Our movement was fairly routine. We would fly into Katsina Airport from Abuja and drive straight to the presidential lodge. But on this occasion, the late President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua changed the protocol. “Please drive straight to my mother’s place. I came purposely to see her.” Prior to that day, only the ADC, Mustapha Onoyiveta, CSO, Yusuf Tilde, SA Domestic, Hamza Nadada, PLO, Habu Habib, Chief Physician, Salisu Banye and Alhaji Inuwa Baba (the only ‘Senator’ with a global constituency) went with the president whenever he visited his mother. That occasion provided the first opportunity to meet Hajiya Dada, and I noticed something as we took turns to greet her. Though there were a few chairs in the room for visitors, the late president took his seat on the floor beside her mattress. Before we left them alone, I witnessed how the power dynamics in Nigeria had changed as Yar’Adua attended to his mother in awe. When he eventually came out of the room, he held a jug I was told contained fura da nono, a special delicacy she always made for him.

I arrived back to Abuja on Monday from China and was not feeling too well when the news broke that Hajiya Dada had passed. But I was determined to pay her my last respects by attending the burial slated for 1.30PM on Tuesday. I must therefore express my appreciation to the former Governor of Gombe State, Senator Danjuma Goje who provided a space for me on the aircraft that took him, his former Kebbi counterpart, Senator Adamu Aliero and Professor Modibbo Ahmed to Katsina. And I was impressed that Vice President Kashim Shettima, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, Labour Party presidential candidate in the last election, Mr Peter Obi, as well as former Senate President Ahmad Lawan, Ambassador Babagana Kingibe and many other important dignitaries defied the slight rain to attend the prayers on the football field of Katsina Township stadium.

In every sense, the late Hajiya Dada bore similarities to the late Rose Fitzgerald Kennedy of the United States. Mrs Kennedy died in 1995 at age 104. Hajiya Dada died at age 102. Mrs Kennedy was married to a top politician who chaired the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission and was US Ambassador to the United Kingdom. Hajiya Dada’s husband was also a politician, administrator and Minister of Lagos Affairs during Nigeria’s First Republic. Mrs Kennedy had nine children, including a US President who died in office and two senators who also died in office, all during her lifetime. Hajiya Dada also had nine children, among them a former number two man in Nigeria, Major General Shehu Musa Yar’Adua and his younger brother, Umaru who died as president—both in her lifetime. Perhaps because of their longevity, both Mrs Kennedy and Hajia Dada also lost other children while alive. Fortunately for Hajiya Dada, she left behind Hajiya Habi, Malam Sule, Hajiya Hafisatu and Senator Audu Musa Yar’Adua (Audu Soja, as he is fondly called within the family being a retired Lt Colonel). And of course, she is also survived by Murtala Shehu Yar’Adua, a former Minister of State for Defence, among many grandchildren.

But the essential similarity between Mrs Kennedy and Hajiya Dada is that they raised extraordinarily successful children and suffered more than their share of tragedy. Even though both families were privileged, one could see the critical roles played by the matriarchs. This much was captured by Mrs Kennedy in her 1974 autobiography, ‘Times to Remember’, where she explained her role in bringing up her children to be who they were. “I looked on child rearing not only as a work of love and duty but as a profession that was fully as interesting and challenging as any honorable profession in the world and one that demanded the best I could bring to it,” she wrote as a testimony to her influence in how the children had turned out. “What greater aspiration and challenge are there for a mother than the hope of raising a great son or daughter?”

Hajiya Dada was noted by many as an exceedingly spiritual woman whose guidance was sought by her sons throughout their lives. But she was also known for her uncommon special attention to detail, especially regarding them. The Director General of the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre, Ms Jacquline Farris once shared a story with me. “When Umaru (the late president) took me to condole with Hajia Dada after Shehu died in December 1997, she went into her room and brought out his school uniform after hearing about my plan for the exhibition hall,” she said. “That she had kept it in her room all those years and knew exactly where she kept it amazed me.” And on the day that Hajia Dada visited the Centre, many people panicked when they couldn’t locate her whereabouts. “We later found her at the exhibition hall, alone”, evidently absorbing the environment while reliving the memories of her departed son.

Hajiya Dada left no memoir, but I believe she could say the same thing about her efforts in raising her children to who they were in Nigeria, just as Mrs Kennedy did. And there could have been no greater testimony than the number of people who gathered in Katsina on Tuesday for her burial. Most of them may never have met Hajiya Dada in person. Even some of us who had met her could not boast of any special relationship with her. We were there in Katsina simply to honour her illustrious children—a worthy legacy to her life.

May God grant her eternal rest.

But Where We Wan Go?

It is not the kind of argument a government official should be making but we live in a country where people say all kinds of things. “If NNPC imports PMS and sells to marketers at perhaps N600 or below, there’s no way that smuggling can stop,” theMinister of State for Petroleum, Heineken Lokpobiri said last week while arguing that the only antidote to fuel smuggling across Nigerian borders is to sell the commodity above the landing cost in a tacit admission of failure of critical institutions. “When smugglers are taking the products outside the country, even if you put all the policemen on the road, they are Nigerians; you and I know the answer.”

When the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited (NNPCL) responded on Tuesday by jerking up the pump prices of fuel by about 50 percent, Lokpobiri became angry that Nigerians would hold the federal government to account on the issue. He would not even take responsibility for his own declaration a few days earlier. “We categorically condemn these claims as baseless, malicious, and a deliberate attempt to incite public discontent,” he said in response to reports on the pump price. “Such a claim is entirely devoid of truth and should be recognised as an intentional effort to mislead the public. It must be stressed that NNPCL operates as an independent entity under the Companies and Allied Matters Act, with a fully empowered Board of Directors.”

It is not only Lokpobiri who takes Nigerians for fools on this matter of subsidy.  Several other operatives of the current administration have also decided to adopt the same lie: The federal government has nothing to do with the pump price, it is the NNPCL. But Lokpobiri is adding insult to injury with his CAMA tales. Meanwhile, it is not a secret that I endorse removal of fuel subsidy. It is an argument I have canvassed for more than two decades and my position on it has not changed. But implementing fuel subsidy removal at the same time as floating the Naira has proved to be a dangerous combination for the economy. Now things have gone haywire.

I have read people who blame the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) for our woes. The usual argument is that the government is taking their usual pills. But that’s not my reading of the situation in Nigeria today. When Witold Henisz, currently theVice Dean and Faculty Director, ESG Initiative; Deloitte & Touche Professor of Management at the University of Pennsylvania, joined other leading academics to conduct research on market reforms in dozens of Third World countries, they were said to be looking for a link between failed or troubled reform efforts and the presence of the World Bank or the IMF. At the end, they reportedly found one interesting link. “If you see the IMF and World Bank influencing reforms in a country,” says Henisz, “It’s not a seal of approval. It’s a warning flag!”

That remains true of Nigeria today. We are in a serious economic crisis. The situation may have been exacerbated by the arrogance and thoughtlessness with which the Tinubu administration handled critical issues, but the problems preceded them. The challenge is that to get out of the mess, we require short-term, medium-term and long-term solutions. Part of the long-term solutions must include how to tackle the menace of a growing but largely unproductive population. I am aware that some don’t like to hear this but it’s an issue we must deal with. In 1960, the United Kingdom from where we secured our independence had a population of 52.2 million people whereas Nigeria was then inhabited by 45.14 million people. Today, the UK is 69 million, an increase of about 14 percent over a period of 64 years. Meanwhile, the population of Nigeria today is put at 229 million, an increase of about 500 percent! And we are talking of people with little or no access to education, healthcare and other basics of life.

However, that is not the issue for today as we seek to tackle the current challenge. In his 1923 work, ‘The Tract on Monetary Reform’, English economist and philosopher, John Maynard Keynes, made a profound statement though not often referenced in full.“The long run is a misleading guide to current affairs. In the long run we are all dead,” Keynes wrote but most people often leave out the next lines. “Economists set themselves too easy, too useless a task if in tempestuous seasons they can only tell us that when the storm is past the ocean is flat again.”

It is not that Keynes could not appreciate the benefits of long-term planning. On the contrary, his thesis actually supports that. What he is saying is that you must survive today before you can envision tomorrow. That is a message for those who are formulating policies for this administration. Yesterday, I was listening to a radio call-in programme in the vehicle and many callers were expressing their frustration about the high cost of living which would be compounded by the hike in fuel price. The picture of deprivation painted by many was just too harrowing. One caller summed it up by repeatedly chanting, “Where we wan go? Where we wan go? Where we wan go?”

Most Nigerians are now at their tethers end. And they need solutions to their pressing challenges. Deploying the Sani Abacha tactics of intimidation, coercion and other forms of repression provide no solution. Beyond mismanaging expectations, I hope those in power today are not also poor students of history.

The Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) has warned the federal government that the latest increase in the pump price of petroleum products would worsen poverty among workers

The union said the sudden hike allegedly “implemented without consultation with critical stakeholders,” represented a blatant disregard for the welfare of the Nigerian people, particularly the working class who bear the brunt of such decisions.

In a statement by its president, Comrade Festus Osifo, the TUC urged the government to “immediately rescind these decisions, promote policies that will strengthen the naira, and take decisive steps to alleviate the suffering of Nigerians.”

According to the statement, the federal government must “act swiftly to restore confidence and prevent further deterioration in the living conditions of its citizens.”

The statement said: “The Trade Union Congress of Nigeria (TUC) received the news of the PMS price hike with great contestation and grave concern. The burden of PMS price increase is huge and percolates to all facets of our social-economic life. This sudden hike, implemented without consultation with critical stakeholders, represents a blatant disregard for the welfare of the Nigerian people, particularly the working class who bear the brunt of such decisions.

“The disturbing news of the increase in PMS pump price all over the country has sent a wave of apprehension and depression across the length and breadth of the nation. This is in the wake of an already existing unprecedented hardship upon citizens.

“In addition, we are deeply troubled by the further hike in electricity tariffs to 250%, a service that is essential for the survival of the poorest in our society. The timing and magnitude of these increases, in the absence of any meaningful social security measures, demonstrate a lack of empathy and understanding of the challenges faced by ordinary Nigerians.

“Why does it have to be the common Nigerians bearing all the pains of the high cost of living while those in power enjoy increased allocation and affluence? The government has not made any concerted efforts to reduce the cost of governance or personal effects, nor have they focused on directing resources or effecting policies that would strengthen the naira and improve the standard of living of our citizens.

“The Congress has long posited several strategies that should be activated towards improving the strength of the Naira and give value to every kobo spent by Nigerians as this is one of the root causes of all the economic woes we face as a country today. Yet much hasn’t been done about these recommendations.

“Congress stands with the working people of Nigeria who are struggling under the weight of rising inflation, a high cost of living, and a deficient work environment that fails to provide the basic standards of decency and dignity. The sudden hike in fuel and electricity costs will only exacerbate these challenges, leading to further hardship and potential social unrest.

“We urge the government to immediately rescind these decisions, promote policies that will strengthen the naira, and take decisive steps to alleviate the suffering of Nigerians. The government must act swiftly to restore confidence and prevent further deterioration in the living conditions of its citizens.

“The Trade Union Congress of Nigeria remains committed to defending the rights and interests of Nigerian workers and will continue to advocate for policies that promote social justice, fair wages, and a decent work environment.”

[TheNation]

A Lagos-based mother of three, Okoye Ogochukwu, has cried out for justice after facing complications from poorly executed surgeries at Faith City Hospital in Ajao Estate.

In an exclusive interview with The PUNCH, Ogochukwu said she developed swelling and complications due to particles left inside her when she underwent a C-section in May 2023, to deliver her baby.

Following the delivery, she noted that she began feeling severe pain in her abdomen with swollen legs.

When she complained, she noted that instead of taking it with seriousness, her doctor, Ejim Chibike, made a joke about her pains, saying she was getting fat and needed to exercise.

She stated, “On the 2nd of May 2023, I was at Faith Clinic at Ajao estate. I had been admitted there days before for a caesarean section. On that, I had my baby girl via CS and three days later, I was discharged. The doctor who did the CS and saw me through my antenatal was Dr Ejim Chibike. So, after the childbirth, I noticed that my legs had begun to swell up whereas they didn’t swell up during my pregnancy.

“But after I had the surgery, I noticed my legs were swelling up which I complained about and they said it was normal, I was discharged and I went home. I had a routine appointment with Dr Ejim, a week check-up after I had given birth. I came to the hospital and I complained to him that my stomach was painful to touch, and my legs and whole body were in serious pain.

“So, I complained to him that I didn’t know why I was still feeling like this even though that was my first CS, I’ve had two other pregnancies and my stomach should have gone down but the doctor made a joke about it that I should lose weight that I’m getting fat.”

Only a few days later, her condition took a drastic turn for the worse. She was rushed back to the hospital, where she was told that Chibike was unavailable. Instead, another doctor, Johnson, attended to her and ordered a series of scans and X-rays where the result showed retained products of conception in her womb.

With this, Ogochukwu said she underwent another surgery to remove the object, noting that despite undergoing a second surgery at the same hospital to remove the object, her condition worsened as the surgeon left some stitches unremoved, leaving her with another hopeless as the pain continued.

She said, “I then insisted on seeing Dr Chibike since he carried out the caesarean section after staying in the hospital for days and it got to a point that it was my husband making noise about the whole issue that we needed to see Dr Chibike. Later we noticed that he was practically avoiding us as they kept saying he was busy attending to other patients. Despite being in the hospital for five days, he didn’t come to see me.

“After my husband’s outburst, they came and told us that I needed to go to LASUTH to do a CT scan and we did and came back to the hospital. On getting back, they had gotten a general surgeon because they didn’t have one before. Just a look at me, he asked if I had gone through a CS and replied yes I did. He could not even touch me because I was in severe pain.

“I was then booked in for surgery the next day by 8 am. On the night before the surgery, they brought a bill of almost N1.4m which we paid and they carried out the surgery the next day. When I regained consciousness after the surgery, I noticed pipes connected to my body. When I asked what they were meant for, I was told that when they opened me up, the abscesses had gotten to some delicate parts of my body so they couldn’t reach there to get the abscesses out.

“Eventually, a few days after the surgery, the surgeon came and removed the pipes and I was discharged after asking us to pay a bill of about N800,000. We pleaded with them for a discount but they declined. My husband then paid the bills and I was discharged. Meanwhile, Dr Chibike practically disappeared. They asked me to come a few days later to remove the stitches.”

She added, “We were relieved that everything was over. So, I went back for that and the doctor was pulling the stitches painfully and I was shouting in pain all through the process. So, another doctor you heard my scream came in and saw what was going on. He said the doctor removing the stitches was not doing it well so he took over.

“Unfortunately, the new doctor didn’t remove all the stitches leaving a part of it in my abdomen. So days after, my stomach started swelling again and I was in pain. So, I called my aunty who advised me to rush to a hospital in Oshodi to do another scan for us to know what was wrong.

“Meanwhile, before this, I had started discharging abscesses. So, when I was getting ready to go to the hospital, we discovered a stitch from a hole in my under stomach which was from the initial surgery. The whole busted and the abscesses were just flowing out in large quantity from the whole. It was a mess. I had to use cotton wool to pad it up then we raced it to the hospital.”

In the span of just two months, she said she underwent three traumatic surgeries, each compounding her suffering, adding that doctors eventually informed her that her womb was severely damaged and she would never be able to have more children.

“I wanted to have three children, but now I can’t have any more,” she said, her voice heavy with grief.

As if the physical and emotional toll wasn’t enough, she said the financial strain became unbearable as the family spent over N3 million on medical bills, with no assistance or acknowledgement from Faith Clinic, where the nightmare began, adding that when they sought compensation from the hospital, they were offered a mere N150,000—a sum that felt like an insult to the pain and suffering they endured.

She is demanding full reimbursement of the medical costs and a formal apology from Faith Clinic, which has yet to respond to their demands.

“They caused all this pain and still refused to take responsibility. I want the money they extorted from us returned, and I want a sincere apology for the emotional, financial, and physical agony they put me through,” she demanded.

All efforts to get the reaction of the management of the hospital proved abortive as calls, texts and email messages were not replied to.

[Punch]

Super Eagles and Atalanta forward Ademola Lookman has been nominated for the 2024 Ballon d’Or award.

Lookman made the award nomination list after his heroics in the Europa League final where he scored a hat-trick as Atalanta defeated Bayer Leverkusen.

Other nominees in the men’s player of the year nomination list includes Real Madrid star Vinicius Jr, Man City’s midfielder Rodri and Barcelona youngster Lamine Yamal.

Ademola Lookman only African in full list of Ballon d’Or contenders

Antonio Rudiger – Real Madrid

Kylian Mbappe – Real Madrid

Lautaro Martinez – Inter

Ademola Lookman – Atalanta

Alejandro Grimaldo – Bayer Leverkusen

Dani Carvajal – Real Madrid

William Saliba – Arsenal

Lamine Yamal – Barcelona

Bukayo Saka – Arsenal

Hakan Calhanoglu – Inter

Rodri – Man City

Declan Rice- Arsenal

Harry Kane – Bayern Munich

Cole Palmer – Chelsea

Vitinha – PSG

Vinicius Jr – Real Madrid

Martin Odegaard – Arsenal

Dani Olmo – Barcelona

Florian Wirtz – Bayer Leverkusen

Mats Hummels – Roma

Erling Haaland – Man City

Nicolas Williams – Athletic Bilbao

Granit Xhaka – Bayer Leverkusen

Artem Dovbik – Roma

Toni Kroos – Real Madrid

Jude Bellingham – Real Madrid

Phil Foden – Man City

Ruben Dias – Man City

Federico Valverde – Real Madrid

Emiliano Martinez – Aston VIlla

Date of ceremony, awards up for grabs

The main award is set to hold on 28 October at the Théâtre du Châtelet in Paris.

The following awards will be up for grabs:

The Ballon d’Or – awarded to the best male player

The Ballon d’Or Feminin – awarded to the best female player

The Yashin Trophy – awarded to the best male goalkeeper

The Kopa Trophy – awarded to the best male player under the age of 21

The Gerd Muller Trophy – awarded to the best male striker

The Socrates Award – awarded to one player for their humanitarian work

Men’s club of the year award

Women’s club of the year award

Men’s coach of the year award

Women’s coach of the year award

Vanguard News

Callistus Okafor, factional national chair of Labour Party (LP), says the Nenadi Usman-led caretaker committee is illegal.

Okafor said this on Wednesday in reaction to the announcement of Usman, a former senator, as chair of a 29-member committee.

The committee was set up following a stakeholders meeting of the party convened by Alex Otti, governor of Abia and the most senior elected government official of the party.

In a statement, Okafor said Otti should provide a letter from the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) that acknowledged the meeting he convened in Abia.

“Article 11 of the 2009 Constitution which is the only constitution known to the party according to the consent judgment delivered by Hon. Justice G. O Kolawole on the 20th March, 2018 categorically stated the four (4) organizations of the party; ward, local government area, state and national,” he said.

“Both Dr. Alex Otti and Mr. Peter Obi do not have the constitutional authority to convene any meeting of the party.

“We challenge Dr. Alex Otti to produce the official letter addressed to him from the Independent Electoral Commission on the aforementioned subject matter.

“Therefore, the outcome of the Umuahia gathering remains NULL AND VOID.

“We are committed to reconciling all members and groups, mobilize and conduct all inclusive and expansive congresses in wards, local government areas, states and the national convention that will achieve a unified, focused labour party that will redefine: political leadership in Nigeria.”

Julius Abure and Okafor, factional chairs of the party, had rejected calls for the stakeholders meeting, declaring it illegal.

[TheCable]

On Monday, the Brazilian Supreme Court was reported to have approved the ruling of a judge in Brazil banning Brazilians from making use of the Elon Musk’s microblog site, X. Elon Musk has been in running battle with Brazilian authorities over the latter’s allegation that the former has used his online platform to spread falsehoods against the government. In the past, falsehood used to be countered with truth. Today, views and opinions adjudged to be false by authorities in liberal democracies are not countered, they are criminally indicted. It is a matter of poetic irony that on the same day that the Brazilian Supreme Court reportedly issued the order criminalizing inconvenient speech, the Nigerian government arraigned 10 citizens who participated in the ‘end bad governance’ protests on a charge of treason. Treason carries a death penalty. So, the Nigerian government’s response to a politically inconvenient protest is to seek the court’s order to hang the protesters. Some in the Brazilian government are bracing up to arrest and prosecute Elon Musk for providing a platform that is adjudged to enable false information. Now, be careful. False information could mean any statement that does not agree with the official information.

It is also interesting that the US government, that self-acclaimed undertaker of democratization, has not made any statement condemning the threatened prosecution of an American for free speech or the Nigeria’s government prosecution of protesters. The administration in Washington has even expressed its delight to have the microblog X scrambled and Elon Musk prosecuted. It is not because it is busy that the Biden-Kamala administration has not bothered to react to many of these threats against free speech. It is a principled and strategic silence.

The Biden-Harris administration seems to have some problems with free speech. Many high officials of that administration have called for the arrest and prosecution of Elon Musk. Although, they continue to use X to promote their views about social and economic affairs, they do not hide their dislike of Elon Musk for buying the microblog site and the removing the restrictions against dangerous and false information. Before Musk, President Trump was yanked off the site for posts unaccepted to the influential liberals who controlled the site. The reality of the most powerful man in history having his voice suppressed alarmed many conservatives who had complained that many conservatives were blocked from expressing their views on the excuse of extremism. Elon Musk removed that ideological filter. This is why he now represents a threat to society. Kamara Harris, the Vice President and the Democratic Party’s candidate for the November presidential election has not hidden her opposition to Elon Musk and his X. Professor Robert Reich, a leading liberal and former Clinton Secretary of Commerce, notably called for the arrest of Elon Musk for promoting views that he considers dangerous and enable extremist opinion on his microblog.

Why is the US government less concerned about assaults against free speech across the world? This is unlike it. The US government is notorious for its propensity to intervene across the world in purported defense of democratic right. Is free speech no longer a fundamental democratic right? Or is democracy no longer that important? Why is the government not bothered about threats by political authorities in notable western democracies against free speech? My view is that this change is evidence that the US government is in pursuit of something more important than freedom of speech. For instance, the US government’s official communication shows that protecting transgenders, and promoting gender transition are more important concerns than protecting free speech. It has taken drastic actions against countries that are reported to criminalize homosexual relations or are denying official recognition to transgender interests. It looks like many in western government consider free speech the real enemy to fight.

The irony is that free speech, together with the right to life and the right to freedom of opinion, is the most basic democratic right. So, the demise of free speech is in many ways the demise of democracy. This knowledge is basic in public understanding of democracy. If the US government do not care about it, it suggests that something is going on. We need to know what it is. Is democracy no longer important? Are we now in a post-democracy era in human history?

After the first tenure of Mr. Donald Trump as the President of the United States of America, there arose a cottage industry of democracy pessimism. Many political scientists wrote books about the end of democracy. The three most notable of the books of this new genre are ‘How Democracy Ends’ by David Runciman,  ‘How Democracies Die: What History Reveal About Our Future’ by Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, and Crises of Democracy by Adam Przeworski. There was so much glib talk about how democracy ends and the such. In 2020 Biden defeated Trump and we did not see any such frenzy again. It looked like the threat to democracy was no more. Trump was that singular threat that provoked the rise of the literature of the end of democracy. But was Trump really a threat to democracy? Or was a narrative crafted by resentment and hatred for Mr. Trump and what he represents?

Just a little point about the literature of the ‘How Democracy Dies’ epidemics. In Runciman’s view, three events announce the end of democracy. Democracy ends when a coup uproots the foundations of a democratic regime. It is usually quick, violent and unannounced. In the past, coups against democracy involved “tanks surrounded the city overnight and soldiers were sent to seize communication points, including the radio and television stations and post office”. Anyone in Africa who is above 30 years is familiar with these situations. Today, coup don’t come unannounced and quick. They creep in through multiple ways unnoticed when strong leaders erode the guardrails. As Runciman wisely puts it, “some coups need to make clear that democracy is over to succeed, and some coups need to pretend that democracy is still intact”. 

Another way democracy comes to an end is through a catastrophic event. Catastrophe drains us of civic energy and imposes an urgency that may lead to the dismantling of the democratic state. Runciman quotes Eliane Scarry in her book, Thermo-nuclear Monarchy: Choosing between Democracy and Doom, that “Nuclear weapons undo governments and undo anything that could be meant by democracy”. He references Hannah Arendt’s powerful insight that modern democracy entrenches mindlessness which often leads to failure to preempt disasters. So democracy can end when it confronts a disaster that requires more than democratic habits. To choose to avoid either doom or democracy, many people will choose democracy.

Technology can also upend democracy. It does so when it drains democratic politics of its civic character and the moral authenticity and replaces it with plastic machination. Runciman quotes Ghandi to argue that “Representative democracy was wholly artificial. It had become a thrall to machines. It operated through the party machine, the bureaucratic machine, the money machine. Citizens were passive consumers of their own political destiny. We press a button and we expect government to respond. It is no surprise that we are disappointed. What we get instead is cheap promises and outright lies”. The implication of ‘technological takeover’ of politics is that politics become boring and boorish. It has no truth, soul or authenticity. Network replaces neighborhood; and majority rule is replaced by the rule of the few who are technological adroit.

Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt write about the lessons of history about how democracy dies. Their main thesis is that democracy dies when elected officials turn around and undermine democracy. “Blatant dictatorship- in the form of fascism, communism or military rule- has disappeared across the world. Military coups and other violent seizures of power are rare. Most countries hold regular elections. Democracy still dies but by a different means”. Adam Przeworski sees the crisis of democracy as sign that democracy would “gradually and scrumptiously deteriorate”. The key point is that deterioration is usually seen as the handiwork of rightwing conservatives, extremists who would destroy freedom. But is that really how it is turning out?

These books on how democracy ends or dies always use Trump as the signal figure who prefigures these threats. The COVID 19 pandemic further etched in black on white canvas the ‘evil’ that Trump posed to democracy. Trump seemed to have doubted the efficacy of modern science. He allegedly assembled and platformed assorted pseudo-scientists and extremists who questioned venerable personages like Dr. Fauci and the bureaucrats at the World Health Organization (WHO) and disputed their prescribed modalities and vaccines for the virus. Let us forget for a moment that Dr. Fauci and his venerable colleagues have walked back on tens of what they said were scientifically proven about the virus. Today, some of the so-called conspiracies from Trump-like scientists have now being accepted by mainstream scientific sources as authentic.

Now that Trump is back to fight for the presidency with a message that challenges the liberal global coalition that calls the shot in international public policy, the noble men and women of Davos, the real undertakers of whatever remains of the ‘Washington Consensus’, are once again, chanting ‘Trump is a threat to democracy’. The way the anti-Trump elites paint a scary picture of the end of democracy if Trump gets a second term as US President, you would assume we never had a Trump first term. Trump definitely threatened to end many things important to the global elites , like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and cozied up to dictators like Putin and Kim Jong of North Korea. But he did not throw political opponents into prison. He did not abolish any of the constitutional rights of the US citizens? He did not use state power to expel elected representatives from Congress. He did not enact decrees in place of laws passed by Congress. He did none of these. Yet Trump represents the most credible threat against democracy.

Anyone who studies American constitutional law would argue that, arguably, President Obama, the posterchild of democracy, issued more executive orders that threatened liberties of American citizens than President Trump. Some of these executive actions were successfully challenged at the Supreme Court. Obama’s regulatory state was more incursive than Trump’s in many ways. Yet, Trump continues to represent the archetypical threat to democracy. Maybe he is. But that would be construing democracy in a tendentious manner. 

Trump may be odd and weird as democrats claim. But Trump is not the President of Brazil where a judge has banned Brazilians from expressing themselves through the X platform. A few weeks ago, the founder of Telegram was arrested in Paris and is undergoing criminal prosecution for what appears to be trumped up charge that belies the truth that government officials are angry at the platform for not censoring what they consider misinformation and disinformation. A few weeks ago, a top official of the EU fired a warning against Elon Musk to stop his proposed interview with President Trump on his X platform to avoid serious consequences. This was a barely concealed attempt to censor a political viewpoint from a man running for the US Presidency. Apart from constituting a veiled election interference, the threat betrays a mindset that is poised against some perspectives considered as ‘dangerous’ to society. What makes these perspectives dangerous in the mind of the ruling elites in the west is that they are frontally opposed to some dominant liberal projects. Think about the war in Ukraine. It is reasonable to think that the west should support Ukraine to defeat Russia. It is also reasonable to argue against continuing the war against Russia. None of these views constitutes a real threat to democracy.

The global liberal elites have constructed democracy to mean some important agenda that override the basic rights and freedoms that are traditionally associated with the democracy. Some political theorists are wondering whether democracies needs to accord tolerance to those who oppose the ‘democratic’ life. This has always been an issue in establishing the coherence of liberal theory. But it is now being implemented as a programmatic shutting down of ideas and viewpoints that contradict the ideas and viewpoints of dominant liberals. Take for example, views about homosexuality or transgender. Some western countries have enacted laws that  criminalize failure to address transgenders by their preferred pronouns. The renowned writer, J.K. Rowling, is threatened with criminal prosecution by Scottish authorities for refusing to accept that transwomen are women. The Vice President of Google startled many when he defended the IT company’s overt manipulation of its algorithm to block certain facts from public search by saying that accuracy is not as important as the project.

There is no doubt that the left in the west have problem with the traditional concept of democracy to include the necessity for freedom of opinion and expression. They have problem with constitutional democracy if it means that the people may elect those who do not accept their comprehensive moral doctrines. This century’s leading political philosopher, John Rawls, propounded a theory of justice that is based on the liberal faith that civil society can have reasoned coexistence with those who reject the liberal canons. He argued that this is feasible though the overlapping consensus in which liberal and non-liberals can bracket their comprehensive moral doctrines and engage contractarian views on the basis of public reason. In his book, The Law of the Peoples, he showed how to build a just and peaceful social order through such epistemic abstinence.

The possibility of an overlapping consensus has been one of the core faiths of modern political liberalism. It is not based on forceful repressing of a viewpoint considered wrong or false, but the construction of a public good accessible from all divergent reasonable comprehensive doctrines. This means that a platform like X should allow divergent, even incommensurable, perspectives without suppressing any. But modern left liberals do not believe this anymore. They are clamoring for stronger censorship for fear of the presumed damage that unregulated free speech could cause. But the lesson of history is clear: on the whole there is more harm with suppression of speech and control of channels of expression by a person or group of persons than by expression or falsehood or hate speech. Yes, some speeches could be dangerous. But freedom of speech should be continually protected. Democracy, properly understood prioritizes self-determination over safety, of the city or of the ideology. It we no longer believe in this prioritization, then we should become China.

It is evident that many of the new liberal lefts have abandoned this naive faith in the priority of democracy in pursuit of the project of establishing a social order that protect their substantive vision of the good. To implement this, the need to take out those who oppose their project. They are willing to abandon democracy to protect the emerging woke and radical agenda. This is like the former communists who railed against democracy because the freedom that liberal democracy offers are superficial. As some of them argued, the right of man in a bourgeois society is just an illusory right. Today’s ‘neo-Marxist’ in the guise of the liberal extreme left argue that freedom of speech undermines real freedoms. For these extreme left ideologues, democracy is not as important as the project. Just as the Google exec put it, ‘The project is more important than accuracy”.

Free speech and freedom of expression are cornerstones of democracy. They are the engine of innovation. There are obvious dangers that ignorant and provocative speeches pose to society. These dangers are preventable and manageable through legal and social measures that do not require the suppression of speech. The presumption is that the most potent threat to democracy comes from the extreme right who resents the democratic way and values. These fascists elements are the killers of democracy. So reads the literature of ‘how democracy ends’. But the true situation is different. Trump and his right-wingers may not be the most potent threat to democracy. That dishonor now belongs to the radical left.

Today, democracy is dying in the West. Surprisingly, it is dying at the hands of the radical left. This truth is not captured in the literature of How Democracy Dies. That literature needs an update. It is the extreme left (not the extreme right) that is (really) killing democracy.

• Action a betrayal , says NLC

On the day Dangote Refinery commenced the supply of petrol with a promise to make the product available in the market in 48 hours, the Nigerian National Petroleum Company (NNPC) Limited filling stations adjusted their meters to reflect new prices.

This action was amid a long-running scarcity of the product across the country.

There was no word from the national oil company on the new price regime.

The company only later in the day denied issuing a city-by-city price template which was circulating on social media.

Independent Petroleum Marketers Association of Nigeria (IPMAN) spokesman Ukadike Chinedu said NNPCL had not officially informed members about the price increase.

He said depot owners and marketers were awaiting further directives from the company.

Experts, however, gave reasons the oil giant might have effected the price change.

Petrol which sold for N568 at NNPCL filling stations in Lagos went for N855 per litre.

In Abuja where it sold for N617, the oil firm’s filling stations moved the price to N897.

The upward review came after NNPCL at the weekend admitted owing suppliers $6 billion, as a result of which they were reluctant to make the product available to them.

The company warned that the situation could result in its inability to make the product available to Nigerians.

The firm’s Chief Financial Officer (CFO) Umar Ajiya previously said the NNPCL was taking care of the shortfall in the supply system and was selling petrol at half the landing cost.

The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) rejected the new price.

It called for its immediate reversal.

NLC President Joe Ajaero in a statement described the increase as a “betrayal” after the Federal Government promised no pump price hike as a condition for the N70,000 minimum wage.

Other marketers jacked up prices to N897 per litre following NNPCL’s adjustment – by over 30 per cent.

The Minister of State (Petroleum) Heineken Lokpobiri denied that the Federal Government directed NNPCL to peg fuel prices at N1,000.

His media adviser Nnemaka Okafor described the reports as “blatantly false and malicious claims regarding petroleum pricing directive.”

“The Ministry of Petroleum Resources does not, and will not, interfere in the internal decisions of NNPCL, including pricing matters,” he said.

Some stakeholders said the increase was unavoidable.

They believe it will help alleviate the subsidy burden on both the Federal Government and the NNPCL.

An oil and gas consultant, Henry Adigun, said while the price increase was a step towards addressing the subsidy issue, it did not resolve the need for total deregulation of the downstream petroleum sector.

“Unless market prices align with international product prices, NNPCL will remain the sole importer,” Adigun said.

He welcomed the commencement of petrol production by Dangote Refinery but noted that supply would hinge on favourable market conditions.

‘Subsidy would have grown to N10t by the end of the year’

Managing Director of the Centre for the Promotion of Private Enterprise (CPPE), Dr Muda Yusuf, urged Nigerians to show understanding with the Federal Government in this “difficult period”.

According to him, the government was subsidising every litre of petrol with about N500 while the product sold for between N610 to N700.

He warned that subsidy payment would have risen to between N8 trillion and N10 trillion at the end of the year should the country continue on that trajectory.

Yusuf said: “The subsidy figure rose to this level because of the depreciation of the naira as all the petroleum products consumed locally are imported.

“Secondly, the price of the products locally and the West African sub-region had widened and it is sold at an equivalent of between N1300 to N1500 per litre.

“The incentive for smuggling is very high and with our huge porous border and waterways largely unmanned there is little or nothing those entrusted with that duty can do.

“In this scenario, the government was not only subsidising her citizens but the whole of the West African sub-region up to the Central African Republic.

“This is part of the dilemma the government is faced with.”

To him, there is a possibility the government will be subsidising petrol to an extent with the new price of N855 per litre.

Yusuf said: “This must be a tipping point for the government as it was almost going bankrupt. This much the NNPC admitted with the over $6 billion debt.

“The situation in which we have found ourselves is not palatable to either citizens or the private sector because of the high cost of operation.”

He expressed optimism that Dangote Refinery and others in the pipeline will help the government ensure the pump price does not go beyond this.

Yusuf called on the government to roll out fiscal policies that would enable citizens to transit to other energy uses such as CNG, LPG, renewable energy solutions and wind power.

He said: “We need to subsidise this so that people can move away from fossil fuel. Again government do not have any choice now but to adopt an effective logistics and transportation strategy to ensure that products get to the people on time unlike now where it takes between one to two weeks to get petroleum products to other cities across the country due to the collapse of the railway and rusted pipelines.

“All these no doubt increase the cost. I will only appeal to Nigerians to be a little more patient as the government is no doubt on the right track to grow the economy.”

Black marketers in Abuja sold petrol in 10-litre containers for N13,000.

Despite the hike, retail outlets recorded endless queues that increased transport fares.

Kubwa bus stop to Byazhin Across that was N300 by tricycle rose to N500.

Kubwa to Berger which was previously N600 soared to N800 while Kubwa to Nyanya which was N800 rose to N1,000.

NLC demands reversal

NLC said it felt betrayed by the Federal Government following the latest increase in the pump price of petrol.

In a statement by Ajaero, the Labour Centre urged the government to reverse the increase in prices.

Ajaero said the organs of the NLC would meet in the coming days and decide on its next move.

He said: “We are filled with a deep sense of betrayal as the Federal Government clandestinely increases the pump price of PMS.

“One of the reasons for accepting N70,000 as the national minimum wage was the understanding that the pump price of PMS would not be increased even as we knew that N70,000 was not sufficient.

“We recall vividly when Mr President gave us the devil’s alternatives to choose from: either N250,000 as minimum wage (subject to the rise of the pump price between N1,500 and N2,000) and N70,000 (at old pms rates), we opted for the latter because we could not bring ourselves to accept further punishment on Nigerians.

“But here we are, barely one month after and with the government yet to commence payment of the new national minimum wage, confronted by a reality we cannot explain.

“It is both traumatic and nightmarish.

“Yet, when we told the government that its approach to resolving the fuel subsidy contradictions was patently faulty and would not last, its front-row cheerleaders sneered at us, saying we did not understand basic economics.”

A repentant female Boko Haram member, who underwent deradicalisation and resettled in Mafa Local Government Area of Borno, Fatima Musa, has said she regrets shredding into pieces her National Certificate in Education.

Musa made this known in Maiduguri on Tuesday during a community dialogue on understanding, tolerance and peaceful coexistence organised for the repentants and community leaders of Mafa.

The News Agency of Nigeria reports that the dialogue was organised by a community-based NGO, Allamin Foundation with support from the British Government under the UKaid.

Musa, who was deradicalised with other repentant women by the foundation, said many of them joined the insurgency at a young age after they were misled.

“We were misled as young people through the use of religion and later discovered that we went the wrong way after we were deradicalised by the foundation.

”We met with clerics who put us on the right track regarding Islam. We are now mature and more knowledgeable on Islam and the teachings of the Holy Prophet that promote peace and tolerance.

“I regret tearing my NCE certificate up when I made the mistake of accepting the twisted ideology that Western education was Haram.

“One of my prayers for now is to reach out to my father, who is now in a neighbouring country to beg for his forgiveness for joining the sect against his wish,” she said.

Also speaking at the dialogue, another deradicalised female, who identified herself as Bintu, pleaded for forgiveness from the people of Mafa and urged for support to the foundation to reach out to more women and men in the bush.

Bintu pointed out that a few cases of some repentants returning to the bush had to do with stigma and harassment by some people, telling them that they were doomed for hellfire fire in spite of their repentance.

“If you keep telling people they are doomed, they’ll say since there’s no forgiveness, they had better go back and continue.

“Some of the surrendered have easy money and others loot in the bush. They are struggling for survival with other citizens in their communities.

“Such repentants need to be encouraged to start a new life to sustain it,” Bintu said.

Some residents of Mafa who also spoke at the meeting, urged the government to do more on the deradicalisation and resettlement process through more empowerment support to victims and those that repented in line with transitional Justice.

The leader of the Civilian Joint Task Force in Mafa, Babagana Butu, said members now include some of the repentant insurgents.

”We patrol the area together. We provided them with farmlands to cultivate like everyone as part of the reintegration process.

“We want the government to also remember them in its empowerment programmes to enable them to sustain themselves and their families as well as contribute positively to the society,” Butu said.

In her remarks, the Executive Director of the foundation, Hajiya Hamsatu Allamin, said the dialogue was organised to discuss issues arising from the reintegration process and the way forward regarding challenges faced.

A lecture on Islamic ruling on peace, reconciliation and peaceful co-existence was delivered by a Consultant and Peace Mediator, Shiekh Ali Mustapha.

NAN

THE story of the Canada-based Nigerian woman who took hate to a supersonic level by threatening to poison the Yoruba and Bini people trended last week. The woman, speaking in pidgin English, said: “It is time to start poisoning the Yorubas and the Benin. Put poison in all your foods at work. Put poison in all your water so that you all will begin dying one after the other…. I will put them in all your foods. If I go to work tomorrow, I will put it (poison) in Yoruba people’s food. Go and tell the government that I’m in Canada, I’m in Ontario. Hurry up, go fast.”

Though there have been claims that the name might have been an impersonation, so far no one has come forward to disclaim the name and photo so it is fair to believe that the identity of the villain is as published.

The dispatch with which the identity of the woman was unmasked is commendable. It is also commendable that Nigerians across ethnicities and fault lines closed ranks to condemn the heinous statement in no unmistakable terms. That is one of the surest ways of ensuring that such fringe beliefs are never mainstreamed. We sure have our differences and grievances, but going to the extent of threatening to poison anyone, not to talk of a group of people, is heinous.

One of the dangers of stereotyping is that all members of the targeted group are presumed to be guilty by association. These include those who may actually be soldiering against various forms of injustice and xenophobia within the targeted in-group and those possibly solidarising with Ms. Suunberger’s grievances or married from her ethnic stock. Ms Sunnberger said Igbophobia by the said groups was what animated her hate.  

It is true that we all indulge in stereotyping others in various degrees – even among family members. This often stems from a basic cognitive need to categorise, simplify, and process the complex world around us. However, when it is weaponised as Ms Sunnberger did and (others like her also do across the country), it becomes a basis for social bias, prejudice, discrimination and in its extreme form a call for genocide. One of the dangers of this extreme form of response to perceived persecution is that it unwittingly provides a justification for the actions of the bigoted souls in the in-groups she inveighed against. 

The outburst from Ms Sunnberger, as condemnable as it is, however merely masks a more fundamental problem:

On February 2, 2012, the late Professor Abdul Rauf Mustapha (then of Oxford University) and I were invited by the Institute of Security Studies in Pretoria, South Africa, to be guest speakers on the theme, “The Threat of Boko Haram and the Challenges to Peace, Security and Unity of Nigeria”. Boko Haram, which got radicalised in 2009, had upped its terroristic activity when its suicide bomber attacked the United Nations headquarters in Abuja on August 26, 2011, killing at least 21 people and wounding scores. It was a hot topic across the world at that time. In Nigeria at that time, the mere mention of the group’s name instilled fears in the minds of most people such that the name of the group was mentioned mostly in hush-hush. Professor Mustapha was asked to provide the historical explanation for the emergence of the group, while I was asked to provide a theoretical framework for understanding the group and what it represented.

In my paper, I reviewed the various theories used at that time to explain the Boko Haram phenomenon – the poverty argument, the poor governance explanation, the frustration-aggression hypothesis (among others) as well as the various conspiracy theories about the group. I argued that each was incapable of offering a comprehensive explanation of the Boko Haram phenomenon. My contention was that a more comprehensive explanation was the crisis in our nation-building, which I argued, feeds into the crisis of underdevelopment to create an existential crisis for many Nigerians and groups within the country.  I further argued: “For many young people, a way of resolving the consequent sense of alienation is to retreat from the Nigeria project and construct meanings in chosen primordial identities – often with the Nigerian state as the enemy. In this sense, actions we rightly see as heinous are normal, even heroic, to them. The fact that many communities in which such people live know them but are not giving them away to the authorities could mean that the de-Nigerianisation process is perhaps more pervasive than we think.” 

I concluded by arguing that unless the crisis in the country’s nation building process is effectively resolved, any solution thrown to the country’s myriad problems would quickly become part of the problems. This part of my thesis seemed vindicated when many netizens took on Abike Dabiri Erewa, the CEO of the Nigerians in Diapora Commission, NIDCOM, who was able to unveil the identity of the woman in the genocidal video within a few hours of its going viral. They asked her why she did not show a similar promptness of action with those who weaponised ethnicity in Lagos or led the #IgboMustGo on X (formerly Twitter). The truth is that even if these set of people were apprehended with the same speed she displayed in unmasking Ms. Sunnberger, there would still be groups who would complain that people from other out-groups had done similar or worse things and were let to go scot free or given a mere slap on the wrist. This is one of the reasons our problems are rarely comprehensively resolved. They merely mutate. 

The point is that the process of individuals and groups de-linking from the Nigerian state (what I called de-Nigerianisation) has been ongoing and predated the APC-led Federal Government that started in 2015. The tragedy is that the crisis in our nation-building process and the consequent de-Nigerianisation seem to have become accelerated under them.

How do we deal with characters like Amaka Sunnberger and her likes? Here I would make a distinction between hate speech and genocidal speech or what Americans would call ‘fighting words’ – words that, when uttered, could inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. In the latter case, it is important that the law should take its course to protect all groups within the society. Given the general distrust of government, it is crucial that a taxonomy of what constitutes genocidal speech is developed and the appropriate punishment to be meted to offenders clearly spelt out. This must not only be implemented irrespective of who is involved but also seen to be so done. 

Once anyone falls foul of such and goes free or is given a mere slap on the wrist, it becomes more difficult for the government to enforce such laws in other instances without undermining its own legitimacy in the process.  

It is with government’s efforts to control hate-speech – speeches that merely provoke and insult others- that the government is more vulnerable. This is in large part because of the morbid distrust of governments across the world but especially in our types of societies.  It will not only be suspected of bias but also of harbouring a hidden agenda of using such as a pretext to muzzle free speech. While there is unanimity in condemning Ms. Sunnberger’s genocidal speech (several Igbo groups also distanced themselves from her speech and none has so far come to her defence), it would have been different if she merely used insulting words. In many jurisdictions, hate speech remains protected speech, even if they are called low speech. One of the problems in Nigerian government’s efforts to control hate speech is the tendency to conflate this with genocidal speeches (fighting words). Different strategies are often needed in fighting the two speech forms.

A related question raised by the ‘Ms. Sunnberger affair’ is how do we win back Nigerians who have de-linked or are de-linking from the Nigerian state – whether they are #EndSars protesters, #EndBadGovernance agitators or avowed separatists?  There are no magic bullets for this. But the government being conscious of the fact that nation-building is the DELIBERATE use of state instruments to create a sense of oneness and loyalty to the state by the diverse groups that make up the nation-state, is one bold step.

Quite often the use of intimidation and strong arm tactics to silence such groups not only make heroes and heroines of their leaders but also exacerbates the sense of alienation from the state by their members. The government should prioritise resolving the crisis in the country’s nation-building process and winning the minds and hearts of as many of the ‘de-Nigerianising Nigerians’ as possible. Without this, any solution thrown at any of the country’s numerous problems, (no matter how well-intentioned), will quickly become part of the problems.

*Jideofor Adibe is Professor of Political Science at Nasarawa State University, Keffi.