biden declared an emergency, and unrelenting protests in Israel. Following is an excerpt from Prof. Malchow’s article the content of which is as relevant today as it was when it was published about 10 years ago:

“Deciding consciously is an everyday experience for us humans. We can hardly imagine that the vast majority of transactions that are important in our life proceed unconsciously in the brain, thus that the conscious represents, figuratively speaking, only the tip of the iceberg. And yet it is so. The regulation of body functions such as breathing, sleeping, waking, body temperature, heartbeat, digestion, and so on, are unconscious processes. The same applies to most of the data processing that goes into sensory perception. In vision, for example, each image falling on the retina is broken into mosaics in the brain. The first area in cerebral cortex, called ‘V1’, determines the contours, edges and lines. If ‘V1’ is destroyed, the affected individual is blind. The second area, ‘V2’, recognises larger patterns, for example, forms, which are in reality non-existent, such as the well-known ‘Kanisza triangle’. Towards the top of the hierarchy of visual processing in the brain are areas for the presentation of dynamic form (‘V3’), colour (‘V4’) and motion (‘V5’). A test for shape perception may show impairment in some people. These patients cannot recognise and allocate even simple forms correctly. If the connection to these higher is destroyed but ‘V1’ is intact, the person can draw the lines of a building exactly, but he no longer knows what it represents. Such a person is for example aware of the lines as they are shown in the drawing, he can see them, but they make no sense to him; he cannot put them in any context.

“The higher areas are thus used for understanding what we see. There are also places in the cerebrum for analysis of objects, buildings and faces. Only after these processing operations does the visual information get to the so-called association areas, where the perceptions from different sensory channels, such as hearing, seeing and feeling, interact. It has not yet been possible to investigate whether the original picture is reassembled here or elsewhere. Nor, above all, do we know who looks at this picture that we have in our mind’s eye. Is there a homunculus located in the brain? Or is the viewer the real human ‘self’?

“The example of the processing of visual impressions shows what feats the brain achieves in the representation of the outside world. An ‘external world’, which appears to be very real, but in reality is computed in a sophisticated manner by the brain—unnoticed by us—from the data obtained by the sensory organs. We only become aware of the final result of this process—probably when the information emerges in the described association areas of the brain. Conscious processes are thus by comparison slow, needing time to develop. Therefore, everything that must proceed fast takes place unconsciously, such as for example, the return service of a tennis ball or an ‘involuntary’ reaction in road traffic when trying to avoid an accident. Knowing the importance of unconscious processes raises the exciting question: Does the brain really decide for us and hence is there no free will? Or does the so-called ‘unconscious’, from which the decisions emanate, have a deeper, yet unidentified relevance in our being?

“The animal acts in accordance with its instincts and on the basis of what it has learned. Only the human being has a free will. That was at least until recently the unanimous view. The freedom of decision brings as a consequence responsibility for all actions. We cannot hold animals liable, but humans, yes. This is an important basis for our self-conception. By virtue of the question whether and to what extent we are responsible for our actions it is important to know whether we actually have a free will –although the term ‘free’ here does not mean absolute freedom, but the possibility of being able to decide anew in every situation, even if the current way of life may already suggest a fixed choice.

“Some time ago, about 38 years ago, the American physiologist Benjamin Libet (1916-2007) tried to prove this free will with the help of a scientific experiment. Volunteers had to note the time when they felt the urge to lift their hands. This time was recorded as the moment of volitional impulse. At the same time the brain waves (the so-called readiness potential) preparing the movement of the hand were measured. It was surprising that the brain waves preceded the test subjects consciously making their decision to execute the gesture. The brain was preparing the hand movement 300 milliseconds before the volunteer became conscious of his decision to lift the hand. The results of the ‘Libet experiment’ was hotly debated, because how can we speak of a free will if the brain reacts before we make a conscious decision? Critics objected that there was no choice open to the subjects in this experiment—except with regard to time.

“Many years later, the neurophysiologist Patrick Haggard and the psychologist Martin Eimer took this objection on board in another experiment. Their test subjects could now choose with the right hand or the left hand to press a button. The measurement of the brain waves was also improved. It was now possible to recognise the intention of the participants—whether they decided in favour of the left or right hand. The result of the new experiment corresponded to that of Benjamin Libet: the brain already reacted before the conscious volition; the brain waves rose beforehand on the side opposite the selected hand, making predictable the decision which hand test subject would move. This suggests two conclusions: either the brain decides for us and free will is only an illusion—or the so-called ‘unconscious’ leads us to a deeper dimension of our being. The thesis from these experiments that the brain decides for us and the personal free will is obsolete sparked vehement protest among art scholars and lawyers that has persisted to this day. John Searle, a renowned American philosopher, pointed out that we cannot think away our freedom. In choosing a meal at a restaurant it is practically impossible to say to the waiter: ‘Look I am a determinist, I’ll just wait and see what I order. Que sera, sera.’ Searle concluded from this humorous example that the refusal to exercise free will is itself only intelligible to the person if it is conceived as an exercise of free will: ‘I do not want to decide’—this resolve can itself only be regarded as a free decision.

“Do the unconscious processes represent the self? The self or ego of man could initially make itself felt via unconscious information pathways. Let us examine more closely what takes place in the brain when a conscious decision is taken. Obviously every conscious action, simple as it may occur to us in everyday life, is accompanied by complex biological processes in the brain that allow us to comprehend it as carried out by ourselves. Before an action, the brain works out a detailed plan of which areas are to be activated in carrying it out. After the action the brain receives a feedback from the body on the completed activity, which is then antedated. For it is only if the action follows the decision immediately will we regard something as willed and carried out by us. There are patients in whom no feedback occurs. These regard their actions not carried out by themselves, they feel other-directed. The brain, therefore, plans and prepares actions, even before we are aware of anything. This ‘rush ahead’ by the brain can be easily seen with tickling. If you tickle yourself, nothing happens, because with the unconscious decision to tickle yourself the body has already been forewarned and cannot be surprised. Therefore, we can only be tickled by another person.

“New findings in brain research have shown that there are regions in the brain, which, when decisions are made and plans are worked out, become active much earlier than that region Libet had observed in his experiment. It was found that they engaged in activity before the test subjects consciously made the decision to press the button with the left or right hand. Although the fore brain is quite known for conscious processes, all these activations manifest before we are conscious of a decision. Let us return to our original question: does the brain decide for us and is freewill an illusion? Or is there a free will, to start with, that is expressed through the so-called ‘unconscious?’
“In the first case, we together with our background, origin, and everything that has shaped us would be determined by the wiring of our brain, all steps and actions causally determined. If this were so, we would have no free will, but also no responsibility. This idea, however, ignores the reality. We experience in most cases people who need to use their will, in order to learn, for example, an occupation and progress in it. Weak willed people suffer frequently from consequences of this weakness, bringing along discontent and misery. Often they are dependent on the help of others. Patients who suffer from ‘PAP syndrome (loss of self-activation’)) lack of inner drive and therewith will. They spend their time, for example, counting the lines on the ceiling or turn appliances on and off incessantly. Only by telling or commanding them are they able to get up and do something meaningful. If the address stops, they immediately relapse into silence and apathy. If asked what they are thinking they reply: ‘nothing!’—and they describe their inner state as empty. They feel neither sorrow nor joy. Such extreme examples illustrate that as an expression of our will, our inner motivation is connected directly or indirectly with emotional processing, and that we need our will to live. It is part of our being human. This makes the second alternative more likely to be the conclusion from findings of brain research: there is a free will, though this is initially expressed through unconscious processes in the brain. But where is the seat of this free will of man, which has to account for its decisions?

“The brain itself as an organ of the body cannot take on responsibility. The bearer of the will must logically be a person. Do we meet here the human ego which has by its very nature a different consistency and expresses itself physically initially through unconscious processes? That this reasoning may be correct is shown by accounts of near-death experiences. An extensive literature confirms that due to lack of blood circulation in heart failure or accidents, but also by artificial stimulation of the brain, a conscious state occurs outside the body, in which the affected individuals are looking down on their lifeless bodies. They experience a new state that is characterized by weightlessness, the ability to reach through objects and persons, an inability to make themselves felt, but also by being able to describe the resuscitation attempts exactly and also make decisions. These accounts show that we can free ourselves from the body; we are then left with a finer, lighter figure, which can be called soul. In His Work, ‘In the Light of Truth’ Abd-ru-shin explains that the soul obtains connection with the body through the solar plexus. The soul incorporates our inner-most core of being, and it is this which expresses its will and makes decisions. In the process, first the solar plexus is activated and subsequently the brain. Since the soul is not identical to the body, there is a mechanism which ensures that the soul becomes conscious of events in the physical world through the brain, and another by which we regard our action as carried out by ourselves. Neuroscience grants insights into these mechanisms. The experiments show two things: that what we are conscious of is prepared and accompanied by unconscious processes and that free will cannot be fixed in the brain itself. But the experiments express nothing about the real origin of the impulses to make a decision.

“The free will arises from our innermost core of being, which is not in the brain, but in the soul. We perceive this core as ‘inner voice’, by our ‘gut feeling’, by the urge to act in a certain way. If we yield to this urge aright, the result is a feeling of happiness; our mood is uplifted, increasing our well-being. All these characteristics are evidence of the presence of the soul in the body. The soul perceives itself through intuitive perception. The afore-mentioned limbic system is in contact with the solar plexus. Everything experienced personally stirs the soul. The limbic system functions as information carrier to and from the brain. If the connection to the limbic system is disturbed, as in the case of the ‘PAP syndrome’, the emotional impulses cannot be perceived. That the unconscious responds in advance of the conscious is nothing unnatural or mystical but simply an expression of our ego or self, our inner core of being in a finer, lighter figure: the soul. The soul is only mysterious because it eludes measurement. From person to person, however, the soul manifests itself without further ado—through radiation, the expression of the eyes, the posture or the voice. The idea that the self is identical with the brain is based on the experience that the brain is where thought is produced, and emotional stirrings can be suppressed with the intellect. If we unite the findings of the new experiments in neuroscience with the analysis of near- death experiences, it is clear that it is not the brain that decides for us. We have a free will. This arises from our innermost core, which lies in the soul. But at the start it expresses itself unconsciously –as does true love.”

Now that Nigeria’s next census date has been officially confirmed, I am curious if the exercise will provide a different picture of our population distribution or merely validate the status quo. Anyone who has been a Nigerian for long enough already knows that the national population is a continuation of the politics of power by another means. Virtually every census in modern Nigeria has been vigorously challenged for its statistical accuracy and, of course, its ideological agenda.

Far more than serving the purposes of efficient national planning—the officially touted reasons for holding them—censuses in underdeveloped societies like ours use purported scientific means to entrench power and allocation of resources. They are susceptible to weaponisation by those who will use their supposedly empirical means to justify undue allocation of resources (and, therefore, cannot but be contentious).

Given that national legislative seats were historically apportioned—and political offices are still handed out—based on perceived demographic distribution, a credible census in these parts is a unicorn sighting. Our political leaders are over-invested in maintaining the official population distribution figures in all their skewed ingloriousness. Like our periodic elections where those whom the odds already favour still rig to pre-empt their opponents’ rigging, census figures are swelled up in anticipation of others cooking them too. By the time everyone steals in order not to be stolen from, we end up with a process that undermines us in every way.

For the May 3 to 5 census though, we have been promised a far more credible process because the counting process will be digital. On its website, the Nigerian Population Commission boasted that the impending digital census “will change how the census is being conducted in Nigeria before now.” Again, if you are a Nigerian, that boast must be familiar. We have seen how far over-valorised digital techniques get us.

As efficient as they can be, technological tools are not magic wands that can be waved over the myriad of Nigeria’s other sociological problems. A mere tool in the hands of humans, technology’s effects are not independent of users’ technical capabilities and ethical judgment. No matter how many dazzling toys of digital technology the NPC has acquired, what will matter at the end of the day is the integrity of the agency.

The poet, Amiri Baraka, once noted that “machines have the morality of their inventors.” Indeed, technology is never neutral, even if it appears to have no mind of its own. Algorithms and their effects are never exclusive of the passions of the humans that wrote their codes. For nations like Nigeria that do not invent technology but mostly use what others have built, what the tools reproduce is the ethic of the incompetence of our society. It is why the digitised processes that work seamlessly elsewhere—from transitioning to a cashless society, digitising public records, and even basic bureaucratic processes—have been as hard in Nigeria as pulling a tree trunk.

The recent elections are examples. Despite how much the Independent National Electoral Commission trumpeted the Bimodal Voter Accreditation System as a revolutionary device, its game-changing capacity ultimately bowed before the legendary Nigerian incompetence. It was a costly election but lacked credibility. As it turns out, machines cannot redeem an amoral society.

The NPC can boast that their digital tools are a game changer, but it will take institutional integrity to not merely reproduce the same lopsided figures that Nigeria has brandished for decades. As I noted recently, if there is something the serial paltry voter turnout at our elections has shown, it is the deceptiveness of the figures that have been touted as the Nigerian population. It is a myth that has become the official narrative. On several population clocks, Nigeria is listed as having over 200 million people. This misattribution is partly a problem of official dishonesty and partly an issue of our society’s numeric illiteracy.

Here is an example of both instances compounded: recently, Communications and Digital Economy Minister (and alleged professor of cybersecurity) Isa Pantami, said they recorded 12, 988 978 million cyber-attacks on cyber facilities during the election. For an election where 25 million people supposedly voted, Pantami’s figures are strange. He also claimed that on February 25 alone, they recorded about 6, 997 277 threats (please note how the stated numbers try so hard to be precise rather than round figures). On average, for every two votes cast during that presidential election, there was at least one cyber threat.

One would have thought that Pantami produced those figures in a state of delirium, except that he claimed they were findings of an inaugurated committee. But how are such figures plausible? Not even the Pentagon can withstand 12 million threats in four days, and that is an agency with about the most sophisticated software in the world! No reasonable organisation will stand by, recording relentless threats to its systems without launching a counter-offensive. Was there any point they traced and arrested those behind that many attacks? For an ICT minister to make that kind of claim publicly—and even list it in official records—Pantami is being deceptive.

Instructively, that kind of official deception combined with the inability to quantitatively comprehend the significance of numbers explains our failures to count –and account—for ourselves as a society. Will the NPC do any better, or would we have merely used the tools of digitality to entrench lies?

The February presidential election that saw people leaving their houses early to get ahead in the queues did not produce more than a voter turnout of a paltry 25 million (before adjusting for reported instances of electoral malpractices). Besides the electoral turnout figures, only 95 million—up till January—have registered for the NIN (and that is a figure that captures all age ranges). When you study the graph of NIN registration, you can see that the numbers have peaked. There are no other 95 million or more people still awaiting registration. Those who insist that some 120 million people are not captured in the national database should consider the number of active phone lines in the country. The most recent figures show that active phone lines are around 222 million. In a country where most people have a minimum of two phone lines, it is not hard to see from these figures that no large section of undocumented Nigerians are waiting to come out of the rural areas. We are not that many, simple. What we see is what exists.

Finally, more than a one-time exercise, I hope to see the Nigerian state put the findings to judicious use. That means the processes will need sustaining, especially if the findings do not corroborate official narratives. Without constantly updating the NPC database to reflect birth and death rates, the whole exercise might as well be pointless. Equally, a credible census can also help infuse credibility into adjunct social and processes. If the NPC database is synced with other collated ones, such as INEC’s voter register (and the NIN and the BVN), they can be a better audit of the national population. We can get as far as eliminating the corruption endemic in electoral processes like underage voting and multiple voting. We can also produce more efficient surveillance systems. Overall, there are potential gains to be made if the NPC can pull off a credible census. They have acquired the machines, but do they have the integrity to make them work efficiently? What will Nigeria’s digital census find?

With the elections over, and at a time you expect the PDP to regroup, the leaders are now squealing on one another. You hear stories of over a thousand vehicles that can now not be accounted for as well as tales of how billions of Naira and hundreds of millions of Dollars were being distributed and who got what. Nigerians are also being regaled with stories of internal sabotage, betrayals, and double-dealings. In what appeared an attempt to douse the raging fire, the PDP, at the instance of the president, on Tuesday, constituted a review committee to identify, among other things, “the remote and immediate causes of the relatively poor performance of the PDP in the 2015 general election.” With three weeks to submit its report, committee chairman, Senator Ike Ekweremadu said at the occasion: “Much as we are pained by the sad turn of events, we must come to terms with the fact that anger, recriminations, self-pity and blame trading will not take us even an inch away from the harsh outcomes of the 2015 general election.” 

How the PDP resolves its internal contradictions is of no concern to me. But like many Nigerians, I am interested in seeing the party overcome its current difficulties…All over the world, presidents and prime ministers lose elections but their parties survive to carry on the work of democratic engagement in the political space. In the instant case, President Goodluck Jonathan has lost an election and his party runs the risk of completely disintegrating in the aftermath. While the PDP may have its down sides, its survival beyond the Jonathan presidency has become a matter of national political security. 

The PDP was founded and sustained on the assumption that it would remain in office and preside over the sharing of national resources indefinitely. Now that it has lost its power of patronage at the centre, the party could starve to death as President Jonathan himself predicted recently. He warned those trooping to the APC that they may return with ’empty stomach’. That presidential prophesy, an issue for another day, also says a lot about what public service has been reduced to in Nigeria: it is almost always about some people looking for something to eat! 

All factors considered, the task of stabilising our political space by helping the PDP come back on its feet belongs not only to genuine party members but indeed also to the more perceptive national elite, including those of us in the media. It is in our enlightened self-interest to have a formidable opposition party so that our democracy can thrive… 

I crave the indulgence of readers for that lengthy recollection from my 7^th May 2015 column following the defeat of President Jonathan by the incumbent Muhammadu Buhari. When I first wrote ‘Inside the PDP Tower of Babel’, I never intended a sequel. Sadly, as we have seen in the past eight years, the PDP seems incapable of managing defeat. Considering the suspensions, counter-suspensions, and cross-suspensions we have witnessed in recent days, and the way our courts are being dragged into their squabbles, it is important that we examine how the main opposition party can be salvaged from its internal contradictions in the interest of our democracy.  

Political parties are supposed to represent the best expression of pluralism within the polity and serve as a fundamental instrument for popular participation in governance. The challenge of our country is that our political parties not only lack internal democracy, but their promoters have scant regard for their own rules. For instance, Article 57 of the PDP constitution stipulates how a national officer can be removed from office. Suspension by ward or state organ is not one of them. But most PDP chairmen have lost their jobs through dubious suspensions that violate the basic tenets of the party’s constitution followed by contrived court actions.  

On Tuesday, the PDP announced the replacement of its national chairman, Iyorchia Ayu with the deputy national chairman (North), Umar Damagum, in acting capacity. The action was in deference to Monday’s ex parte order from a Makurdi High Court in Benue State, asking Ayu to stop parading himself as the party’s national chairman. It is not lost on observers that Ayu was forced out within hours of describing his suspension as an act of “gross illiteracy, ignorance, gambling and desperation”. If Ayu challenges his removal in court, as his media aide hinted, he would simply be seeking equity with unclean hands. Ayu was also a beneficiary of this lawlessness when in October 2021, Uche Secondus was illegally suspended by his ward in Rivers State, before a tenure guaranteed to end on 9th December 2021 was terminated by default.  

The current drama began last Thursday with the suspension of a few powerful members, including former Governor Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti, his Katsina State counterpart, Ibrahim Shema, and former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Anyim Pius Anyim. The party also referred the Governor of Benue State, Samuel Ortom, to the national disciplinary committee. Whatever the merit of that action by Ayu and his henchmen, it is rather curious that a political party in court to claim its “stolen mandate” would unwittingly be telling Nigerians that self-sabotage was responsible for the outcome of the polls! 

In a scathing letter to the party’s National Working Committee (NWC), Anyim admitted working against the PDP candidate during the gubernatorial election in Ebonyi State. He also confirmed that he worked for the victorious APC candidate. And he justified both decisions before throwing a sharp jab at the party’s leadership. “I thought the concern of the NWC now would be how to undertake a thorough self-examination on why they performed so poorly in the 2023 elections rather than seek to further divide the party by shifting blames,” Anyim wrote in his private-public letter. “It is clear that arising from the leadership style of the NWC, many members, intentionally and proudly, worked against the party including members of the NWC.”  

If PDP leaders could “intentionally and proudly” work for the opposition (as was evident in many states across the country), how do you expect such a party to perform at the polls? Then Anyim threw this dagger: “It is a display of innate cowardice for the NWC to choose soft targets to suspend and fear those that daily demonize them.”  

In case PDP NWC members do not understand what Anyim is saying, let me break it down for them. He is posing specific questions: Why was the Governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike who publicly led the revolt against the party and boasted about it not suspended along with others? Chief Olabode George, a former PDP national vice chairman and respected party elder, openly campaigned for the Labour Party gubernatorial candidate in Lagos, Gbadebo Rhodes-Vivour and supported Mr Peter Obi during the presidential election. George has since granted several interviews to justify the choices he made during the elections without being met with the charge of ‘anti-party activity’. 

Several other top PDP politicians across the country openly worked against the candidates of their party during this election cycle. But the elephant in the room remains Wike. It is on public record that the Rivers State Governor openly campaigned against the PDP presidential candidate with his signature taunt song, ‘As e dey pain dem, e dey sweet us’. When Atiku lost, Wike celebrated with a 40-year-old Whisky! So, on what grounds was his name excluded from the list of those to be suspended? I suspect it was out of fear of the bombshell Wike might throw at many of the NWC members should they dare to include his name on that list of “soft targets”, to borrow Anyim’s words. “I beg them (PDP leaders) today to suspend me from the party; they know what I will do”, Wike once threatened before the elections. “If Nigerians hear a lot of things going on now in the party that wants to take over from the present government, it will shake the country.” 

As I wrote recently, conventional wisdom is that those who live in glass houses don’t walk naked. I referenced the viral video a day after the party’s national convention that nominated Atiku as the PDP presidential candidate, where Ayu venerated the Governor of Sokoto State, Aminu Tambuwal, as a hero. “For a national chairman to go and embrace Tambuwal, calling him the hero of the convention meant that there was a private arrangement that was done to short-change other contestants,” former Plateau State Governor, Jonah Jang, a Wike supporter had said while arguing that Ayu had lost credibility as PDP leader. “Here was a referee who helped one of the sides to score a goal and then blew the whistle. This is not what we formed the PDP to do for Nigerians.” 

As national chairman, Ayu ought to have stayed above the fray. By behaving like the campaign manager for Atiku, he opened himself up to the attacks that followed. And Ayu should have resigned when he became a divisive figure in the party, especially given an earlier promise that he would relinquish his position if a northerner emerged as the presidential candidate. Since he lost the PDP primaries last June, Wike has been on the offensive against Ayu with sundry allegations of impropriety. In one of his tirades against the former national chairman, Wike threw this sucker punch that is yet to be replied: “If people know what we know, if we release what we have, Ayu’s children will go to him and say we are no longer your children.” 

I understand that the signatures of the Ward exco used to secure the court order which toppled Ayu were forged. But with PDP, such things don’t matter. The important thing is for the end to justify the means and in this case, Ayu’s continued stewardship had become a nuisance. Now that he has been ousted, has the PDP problem been resolved? Certainly not. In fact, the problem has been compounded with contending factions and interests scheming to hijack the party’s leadership.  

President Jonathan’s prediction that many of those who left the PDP to help the APC win the 2015 general election would soon return is instructive. In fact, by 2019, the three leading presidential contenders were APC returnees: Former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, then Senate President Bukola Saraki and Tambuwal. Since there is yet no device to measure the ‘stomach’ of a politician, there is no way to know whether they returned ‘empty’ or ‘full’. But it says a lot about party discipline (or lack thereof) that one of them (Atiku) became the PDP presidential flagbearer for the 2019 general election and barely seven years later, another APC returnee, Ayu, became the national chairman! 

That we practice politics without principle is one of the dangers of the current democratic dispensation. In 2015, the National Assembly had to bend its own rule on ‘ranking members’ in the election of principal officers to accommodate a fresh Senator in Godswill Akpabio to become the Minority (PDP) Leader. Three years later, the ‘uncommon transformer’ of Akwa Ibom State (who may be the next Senate President if you believe what Abuja politicians are saying) dumped the PDP and the position he held to become a floor member in the APC to which he had crossed. 

What is happening in the PDP provides a window into party politics in Nigeria. Ordinarily, political parties should be avenues for the contestation of ideas about how society should develop and thrive. But political parties in Nigeria (without exemption) are mere vehicles for seeking government offices. It is therefore no surprise that they have yet to demonstrate they are driven by the core value of promoting the common good. The situation is worse in most of the fringe parties that are no better than business ventures promoted by mercantile politicians who hawk them as platforms of convenience for any interested person at every election season.    

Meanwhile, it is difficult for democracy to grow in a milieu where every politician wants to be in the ruling party – as is the case today in Nigeria. Inability to develop a culture of responsible opposition that could serve as a vanguard for holding the party (and people) in power to account is the result of too many ‘hungry’ politicians perpetually moving from one party to the other, seeking ‘greener pastures’. They fail to understand that democracy is imperilled when power mongers at the helm of government are not held in check by a strong and constructive opposition.

For the ruling party in Nigeria, the emergence of its national chairman, as I once wrote, is often akin to the way Mafia bosses choose their Consigliere (right hand man). The manner of their exit from office is also not different: A nod and a wink from the president and enforcers will handle the rest. For the 16 years PDP spent in power, that was the way almost a dozen national chairmen were hired and fired. Chief Audu Ogbeh was forced to append his signature to a resignation letter handed him by a self-invited guest (President Olusegun Obasanjo) to whom he had just offered a delicious meal of pounded yam. After quoting for President Jonathan the Biblical Psalm 62:11 (God has spoken once, twice have I heard; power belongs to God), the late Chief Vincent Ogbulafor had a case with the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) which rendered his position as PDP national chairman untenable. The APC has since taken over the PDP rule book, with the controversial dissolution of the Comrade Adams Oshiomhole-led NWC in June 2020 by President Buhari and last year’s unceremonious sack of Yobe Governor Mai Mala Buni as chairman of the Caretaker Extraordinary Convention Planning Committee (CECPC). 

When a political party has no definable ideology, structure, or institutional memory, mechanisms for internal democracy will also be lacking. And when members of such parties find themselves in government, transparency and accountability will mean nothing. That explains the Nigerian condition today. In the real sense, our political parties are mere vehicles for hijacking power. And they are led by people who neither understand the rudiments of governance nor can advance the public good.  

I don’t know how PDP leaders will resolve their current crisis. But the only enduring way is for the leaders to respect their own rules. Political parties remain the framework for democracies to recruit and organize the populace for power contests. When they exhibit lawlessness in the management of their affairs, their elected members cannot serve the public interest. 

The Department of State Security Services, DSS, has confirmed a plot to install an interim Government in Nigeria and scuttle a handover to President-elect, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Below is a statement from the Service signed by its spokesperson, Peter Afunanya (PhD);

“The Department of State Services (DSS) has identified some key players in the plot for an Interim Government in Nigeria. The Service considers the plot, being pursued by these entrenched interests, as not only an aberration but a mischievous way to set aside the constitution and undermine civil rule as well as plunge the country into an avoidable crisis. The illegality is totally unacceptable in a democracy and to the peace loving Nigerians. This is even more so that the machination is taking place after the peaceful conduct of the elections in most parts of the country.”

“The planners, in their many meetings, have weighed various options, which include, among others, to sponsor endless violent mass protests in major cities to warrant a declaration of State of Emergency. Another is to obtain frivolous court injunctions to forestall the inauguration of new executive administrations and legislative houses at the Federal and State levels.”

“The DSS supports the President and Commander-in-Chief in his avowed commitment to a hitch-free handover and will assiduously work in this direction. It also supports the Presidential Transition Council and such other related bodies in the States. It will collaborate with them and sister security and law enforcement agencies to ensure seamless inaugurations come 29th May, 2023.”

“Consequently, the Service strongly warns those organising to thwart democracy in the country to retract from their devious schemes and orchestrations.”

“Stakeholders, notably judicial authorities, media and the Civil Society, are enjoined to be watchful and cautious to avoid being used as instruments to subvert peace and stability of the nation. While its monitoring continues, the DSS will not hesitate to take decisive and necessary legal steps against these misguided elements to frustrate their obnoxious intentions.”

[PoliticsNigeria]

The Co-founder and Chief Executive Officer of Paystack, Shola Akinlade, has bought a 55 percent stake in a second-division Danish club, Aarhus Fremad.

The 76-year-old Danish club will become a sister club to Sporting Lagos FC, a Lagos-based football club in the Nigeria National League founded by Akinlade in 2022.

According to a statement by Sporting, the deal will create opportunities for European exposure for its best teams, and further help its efforts to develop youth football in the country.

Speaking on the acquisition, Akinlade said, “I am truly honored and excited to embark on this new chapter with Aarhus Fremad and further our shared commitment to engaging and empowering local communities.

“By strengthening the relationship between Sporting Lagos and Aarhus Fremad, we aim to create an environment that fosters education, growth, and opportunity for our players and the community at large. I have the utmost confidence in Lars Kruse’s continued leadership as CEO, and together, we will strive to maintain the values and long-term goals that have made these clubs such a cherished part of their respective communities.”

Commenting on the investment, Lars Kruse, said, “It has been an exciting process, from when I first heard that they had spotted us in Fremad all the way from Nigeria to where we are standing now.

“It is fantastic that there are people with the right mindset who see football as a catalyst for many other things – and in terms of values, Sporting Lagos is a Nigerian Aarhus Fremad. In practical terms, the agreement means that we can have a much larger perspective in Fremad, as well as an international dimension to work with.”

Arhus Fremad is currently top of the 2nd division and might be promoted to the country’s second-best league.

Despite this, the club has been running a deficit with CEO and former primary equity owner Lars Kruse covering it.

In its latest financial report, the club has made a loss of two million kroner over the past two years.

“I’ve been completely honest that I needed some help. I didn’t want to throw it all under the bus, and I’ve always thought that someone must come along when we’ve been as good as we’ve been,” Lars Kruse told Danish newspaper, Århus Stiftstidende.

[OpinionNigeria]