Latest News
OTHERS' VIEWS
![[OPINION] The Nigerian Leadership Myth: A Satirical Safari… - Prince Charles Dickson, PhD](/media/k2/items/cache/8ea772dcc3758661c0721f3d6c6b78db_L.jpg)
The recent arraignment of minors for treason in Nigeria has sparked widespread outrage and condemnation from various quarters. Their arraignment has raised concerns about the handling of juvenile cases and the implications of such actions on the children’s future. The federal government’s position on the matter has been criticized, with many calling for the immediate release of the minors. Sadly, it’s going to come and go like all such matters, no one will be held liable or accountable.
The incident highlights the challenges of leadership in Nigeria, so, let me tell us the story of leadership—a satirical safari through power and promise.
Nigerian leadership. Say those words in any social setting, and watch the room split into chuckles, sighs, and, sometimes, heated monologues. Nigerian leadership is a tale that could rival any Hollywood blockbuster in plot twists, suspense, and emotional rollercoasters. However, it’s also a tale layered with the mystique of myths—idealized versions of what leadership is supposed to be versus what we often get.
We are a Comedy of Errors…Nigeria, a land of contrasts, a nation blessed with immense potential, yet plagued by a leadership conundrum that seems to defy logic. The recurring theme is a leadership that promises much and delivers little, a leadership that often seems more interested in personal enrichment than national development. This has led many to question the very concept of Nigerian leadership, to wonder if it’s not just a grand illusion, a mirage in the desert of hope.
The Nigerian leader, in popular imagination, is a peculiar creature. He (and it’s almost always a he) is often portrayed as a demi-god, a messiah who will miraculously transform the nation overnight. He is expected to solve all problems, from poverty and corruption to insecurity and infrastructure decay.
Yet, time and again, these leaders fail to live up to the hype. They are often more concerned with power retention than problem-solving, more interested in enriching themselves and their cronies than uplifting the masses.
The myth of Nigerian leadership has had a devastating impact on the country. It has led to a culture of cynicism and apathy, where people have lost faith in the ability of their leaders to make a difference. This has, in turn, led to a decline in civic engagement and a rise in social unrest.
Let us start with the allure of the “Messiah Complex”. There’s a strange ritual that occurs every four years. Nigerians from all walks of life gather, united in collective hope, as politicians-turned-Messiahs make promises that sound like poetry. We’ve been told of visions of transforming deserts into oases and turning debts into riches. We’ve heard of a future filled with functional electricity, pothole-free roads, and hospitals that will make a Swiss watchmaker green with envy. These messianic figures appear every election season with a well-rehearsed script and an arsenal of grandiose claims that even Aesop himself would have had trouble believing.
Every so often, however, Nigerians fall for the shiny charisma, the promises of change, and the proclamations of patriotism. The hope is intoxicating. “Maybe this time it’s different,” people think. However, the “Messiah” quickly devolves into the “Excuse Machine,” because just like clockwork, the mirage fades and the landscape of reality becomes all too clear.
The Myth of Transformation. A word often sprinkled into campaign speeches and government slogans, like salt in a pot of jollof rice. Politicians sell transformation as if it were a buy-one-get-one-free deal at a Lagos market. The truth, however, is more of a slow simmer than a fast boil. Promises are made with the certainty of a Shakespearean tragedy. Our leaders assure us of mega-cities, free education, and top-tier health care — not unlike New York, Tokyo, or Paris — only to end up delivering results closer to rural Ajegunle, where even basic amenities are hard to come by.
Every politician tells us they’ll be different. They swear to bridge the gap between rich and poor, elevate the standard of living, and make Nigeria great again (though no one quite remembers when Nigeria was “great” by their implied standards). They preach transformation, yet reality reminds us more of the song “Nothing New Under the Sun.” And while “transformation” sounds beautiful in theory, it often translates to moving from one ineffective policy to the next, with very little real change in sight.
Now, here’s a real mystery: Nigerian leaders often amass incredible wealth while they’re in service to the nation. It’s almost as if there’s an invisible ATM in every office. Take a simple councilor position, and it might magically pay enough to build a mansion, fly first-class, and send children to Ivy League schools abroad. It is the Paradox of Wealth and Service.
Surely, one must wonder: Is public office in Nigeria blessed with some hidden oil well that the rest of us common folk don’t know about? Or maybe, just maybe, the lines between “public servant” and “private business mogul” are so blurred that even Picasso would have difficulty painting it.
There is a cultural paradox here too. In Nigeria, if a person “makes it” in government, they become a hero in their village. While the rest of the country might bemoan corruption, friends and family back home celebrate their “son’s” success. This celebration of political “achievement” is ingrained, and while the culture venerates “serving the people,” the individuals themselves are often held up as “untouchable” figures, immune to scrutiny or criticism. It’s a complex paradox, and one that feeds the myth.
Another pillar of Nigerian leadership myth is the promise of security. Each administration vows to end the violence that has plagued parts of the country, whether it’s the Northeast, plagued by insurgency, or the Northwest, suffering under banditry. Every president is the Commander-in-Chief of the Nigerian Armed Forces, yet they seem more skilled in speeches than in strategies. One might think, given their promises, that each new administration would make Nigeria one of the safest nations on earth. Yet, security remains elusive, like trying to catch rain with a sieve.
The real irony is in the way leaders themselves are heavily guarded while citizens fend for themselves. It’s not uncommon to see a convoy with enough SUVs to form a motorcade protecting one individual while the ordinary citizen walks home through streets dimly lit and streets less patrolled. And yet, Nigerians are resilient. In the face of so much insecurity, they go about their lives, praying that one day, security will be more than a lofty campaign promise.
Leadership in Nigeria is much like a soap opera — long, dramatic, and filled with cliffhangers. And just like the characters in these dramas, Nigerian leaders are often concerned with their legacy. But what does legacy even mean in the context of Nigerian leadership? The legacies that some leaders leave are more about buildings, statues, and airports bearing their names than about sustainable development. And when the next leader comes in, one of the first steps is often to dismantle, rename, or outright ignore the predecessor’s “legacy.”
What this means for Nigeria is a series of disjointed projects, half-hearted initiatives, and policies abandoned halfway. In place of real progress, Nigeria has a collection of monuments to political egos, a scrapbook of half-completed buildings, and a string of reforms that never quite made it to completion.
But here’s the twist: for all the comedy and tragedy of Nigerian leadership, Nigerians themselves are the true leaders. They are the ones who hustle, adapt, and thrive despite the odds. While politicians grandstand, ordinary Nigerians build businesses from scratch, create art and culture that captivate the world, and maintain a resilient spirit that no amount of hardship seems to quench.
The myth of Nigerian leadership persists because, deep down, we all hold out hope that one day, the leaders we elect will reflect the best of us — not the worst. Nigerians deserve leaders who understand that leadership is a service, not a birthright, a responsibility, not a ticket to personal paradise.
In the end, perhaps the myth will give way to reality. Maybe the Messiah Complex will be replaced by the Public Servant. But until then, Nigerians will do what they have always done — lead themselves, rise above, and continue to believe that one day, true leadership will emerge, not as myth but as reality, and Nigeria may win—Only time will tell
Prince Charles Dickson PhD
Team Lead
The Tattaaunawa Roundtable Initiative (TRICentre)
![[OPINION] In defence of nepotism - Lasisi Olagunju](/media/k2/items/cache/a29cfb1e95000255da7f59dbabf4fc58_L.jpg)
“Every elected Nigerian leader since the end of the first republic knows why crab does not sleep. What it stays awake doing is 24/7 recce for the safety of its head. Its eyes should be its binoculars – and they are. Even Olusegun Obasanjo as civilian president did not deny himself that wisdom, although he was very nuanced about it. He had three Inspectors-General of Police and all three were from his western region. His DG SSS from 1999 to 2007 was Colonel Kayode Are, his Abeokuta kinsman. For the army, Obasanjo, a southern Christian, in eight years, had four gentlemen as his Chief of Army Staff. He started in 1999 with Victor Malu, a Christian from the North; then he moved south and picked Alexander Ogomudia, a southern minority. After two years, two months, Obasanjo took the position back to the North. But he did not give it to those who might use it to injure him. He picked Martin Luther Agwai, a southern Kaduna minority Christian. Three years down that road, he went south again and picked Andrew Owoye Azazi, another southern minority. It was clear that he was deliberate about what he did. He was wide awake, mixing his nationalist broth with condiments of small nepotism here, a little of altruism there. The Obasanjo experience ended almost twenty years ago. This is the age of reason, apology to Thomas Paine. The gloves are off”.
Every elected Nigerian leader since the end of the first republic knows why crab does not sleep. What it stays awake doing is 24/7 recce for the safety of its head. Its eyes should be its binoculars – and they are. Even Olusegun Obasanjo as civilian president did not deny himself that wisdom, although he was very nuanced about it. He had three Inspectors-General of Police and all three were from his western region. His DG SSS from 1999 to 2007 was Colonel Kayode Are, his Abeokuta kinsman. For the army, Obasanjo, a southern Christian, in eight years, had four gentlemen as his Chief of Army Staff. He started in 1999 with Victor Malu, a Christian from the North; then he moved south and picked Alexander Ogomudia, a southern minority. After two years, two months, Obasanjo took the position back to the North. But he did not give it to those who might use it to injure him. He picked Martin Luther Agwai, a southern Kaduna minority Christian. Three years down that road, he went south again and picked Andrew Owoye Azazi, another southern minority. It was clear that he was deliberate about what he did. He was wide awake, mixing his nationalist broth with condiments of small nepotism here, a little of altruism there. The Obasanjo experience ended almost twenty years ago. This is the age of reason, apology to Thomas Paine. The gloves are off.
Wahala no dey finish for Nigeria. Because President Bola Tinubu appointed an acting Chief of Army Staff last week, my northern friend sent me a WhatsApp message from Zaria: “It comes as a surprise as Oduduwa takes over the lead agencies of the critical safety sector: Army (military), Police (security), DSS (Intelligence), EFCC (anti-corruption).”
My friend was talking fairness. I heard him and remembered the quaint saying about equity and clean hands. So, I replied him: “Can you name those who served in those four positions under Buhari and where they came from?”
John Milton, legendary blind poet of seventeenth century England, said something about truth and falsehood grappling. Truth, the stronger, will always put the weaker to the worse. My friend thought he had the facts on his side, and so, he answered me: “Buhari picked those security chiefs across the north east, north west and north central…”
That was a half-truth, and I’ve heard it said many times that a half-truth will always mean a half-lie. And a half-lie is a lie nicely dressed. I asked my friend: “When you people met in Kaduna earlier on Monday and took a position on VAT, rejecting Tinubu’s tax reform bills, did you meet as three zones? No. You met as one North, one region. Those appointments made by Buhari were for that one North.” As I typed that response, I remembered that ‘One North, One Destiny, One People, Irrespective of Religion, Rank or Tribe’ was the motto of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC), the North’s ruling party at independence. NPC may be long dead, but the North has dutifully kept its flame glowing. We still feel the spirit in every inter-regional discourse.
My friend argued more forcefully. He spoke as a northerner. I responded as a Yoruba man, not as a southerner, because there is nothing so called. I told him he was obviously not speaking for the other two zones in the South. I asked him if the North wanted the Chief of Army Staff position to go to the Igbo of the South-East. His response was that there was a time under Buhari when he campaigned for that arrangement. I asked him to speak for time present, not time past. “Would you want a South-East/South-South person to be Chief of Army Staff or Inspector-General of Police?” My friend did not reply me. He did not answer that question. I asked how he would feel if the positions go to the North today. He replied me with silence.
Finally, my friend quipped: “Personally, I pray for Tinubu to succeed but he doesn’t need to be nepotistic like Buhari, the disaster.”
Has Tinubu been unduly favoring the Yoruba in his appointments? Personal aides, yes. Security appointments, no. A list of 22 security appointees was circulated online at the weekend. Fifteen of them are from the North, five from the South-West, one from the South-East, one from the South-South. If anyone would complain of inadequate representation here, it should be the South-East/South-South corridor.
Sixty-four years after independence, Nigeria has remained a very delicate union of bickering partners. Despite several state creation exercises, the division along the original three regional lines has remained very strong. Today, the three arms of Nigeria’s armed forces have their chiefs chosen from the West (Army; East (Navy); North (Airforce). This would be fair enough except we are saying that one service chief is bigger than the others.
Army, SSS, Police, EFCC. For his complaint, why would my friend pick just four out of the 22 identified positions? Read my friend again. He described the four as “critical safety sector.” Buhari set the precedent by filling those posts with northerners; Tinubu has also filled them with westerners. If the East produces a president tomorrow, he will most possibly fill them with his regional brothers. But why?
Adebayo Faleti, late Yoruba playwright and culture scholar, wrote in his 1968 short story ‘Ogun Awitele’ (Foretold War) that war does not kill the coward; it also does not kill the fearless. The one who gets killed by war is the one who is careless (ogun kì í pa ojo; ogun kì í pa akin; aláìfòrànpòràn ni ogun npa). My playwright says war kills the careless. I will use the experience of Buhari’s predecessor, Goodluck Jonathan, to discuss this. When Jonathan became president, he, like most of his predecessors, was very careful not to rupture the tenuous tendons of whatever we had as a country. But Jonathan overdid it. He apparently wanted to be another national hero and proceeded to make many strategic appointments which undid him. Jonathan’s 2015 election time Inspector-General of Police was a gentleman from the north. When it mattered most, the falcon refused to hear the falconer. The super cop did not just see his kinsman, Muhammadu Buhari, to victory, he publicly followed him to collect his Certificate of Return from INEC in April 2015. The gentleman officer abandoned his defeated Commander-in-Chief. Blood is thicker than water. The policeman came out three years later to celebrate what he did. He declared that the police under him forced Jonathan to concede victory to Buhari. Hearing him in an August 2018 interview gives reasons for appreciating the true meaning of blood and water and what made one thicker than the other. The former IGP said: “We forced those who lost elections to accept the results. The Nigeria Police forced those who lost elections to accept the outcome. It was the action of the police that made them to have a change of mind and accept the results. The heroes of that election should have been the police…I attended the presentation of certificate to the president-elect…”
Nigeria was deflowered in 2015. The hymen of innocence, once lost is lost forever. If the police were strategic in determining election winners, what wise president would then hand its rein to ‘outsiders’? Jonathan’s successor, Buhari, learnt from the Ijaw man’s fatal error. He inherited Solomon Arase from Edo State as IGP, kept him for one year and as the stakes were getting high, he quickly took the position ‘home’ and gave it to Ibrahim Kutigi from Niger State. From then on till he left in 2023, the baton passed from one northern state to another. Was Buhari being street-wise to have kept the Inspector-General’s position in his regional pocket for seven out of his eight years in power? If Buhari was not wrong that time, should we expect Tinubu to do today what Jonathan did which burnt his nimble fingers day before yesterday?
Jonathan’s ‘harakiri’ in politics started long before that appointment. He did several things which no one had ever done before. It was therefore not a surprise that his eyes saw what no one ever saw before. The Ijaw man made Fulani man, Attahiru Jega, INEC chairman in an election in which his main opponent was a Fulani. The man was praised by his nemesis and he enjoyed it. As the West African Pilot of 2 April, 1964 warned in an editorial: “The road to ruin is often smooth. Those who travel it pay the fare.” Three years after he was dusted and ousted, Jonathan wrote in his ‘My Transition Hours’ (page 75): “For some inexplicable reasons, the INEC had been able to achieve near 100% distribution of Permanent Voter Cards in the North, including the North-East which was under siege with the Boko Haram insurgency, but it (INEC) failed to record similar level of distribution in the South which was relatively more peaceful.” Because Buhari was no Jonathan, when it was time for him to replace Jega in November 2015, the Fulani man from Katsina went for a Fulani man from Bauchi. After eight years of uncommon tutorial from Muhammadu Buhari on how to (mis)manage a people’s diversity, it is not possible for any subsequent president (from the south) to do bobo nice again – especially with appointments strategic to their personal and political survival. A new INEC chairman is due for appointment in November next year (2025). Watch out for Tinubu. He will not be a Jonathan.
Key security appointments have become an armour for the president of Nigeria. The lesson taught by history is that a leader, while cuddling his neighbour, must never allow kin-blood to be diluted with water of whatever colour.
The politics of appointment into the head of the army started soon after independence. How did the government of Tafawa Balewa handle it? Sidi H. Ali, author of ‘Power of Powers: A biography of Alhaji Muhammadu Ribadu’, Nigeria’s first minister of defence, wrote about the intense ethnic maneuverings and bitterness that attended the appointment of the country’s very first indigenous head of the army when the last expatriate, Major General Christopher Welby-Evarard, left in February 1965. “The four possible candidates were all brigadiers at the time. They were Ironsi, Ademulegun, Ogundipe and Maimalari. Ironsi was the most senior of all…After all the bickering, Ribadu came out to announce the appointment of Ironsi as the commanding officer of the Nigerian Army. This, of course, was received with mixed feelings…” (page 18). If Balewa were to come back from the dead today and is asked to pick his army chief, would he still go for Ironsi? Among the four gentlemen officers of 1964, who do you think Balewa’s choice would be?
Balewa is not coming back but his democratic successor was Shehu Shagari who came in 1979 and had Lt.-General Alani Akinrinade as his Chief of Army Staff. Shagari soon replaced the Yoruba man with his kinsman, Gibson Jalo. Jonathan inherited a chief of army staff, Abdulrahman Dambazau, from his late boss, Umaru Yar’Adua. He couldn’t sleep until he picked someone from his area, Azubuike Ihejirika, to man that goal post.
Every elected Nigerian leader since the end of the first republic knows why crab does not sleep. What it stays awake doing is 24/7 recce for the safety of its head. Its eyes should be its binoculars – and they are. Even Olusegun Obasanjo as civilian president did not deny himself that wisdom, although he was very nuanced about it. He had three Inspectors-General of Police and all three were from his western region. His DG SSS from 1999 to 2007 was Colonel Kayode Are, his Abeokuta kinsman. For the army, Obasanjo, a southern Christian, in eight years, had four gentlemen as his Chief of Army Staff. He started in 1999 with Victor Malu, a Christian from the North; then he moved south and picked Alexander Ogomudia, a southern minority. After two years, two months, Obasanjo took the position back to the North. But he did not give it to those who might use it to injure him. He picked Martin Luther Agwai, a southern Kaduna minority Christian. Three years down that road, he went south again and picked Andrew Owoye Azazi, another southern minority. It was clear that he was deliberate about what he did. He was wide awake, mixing his nationalist broth with condiments of small nepotism here, a little of altruism there. The Obasanjo experience ended almost twenty years ago. This is the age of reason, apology to Thomas Paine. The gloves are off.
But, I think the people who are reading north and south into today’s appointments had better shine their eyes and see where the real danger is. The fish gets rotten from the head – and it is always progressive. Under Buhari, the president’s wife ran the alternate presidency while a regional cabal revved up the old engine of the man we elected. Today, we are not sure whether it is the man we elected or the wife or the son (with their business friends) that is at the top. After this set, we may have grafted on the trunk of our democracy a hereditary oligo-monarchy.
And we cannot say a president should not have a family – and friends. Wither the way then? Igbó rèé, òna rèé (the bush is here, the road is here). Where should we face?
The founding fathers of the United States feared what we see now. In her review of Adam Bellow’s ‘In Praise of Nepotism: A Natural History’, Joanne B. Ciulla says “nepotism was very much on the minds of America’s founding fathers. The last thing they wanted in their new country was hereditary rule.” She writes further (and this is interesting) that “one of the many qualities that made George Washington attractive as the first president was the fact that he did not have any children (who would share his powers or even seek to succeed him). When John Adams ran against Thomas Jefferson, his detractors feared that, because Adams had a son, he might try to start a dynasty.” Indeed, in that election dubbed ‘Revolution of 1800’, Jefferson, who did not have a son, defeated incumbent President John Adams.
But that cautious beginning notwithstanding, America has evolved to mint its own brand of ‘safe’ nepotism. Ciulla writes: “Let’s cut to the 2000 presidential election in the U.S. It pitted a son of a president against the son of a senator. When George W. Bush won, he appointed Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, to be chairman of the FEC; Elaine Cho, wife of Senator Mitch McConnell, to be Secretary of Labor; and Eugene Scalia, son of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, to be the chief labor attorney. In addition to these appointments, Bush made the Vice President’s daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, deputy assistant secretary of state, and her husband chief counsel for the Office of Management and Budget. At the request of Senator Strom Thrumond (and to the dismay of some people), Bush gave Thurmond’s twenty-eight-year-old son the job of U.S. Attorney for South Carolina.” The American system, from the above, draws a line between “bad nepotism and good nepotism.” Ciulla says the US now defines nepotism “not as hiring a relative but as hiring an incompetent relative…”
That is in the US. Here in Nigeria, competence is discounted. The concern is more on the history and the geography of the hired and the motive of the appointing authority.
In all these nepotism matters, the peace of the country and the happiness of the people are the casualties. Every hour spent by the leader ignoring competence but checking the bloodline or the ethnicity of the man for the next post is the hour just before darkness. And, if the nepotist succeeds in burying his long heel in this sand, it is bye bye to peace and amity. As Olusegun Obasanjo said in 2019 at the height of Buhari’s glass ceiling-bursting nepotism: “If you cannot trust me, why should I trust you?…The person who is our leader now is saying he cannot allow another ethnic group to work with him because he cannot trust them. If he cannot trust my tribe or your tribe, of what benefit is he? And he is saying my tribe and yours should come and vote for him. He can ask for our votes, but he cannot trust us to work in good positions. Life is give and take.”
![[OPINION] Fuel fiasco as metaphor for governance - Dele Sobowale](/media/k2/items/cache/f63031e39c086810e078a2add3bc344e_M.jpg)
“If they go about solving the problem this way, how many more problems will they have created by the time they are through” -James Baldwin, 1924-1987, VANGUARD BOOK OF QUOTATIONS, VBQ, p201, available online.
By any objective measure known to adults globally, what we have on our hands with regard to fuel problem is a fiasco. You cannot ask any of those in control of our fate in this regard a straight question and receive a reliable answer. Two Presidents, the Minister of Petroleum, the Minister of State for Petroleum, the Minister of Finance, the Central Bank of Nigeria, CBN, the Debt Management Office, DMO, the Group Managing Director of the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, Alhaji Aliko Dangote, all the regulatory commissions and agencies of government. The conspiracy of falsehood started since the Dangote Refinery was nearing, but still far from, completion in March 2023.
As many Nigerian observers will recollect, President Buhari commissioned the Dangote Refinery using the language that gave the impression that fuel production would start within a few months. We now know the truth. Buhari and Dangote just wanted the former President to be the one to have his name on the refinery plaque instead of his successor. Among the promises made or implied were the following: The refinery would end fuel scarcity and queues at filling stations; it would crash the price of petrol which was about N180 per litre at the time and create 150,000 jobs-directly or indirectly. The impression was also given that Nigeria’s four refineries would be resuscitated to complement the Dangote Refinery supply; and, government would no longer dictate fuel price. It all sounded great then; but my Fellow Nigerians have failed to understand one abiding truth.
“Every government is run by liars; and nothing they say should be believed” – I. F. Stone, 1907-1989, VBQ p80.
Of all the entries in my book of quotations, this I perhaps the one most frequently used; and for easily demonstrable reasons. In Nigeria and elsewhere in the world, the totally honest politician is almost impossible to find. Since politicians run for office, the electorate in every country is condemned to choosing between all the available dissemblers running for office. That, however, is in even a so-called democracy. In totalitarian regimes, the people are destined to accepting the falsehood published by their captors. Nigerian politicians are not the worst by any means; in fact they are better than those in Cameroon or Afghanistan. When it comes to peddling untruths, they are ranking amateurs. That is why what they say is so often easy to disprove – as in the issue of petroleum resources and fuel. Everything that was said by virtually everybody in government and the private sector providers had turned out to be false.
WAS DANGOTE REFINERY ESTABLISHED TO STOP IMPORTATION?
“I am beginning to wonder how many fools it takes to make the term ‘My Fellow Citizens'” – Honore de Balzac, 1799-1850, in LOST ILLUSIONS.
Most of the 220 million Nigerians alive today are not in any way better than their forefathers. Ask anybody if there was free education in the old Western Region?
And, ninety-nine per cent of the time, the answer would be “yes”. I thought so too until August 1964 when I took my Economics la Course at the university in the US. The lecturer would usually start his first class by telling a story which I will repeat below. A young prince, 12, became king when his father, just 40, suddenly died. Not wanting to make terrible mistakes in governance, the monarch gathered all the leading experts in every field – including economics – and instructed them to summarise the ideas, principles, laws etc in their fields. All returned three months after with truckloads of documents; which overwhelmed the poor youth. He asked for further reductions. They returned with twenty four pages of Executive Summary. Finally, like all those with absolute power; he ordered that the ideas be reduced to one sentence. The economists quickly put their heads together and the leader raised his hand; after being recognised he pronounced: “There is no such thing as a free lunch.” For that matter, there is no such thing as free education, free health service and there should be no free ride on highways. I raised my hand out of ignorance to state categorically that “there is free education in the Western Region of Nigeria, Sir.” Dr Cohen looked up; and said:
“You are the third Nigerian who would repeat that statement in my class. How many more fools are there in your country; who cannot distinguish between ‘free and public education?’ What is practised in Nigeria is public education, just like several countries in the world. The taxpayers are paying for that gimmick.” I would have gladly crawled into a hole if one had opened up. I learnt a simple economic principle the hard way. Later, in the third year, I received another knock on the head to drive home a truth which has escaped many Nigerians today. The professor teaching Business and Economy, when opening the section on ‘Entrepreneurship’, would kick off by announcing that the capitalist investor is motivated primarily by his desire to make as much money as possible.
He does not start a business for any other reason. That is why it was at first amusing, and later alarming, to me when several self-deluded Nigerians, including President Buhari, the CBN Governor, financial/economic analysts and commentators, assumed that the Dangote Refinery was being established to stop fuel importation, to create jobs and to grow the Gross Domestic Product, GDP, of Nigeria. Starting with that fallacy, they quickly jumped to the fatal conclusion that Dangote must be given 100 per cent support to achieve his objectives; apparently without regard to the individual and collective interests of “Fellow Nigerians”. Well, the Dangote Refinery is here. Why then are we paying N1, 200/litre for petrol which we fetched for N180/litre before it was established? I must have been one of the few Nigerians who knew right from the beginning that Nigerians were being taken for an unpleasant ride. For reasons I don’t now want to disclose, it is my candid view that the establishment of Dangote Refinery is not the salvation we expected. Most certainly, it will not crash fuel price as expected.
WHERE IS GOVERNMENT IN ALL THESE?
“Leadership is always mysterious. Leadership can be summed up in two words: Intelligence and integrity, or to use two synonyms: Competence and character” – John Brademas, US Congressman, VBQ p125.
Think of anyone in top government positions – Presidency, Ministry of Petroleum Resources, National Assembly, CBN and the Departments and Agencies – who had an official role to play in getting Dangote, the four refineries and Nigerians into this quagmire. Think again of the words – intelligence, integrity, competence and character. Then, ask yourself: Which of these attributes can be applied to any of them? All of a sudden, it becomes clear why our present predicament is inevitable; and the self-delusion, which one of their yes-men call “optimism”, is totally not in the national or personal interest. They should have known that the Dangote Refinery would not alone solve our fuel problems; that the four refineries were septic tanks into which they were throwing public funds without the scantiest hope of returns. Yet, they granted Dangote all sorts of concessions; promoted the idea that, once started, it would crash fuel prices and stop imports. The tissue of lies has been exposed because all lies have an expiry date; and the time is up for these ones.
The Minister of State for Petroleum Resources and the GMD-NNPCL promised Nigerians that the Port-Harcourt and Warri refineries would begin fuel supplies by December last year. Ten months after, there has been no fuel from the two.
In July, the National Assembly was told that crude oil production would reach two million barrels per day, mbpd, and Nigeria would be exporting fuel by December. Who, in his right senses, now believes the two? More to the point: Why are they still in office?
![[OPINION] Set the captives free! - Owei Lakemfa](/media/k2/items/cache/f14dff56554c51425ea190967a8380f1_M.jpg)
A shocked world watched as the Nigerian government exhibited in court at least 28 malnourished and unkempt children it has kept in prison and detention centres for three months for allegedly engaging in public protests.
The children are charged in blatant violation of Section 204 of the Child Rights Act of 2003 which states that children under 18 should not be tried in the criminal justice system, but rather in the child justice system.
Their arraignment also violates this Act which expressly states that children under 18 cannot be sentenced to capital punishment, imprisonment or corporal punishment.
But the Nigeria Police has turned itself into a court and over-ruled this Act. The Force Public Relations Officer, ACP Olumuyiwa Adejobi, in defending the arraignment of minors said: “Under Nigerian law, individuals who have reached the age of criminal responsibility are answerable for their actions, regardless of their age. This principle aligns with global practices where accountability is upheld for young individuals who commit serious offences. As seen in other jurisdictions, including the United Kingdom, age does not exempt individuals from facing legal consequences.”
The Nigeria Police reference to the United Kingdom, UK, shows the failure of our education system. Since when has the UK become our standard of civilization? It is a country built on a mentality of dominance, exploitation and subjugation of other peoples.
In one of the greatest struggles of humanity, the UK and its American clone supported, financed, armed and shielded the Apartheid regime in South Africa. They also designated the liberation movements and liberation fighters like Nelson Mandela, Walter Sisulu, Ruth First and Joe Slovo as terrorists. We Nigerians stood in sharp contrast to all these and fought, along with other peoples, until Apartheid was decisively crushed. So if such countries send children to prison or the gas chamber, how can that be the standard we should adopt in handling the Nigerian child?
The children were part of the 76 brought to court on charges of treason, terrorism, and arson which carry the death penalty.
All accused were malnourished. When four of the accused slumped, the unfeeling police claimed they were merely staging a Nollywood drama. ACP Adejobi said this was “deliberate and scripted” to draw negative attention. So, did they also stage-manage their malnourished and starving bodies?
A police force that should apologise for reducing Nigerian children and suspects to near skeletons talks about drama. Does that not speak volumes of the malnourished thought process in the force? A police force that could not see what the rest of the world was seeing.
When the police lawyer told the world that the cry against arraigning minors should not arise as anybody above seven years is ripe to be charged, he gave the false impression that Nigerians have no human feelings.
First, our laws presume an accused innocent until found guilty. So why are the accused treated like convicts? Why is the police subjecting them to such inhuman treatment that can lead to some of them losing their lives even before taking a plea? Are we sure some have not already ‘travelled’ before the rest were brought to court on Friday November 1, 2024?
Justice Obiora Egwuatu granted bail of N10 million bond and one surety to each of the “adults”. He ruled that the surety to be presented by each of them must be at least a Level 15 civil servant with verifiable address in Abuja. For the underage defendants, he ordered that they only require their “parents or guardians” to stand as their sureties.
Quite thoughtful of the judge. But given the sorry state of the 76 persons before him, what I expected him to do was first to call in doctors to examine the accused and ensure they are fed as starvation is not part of our legal process.
Secondly, as a justice of the court, did he think the faces before him could meet such stringent conditions? Besides, the children and adults have already spent three months in prison custody on the orders of Justice Egwuatu. Did the judge reflect that he was sending minors to prison custody rather than a remand home? Does he think the ends of justice would be served by such bail conditions?
Lord Denning said: “When a judge sits to try the case, he himself is on trial before his fellow countrymen. It is on his behaviour that they will form their opinion of our system of justice.”
Mercifully, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, SAN has stepped in and directed that the police hands over the case file. But is he just learning about the case? Was his office unaware that children have been held in prison and police detention for three months? Is he aware that the government he serves as Minister of Justice is asking for the death penalty for children and youths it claims committed treason during constitutionally-sanctioned protests?
I have read arguments that the children committed treason by carrying Russian flags. Is that why they should be killed? Are foreign flags, particularly American and British flags, not flown in our hotels and taxis?
There is also the demand for the lives of the children on the basis that they called for military rule. My position is that if a 14-year-old makes such a call, what we need do is explain to him why such a call is wrong, not to demand for his life. Please, nobody should sermonise to me why military rule is dangerous; I lived through it. I was a human rights and pro-democracy activist when the military held sway in the country, killing the innocent, making orphans of children, destroying the economy, privatising our national wealth and reversing our gains as a people. I was threatened a number of times by the Directorate of Military Intelligence, detained by the State Security Services, SSS, lost friends like Bagauda Kaltho, whose corpse has not been released 28 years after he was murdered. I know the bestiality that is military misrule for which human life meant nothing.
These children don’t know what military rule is, so we need to educate them.
We need to teach them that the military, in one day, shot dead 118 Nigerians on the streets of Lagos just to stop a pro-democracy protest on July 6, 1993. We need to teach them how the military set up death squads killing innocent people like Mrs Kudirat Abiola and shooting defenceless people like Mr. Alex Ibru and Senator Abraham Adesanya. These are lessons we can teach the children here on earth and not after they are despatched to Heaven as their arraignment suggests.
The simple demand to government is: set the captives free!
![[OPINION] Kudisprudence - Chidi Anselm Odinkalu](/media/k2/items/cache/98b68d64ecb398da03e213bf764cab58_M.jpg)
“The partiality that inevitably affects judges has been noted in cases with a political flavour.” – David Pannick, KC, Judges, p. 44 (1987)
The state as we know it enjoys three notional monopolies. One is a monopoly of legitimate taxation. The second is a monopoly of the legitimate instrumentality of violence; and the third is a monopoly of legitimate dispute resolution. In Nigeria, all three monopolies are now contested by non-state entities.
Of these three monopolies, many focus on the legitimate instrumentality of violence but it is the capacity of a state to resolve disputes lawfully and peacefully among those who live in it that makes the other two monopolies worthwhile. That is why courts, administrative and even traditional institutions exist.
David Pannick, KC reminds us that “as part of the function of deciding disputes, the courts provide a public service, at almost no charge to customers (who pay for their lawyers but not for the judge and the courtroom).” This is the ideal. Nigeria’s judicial system is in a profound crisis of legitimacy today because of ample evidence suggesting strongly that the requirement that litigants should not pay for the judge or the courtroom may not apply to certain categories, especially among political litigants.
To be clear, the most important reasons for which people sometimes end up in court often are not things to which it is possible to assign any value – dignity, equity, justice, memory, safety or human life. These are all invaluable. Without them, organised society fails. Jurisprudence is the system for organising knowledge about judicial decisions that ultimately deliver and govern these invaluable public goods.
However, judicial business is not confined to these. Many disputes that end up in court involve property or things of material value, such as land, inheritance, shares, stocks, or chattels. Some others may extend to intangibles of value, such as status or reputation. There could also be cases concerning access to political power from which perch the people involved hope to reap benefits that are material in consequence.
These are all things for which the currency of transaction or exchange is money. In Nigerian parlance, that is called “kudi”. When a court system prioritises disputes affecting things measured in the currency of money over things that are entirely invaluable, it replaces a system of jurisprudence in favour of a preoccupation with “kudisprudence”.
By way of full disclosure, I did not invent this expression, “kudisprudence”. I was introduced to it by a friend and schoolmate of long-standing who also happens to be a diligent senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN). He has not licensed me to disclose his identity, and I am obliged to respect his anonymity.
Two cases occurred this past week to illustrate how this distinction between jurisprudence and kudisprudence affects judicial decision-making in Nigeria. On 30 October, the police arraigned a member of the house of representatives, Mascot Ikwechegh, on charges of assault against a gig-economy driver working with Bolt. A now viral video clip showed Ikwechegh had assaulted the driver in words and deed. He called the driver vermin in different forms and threatened to “disappear” him without consequences, before proceeding to satiate on the driver his thirst for physical violence.
For those conversant with that Nigerian rat-killer, the material on the video clip portrayed Ikwechegh as the member representing “Otapiapia” Federal Constituency in the Rat Killers Assembly. On his arraignment, the court granted him bail on an oral application in the sum of N500,000 with sureties who only had to show evidence of utility bills for proof of their residence. The case was adjourned for one week.
Two days later, on 1 November, another court in the same Abuja was host to proceedings charging at least 114 children according to the British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC, with treasonable felony. These charges arose in connection with the #EndBadGovernment protests which occurred last August around the country. Arrested in different locations in northern Nigeria reportedly, these children were transferred to Abuja where they had been detained en masse for 93 days.
On arraignment, they all looked “visibly unwell and malnourished.” In their short spell in court, at least four of them suffered fainting feats. Having beheld all of this, the presiding judge promptly rewarded the children with bail in the sum of N10 million each or a total of N1.14 billion, with two sureties each of whom must be a senior federal civil servant of at least Grade Level 15. He adjourned the case to 24 January 2025. These terms were manifestly such that none of these children can hope to comply.
This is a court system in which material things, such as status, make all the difference between receiving justice or being on the end of the administration of law even when it is manifestly unjust. The parliamentarian received jurisprudence from a court system that was happy to serve malnourished children with anything but that.
There is an even more worrying scenario to which the expression “kudisprudence” may be applied. That can be the case where a judicial decision follows upon a bargain – implicit or explicit – between a judge or magistrate on the one hand and a party (disclosed or undisclosed) on the other. This was the sense in which Stanislav Andrzejewski, the former Polish soldier and prisoner-of-war who founded the Sociology Department at the University of Reading in England coined the word “kleptocracy” in 1968, which he defined as “a system of government [that] consists precisely of the practice of selling what the law forbids to sell.” Among the things a kleptocracy can buy and sell in its political open market, Professor Andrzejewski included “even judges.”
The fact that kudisprudence in the second sense occurs in certain courts in Nigeria is not in question. Many disciplinary cases concluded by the National Judicial Council (NJC), no less, testify to this fact. The only issue left to be determined is how pervasive this is. One thing seems clear: political cases increasingly appear to suggest – very much as David Pannick writes – a higher predisposition to what look like outcomes of kudisprudence.
For evidence of how this system of kudisprudence can work, a recent report by the advocacy group, Citizen Gavel, names a notorious former governor and current minister who has a long track record of “building judicial infrastructure and offering other forms of support” to the judiciary in acts of generosity that “often coincide with periods when he has faced significant legal challenges. This raises the possibility that these actions may have indirectly influenced judicial decisions.”
In its nature, judicial quid pro quo does not necessarily occur on social media or with receipts. Verified cases are more likely than not to be fewer in fact than the number of actual incidents. Many more followers of the recent goings on in Nigeria’s judicial system may themselves have evidence to conclude that it has evolved from a system of jurisprudence to one preoccupied with kudisprudence.
On its own, that would be sufficient cause for worry; but the reason the system now suffers an overwhelming sense of crisis of credibility is because it cannot be ruled out that this preoccupation with kudisprudence in the first sense is not the result (in a significant number particularly of political cases), of kudisprudence in the second – transactional – sense.
David Pannick concludes that courts offer to “those who are greedy, vexatious, exhibitionist, aspiring to canonisation, or just plain impossible a platform to perform.” Every one of them has a right to a court system that regards the public interest in justice as something that money cannot buy.
A lawyer and a teacher, Odinkalu may be reached at chidi.odinkalu@tufts.edu
[OPINION] Restoring Faith in Nigeria’s Democracy: New Paths to Guaranteed Outcomes (I) - Alex Otti
Admin![[OPINION] Restoring Faith in Nigeria’s Democracy: New Paths to Guaranteed Outcomes (I) - Alex Otti](/media/k2/items/cache/8d3dee2904a7acd1724eb46b3bb6766b_M.jpg)
Across the world, there is a consensus that Nigeria is a very strategic country. Its enormous population size of more than 200 million people clearly sets it apart as one of the most populous destinations on earth, and home to the largest concentration of black people in the world. Our beloved country is also renowned for its large mineral deposits and extensive gas reserves, economic and political influence in Africa, especially in the West African region. This great nation also enjoys longstanding trade and diplomatic relationships with the most dominant global powers including the US, China, and the European Union.
Beyond all of these, and as important as they are, my estimation of the most important strength of Nigeria lies in the dynamic adaptability, intellect and resilience of our people. Our true greatness, I dare say, comes from the power and reach of ordinary Nigerians, the individuals whose energy, passion and imagination are creatively expanding the frontiers of our awareness, interactions, and the cultural memories we shall leave for future generations. Through the traffic gridlocks along Lagos roads to the ever-busy markets in Aba and Kano, the most common descriptions that capture the Nigerian spirit are energy, resilience, creativity and industry. Outside the shores of our country, from Washington to Boston, London, Brussels, Rio de Janeiro and Shanghai, Nigerians are remarkable for our exceptional ability to adapt to new environments and realities, systems and cultures.
Nigeria, many who are familiar with the country and its dominant ethos will agree, is a very beautiful country; but it is also a deeply controversial place. To the incurable optimist, Nigeria is the most fantastic place on earth — good weather condition, friendly population and a fine mix of urban and sub-urban locations. At the opposite end of the pole are implacable cynics, those who can effortlessly place all the troubles in the world within Nigeria’s geographic boundaries. This latter group are very likely to remember Nigeria as the origin of most of the scam proposals that hit their emails, a place of poverty and hopelessness, and definitely, a country with very corrupt political and business elites. In all honesty, there is no exact way to exhaustively look at Nigeria. To be able to understand it quite objectively, one must appreciate the good without attempting to downplay the not-so-good. Nigeria is troubled and that’s very true. But it is also a place of opportunities, a land of dreams and a cradle of hope for tens of millions of people. To properly situate Nigeria’s objective reality is a very difficult assignment; it requires one to take a step back, and then gaze into the future to imagine what could be, as against what is, and what was.
Nigeria at the beginning of the new millennium was a place of hope, a land brimming with expectations. Many had looked forward to the future with great optimism around the middle of 1999 as the country, after years of uncertainty with its attendant cost in human lives and material resources, returned to democratic rule. The return to democracy at the end of the 20th century was believed in many quarters, and for good reasons too, as the ultimate elixir to catapult Nigeria to its true place of greatness. The rich promises of democracy, and the enthusiasm with which it was embraced after years of anticipation, convinced many that the 21st century was ours to take.
In view of our ugly experiences with military dictators headlined by false and unfulfilled promises, corruption and plain disregard for civil rights, millions of Nigerians pinned their hopes of national revival on the shoulders of the newly elected democratic leaders, believing firmly that the participatory governance model will usher in a new era of mass prosperity, restoration and expansion of our stock of public infrastructure, and ascension in the order of global importance. It has been 25 long years since Nigeria took this path; sadly, the outcome has been a far cry from what was expected at the turn of the new millennium.
Democracy in Nigeria has regrettably left very sour taste in the mouths of millions of patriotic citizens. Many lives have been lost through violence, often in pursuit of core democratic ideals such as exercising one’s right to vote or be voted for. Millions have fled their communities and the country altogether — believing that it is safer to watch things from afar, without the risks of getting involved. For scores of millions of others, their faith in democracy has been greeted with eviscerating poverty, insecurity and job losses. The basic amenities that are taken for granted, even in neighbouring African countries, are a distant reality for millions of our people.
Across Nigeria, there is disillusionment with how the country has fared over the last 25 years. In 1999, it would have been impossible to suggest that after twenty five years, we will still be struggling with public electricity supply, petrol scarcity or that the public schools and hospitals would be where they are today. Unfortunately, that is our reality. Getting out of the quagmire requires some truth telling, an honest assessment and an admission that we could have done better — and then evaluate the options before us.
Across the world, there is a great reawakening amongst the Nigerian diaspora community, the body of professionals and the army of educated but thoroughly dissatisfied young people who are simply frustrated with the reality and misery of their daily existence. Many Nigerians living within and outside the country are coming to the awareness that the destiny of our country is too important to be left in the hands of career politicians and their cronies. This is not a good time to talk about patriotism to millions of our compatriots because of the bad experiences, unpleasant memories, and ugly reports we are regularly fed with, some bordering on the most bizarre and ridiculous. Our situation, to say the least, is very distressing.
Although doubts and cynicisms remain about what to do and what outcomes may be achieved in the renewed agitation for a country that serves the yearnings of its citizens, the new consciousness that we deserve better, could be a great turning point in our journey to national restoration. It needs to be said at once that the efforts to turn things around will not yield immediate results and not much will be achieved if we imagine that the quest for a more functional society should only be restricted to just a few persons or groups. While I would agree that like in every significant venture, some persons will, for variety of reasons, make more sacrifices than others, it must nevertheless be made known that there is a role for everyone in the on-going struggle to reclaim our country from the grip of the vicious forces that have held it down for ages, and finally set it free to attain its fullest potential.
Although it is true that Nigerians must, as a matter of patriotic duty, stay at the forefront of this enormous struggle to tilt things along a more productive path, it has to equally be acknowledged that we shall need all the help we can get from our friends around the world to rebuild our country from the ruins of the bad decisions of yesteryears. The crises of today, including challenges in governance, economic upheavals, widespread insecurity across several parts of the country, hunger and poverty, and other pointers to national failure, can be traced to the misjudgements of the past — especially in our choice of leaders across the national and subnational levels, and the terrible decisions made by those leaders on our collective behalf. We can no longer afford to play the ostrich. Nigeria is where it is today because we had either refused to fully acknowledge, and take up our obligations as patriots, or had gone about it the wrong way in the choices we made over the years. The good news however is that our country is not beyond redemption, irrespective of whatever doomsday cynics say.
Nigeria, and its democracy, can be recovered and restored but that will only happen when we come to terms with the responsibilities and obligations of citizenship. The inescapable truth is that our duties as citizens, leaders, friends and lovers of Nigeria can no longer be put off. The only way out of the present quagmire which has made millions of Nigerians refugees in their homelands and hundreds of thousands of others unwilling migrants overseas, is to appreciate that as citizens, we have all it takes to turn the tide around.
The theme of our intervention today rightly acknowledges that all is not well, that democracy has not taken us to the destination we desire — that what started as a beautiful dream, has become for millions, a terrible nightmare. Freedom comes from knowledge so we have to ask ourselves the hard questions that will ultimately bring us to the place where responsibility replaces blames and all fingers pointed outwards, towards others, redirected at ourselves.
Democracy can be likened to a medical prescription. In regular medical prescriptions, there are responsibilities the patient must undertake to bear such as avoiding certain foods and beverages, and other exposures that may hurt the potency of the drugs administered. This same system of regulations and responsibilities applies to democracy. Unfortunately, that is where we have largely failed because we had assumed, perhaps in error, that once this prescription is taken, all will be well, irrespective of what we did, or refused to do. Regrettably, that has not worked. The failures of the last 25 years, vis-à-vis the progress recorded in other democratic societies across the world, even within Africa, tells us clearly that the fault is not in democracy, but in the way we have interacted with it. Like the man who hopes to overcome his health challenges by diligently taking his drugs, the time has come for us to go through the prescription booklets, read the fine prints to find out what we may have missed. Returning to the basics will help us to get our acts together in terms of how we make choices at the polls, and interact with public officials, whether elected or appointed. We may also need to re-evaluate how we engage with the broad spectrum of stakeholders, officials and institutions including the law enforcement agencies, political parties, law makers and of course, the courts. From a careful study of governance systems across the world, one thing I can say with certainty is that democracy and docility cannot go together.
The most enduring appeal of democracy is the voice it gives every adult in the society — an opportunity to have a say in how public affairs are conducted. The ultimate good for the majority cannot be attained in a culture that promotes docility over courage, especially when things are not going according to plan. It is, however, important to state quickly that courage must never be misrepresented to mean violence and destruction. As a matter of fact, democracy abhors violence expressed in any form, verbally or physically.
The tremendous advances in information and communications technology offer us an important leverage previous generations never had. The key advantage for me is the reach and influence of new media platforms — the power to share our thoughts and views on any major issue with millions of people across geographical boundaries. If what you say or write from a small corner of your room anywhere in the world can be read or heard thousands of miles away with very little effort on your part, why then does anyone need to burn down public buildings or destroy the property of fellow citizens to get the attention of leaders? It may be news to many but I can assure you that even the most hardened, unconscionable dictator pays attention to the expressed opinions and views of the public because every man or woman of power understands the power of small voices amplified by technology and persistence.
To rebuild the damaged foundation of our democracy, we need to regain our voices. I am not ignorant of the frustration and disappointment millions of our young people feel in the light of recent electoral outcomes where you contributed financial and other valuable resources to support your favourite candidates in state and national elections but unfortunately, things did not go the way those who designed the structural foundations of democracy envisioned.
As somebody who had faced the challenge that comes with electoral injustice, I know exactly what many of our young patriots are going through but my story also teaches some important lessons in persistence and faith, especially in the face of disappointment. We must refuse to give up on democracy, and on our dear country. The young people of Nigeria, at home and in the diaspora, will be the largest and most enduring influence on the texture and dynamics of Nigeria’s democracy in the next 25 years. It is these young, seemingly uncoordinated voices on various social media platforms that will determine what becomes of our democracy in the next few decades. Admitted that the social and economic troubles of the moment have made the pursuit of certain democratic ideals herculean, my conviction is that nothing will stop the present generation of young Nigerians from fulfilling their destiny, having discovered it in the miseries and setbacks of the present age.
These are excerpts of a paper presented by Dr Otti, OFR, the Executive Governor of Abia State at the October 2024 “Nigeria in the World” Seminar
![[OPINION] Reasons Ogun State economy sustains competitive edge - Femi Ogbonnikan](/media/k2/items/cache/e3059668fb39b33f544ef62348cfda61_S.jpg)
Due to the combined effects of creative thinking and prudent management of resources, Ogun State, under Governor Dapo Abiodun’s administration for the umpteenth time, retained itself as one of Nigeria’s resilient and economically viable states amid the global challenges.
In governance, it takes a creative mind to identify opportunities for economic expansion to harness them for growth. If only people could open their eyes to see every state has its fair share of human and material resources to develop. What is lacking is the creative thinking of the ruling elite to fashion out a way to enhance revenue-generating capacity.
This is where Prince Dapo Abiodun stands out among others. Since he assumed office on May 29, 2019, he has shown an innate capacity for creativity by boosting the state’s internal revenue generation. As of today, Ogun is among the few states that can survive independently of the Federal Government’s allocation.
This is not rhetoric or hearsay. The latest report released by the office of the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) confirms the resilience of the state’s economy based on its sustained growth and enhanced revenue-generating capacity. According to the release, Ogun State increased its IGR in 2023 from N120.58 billion to N146.87 billion, made up of N71.67 billion in tax revenues and N75.19 billion.
In totality, the 36 states and the FCT collectively generated N2.43 trillion in Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) during the period, reflecting a 26.03 percent increase from the N1.93 trillion recorded in 2022. Out of these figures, Lagos, FCT, and Rivers led in IGR collection, generating N815.86 billion, N211.10 billion, and N195.41 billion, respectively.
Ogun State closely follows among the seven other runners-up. Ten (10) states recorded the highest IGR of N1.775 trillion collectively, representing about 73.1 percent of the total IGR generated by the 36 states and FCT. These states are Lagos, Rivers, FCT, Ogun, Delta, Edo, Kaduna, Kwara, Oyo and Akwa Ibom states in order of arrangements. It is important to note that seven of these top 10 states with the highest IGR are in the South as only three are from the Northern part of the country.
The significant achievement recorded by the state is as a result of the initiatives of the Governor to boost industrial growth through the creation of an enabling environment for both local and direct foreign investments (DFI). One of such initiatives is the Ogun State Investment Promotion and Facilitation Agency (OgunInvest) created by the administration.
As part of the dividends, only recently, an agreement was reached with the British High Commissioner in Nigeria, Mr. Richard Montgomery, to establish a five million dollar British battery recycling company in the state. When the company becomes operational, it will be the first of its kind in Africa, thus making the state the leader in battery recycling on the black continent.
This significant achievement is a clear testament to the Abiodun administration’s commitment to the objective of making the state the preferred as an investment destination of choice in Africa. And it is one of the dividends of the collaborative efforts of the Director-General of the ‘OgunInvest’, and his counterpart in the Bureau of Lands.
Montgomery confirmed this in his remarks, as he said, “It is really exciting that we received support from ‘OgunInvest’, and officials from the Bureau of Lands confirmed the Certificate of Occupancy (CofO). We can say that the investment will be about five million dollars, and we want Ogun State to be the place where this industry can grow.”
Looking into the future of the partnership, the High Commissioner added that his country would like to participate in energy, technology, tertiary education, agricultural processing, and also explore how to find more United Kingdom-linked companies to invest in the State. He disclosed that discussions were ongoing with the state team on how to proceed in the coming year.
The commissioner further stressed that his country was not only interested in what the state had achieved in the last five years but was also trying to identify business opportunities for his government and his country’s companies to invest in. With the milestone, the governor, Prince Dapo Abiodun can now beat his chest to say that his aspiration to lead Ogun State to achieving its manifest destiny as a leading industrial hub in Nigeria and beyond is becoming a reality.
Primarily, the vision of the Ogun State Investment Promotion and Facilitation Agency (OgunInvest) led by Abiodun as its Chairman is to firmly establish Ogun State as the industrial and logistics hub of Nigeria and the preferred investment destination in the region. Its mission is to create an investor-friendly environment that attracts and retains both domestic and international investments, thereby fostering economic growth.
The same objective also informed the land reform initiative of the administration to ensure a seamless process of land acquisition by genuine investors, thus protecting them from the extortion by land grabbers, popularly called ‘Omo Onile’.
In addition to that, Abiodun has deliberately focused on provisions of road infrastructure and other amenities to attract more investments to the state. Among others, the establishment of the Ministry of Transportation, the development of the Transportation Master Plan, and the building of a cargo airport are some of the critical infrastructures giving the state its competitive edge. All of these have accounted for the preference investors have for the state as an investment destination of choice.
In acknowledgment of the transformation that has taken place under the leadership of the Governor, Vice Present Kashim Shettima, during his recent visit, described Ogun State as the industrial powerhouse of the nation, noted the support and commitment of the present administration to the Federal Government’s efforts to promote enterprises and empowerment of the people.
He passed the commendation on the heels of disclosure by Governor Abiodun that his administration had launched the Small and Medium Enterprises Industrial Land Acquisition Scheme (SILAS). The scheme is about 1,000 Hectares Industrial hub provided with needed amenities like good roads, power, among others.
For four consecutive sessions under his administration, the state has routinely maintained its competitive edge over the rest parts of the country. With the various incentives provided by the administration, the roadmap to industrialisation has already been laid, and it must be sustained. By the combined advantages of its geographical location and oceanic plentitude of land, Ogun State has a manifest destiny to be the leading industrial hubs in Africa.
Towards the realization, there has been continuous improvement in the Ease-of-Doing-Business and land reform initiative which provide attraction for investors. The same reason also accounted for the creation of four economic zones in the State, in addition to Agbara Industrial Zone, which includes Ota and Kajola axes. At present, Agbara Industrial Zone is arguably the largest industrial zone in Nigeria and probably one of the largest in the continent. It is the zone that makes Ogun State the industrial capital of Nigeria.
The decision by the present government to create additional four zones is not only to expand economic opportunities that abound in the State but also makes it investor-friendly. Not only that, a high-performing zone with strong foreign investment can create thousands of jobs. It also helps in building the capabilities of the local workforce, as outside investors share expertise and know-how.
The days of glory for Ogun State as an emerging industrial hubs are here, as opportunities for direct foreign and local investments are rapidly expanding under the current administration. Expectedly, the Governor, Abiodun, has hailed the NBS reports listing the state among the best in Internally Generated Revenue (IGR) in the country as well as its sustained economic growth.
At the recent public unveiling and commissioning of the Olumo Courts service apartments and associated facilities in Abeokuta on Saturday, Governor Abiodun noted that Ogun State’s internally generated revenue had surpassed that of several states, showcasing its economic resilience and growth.
The governor attributed the feat to the various policies his administration had been able to put in place to grow the economic base to an enviable position where it no longer needed to rely too much on federal allocations. “According to a recent report by the National Bureau of Statistics, Ogun State generated more revenue than five states in one zone and six in another in 2023. We are among the few states that can thrive without federal support,” he stated.
He described Olumo Courts, located in Ibara, Abeokuta, as a significant project aimed at enhancing the quality of life for residents. Governor Abiodun acknowledged the criticisms his administration had faced regarding the urban regeneration efforts in the Government Reserved Area (GRA) of Ibara. He emphasized that the successful establishment of Olumo Courts, championed by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, had strengthened his administration’s resolve to transform urban areas throughout the state.
“We initiated the Urban Renewal of Abeokuta, starting in Ibara GRA, despite facing substantial criticism. The achievements of Olumo Courts reaffirm that we are on the right track,” he stated.
According to him, initiatives like Olumo Courts, along with the construction of over 4,000 housing units in the past five years, have bolstered the state’s economy. The governor praised former President Obasanjo as a remarkable figure whose vision had paved the way for projects like Olumo Courts, which features 36 luxury smart apartments equipped with modern amenities such as a swimming pool, tennis court, gym, and squash court. He called for Ogun State’s citizens to draw inspiration from this initiative.
Abiodun explained that Olumo Courts would not only enhance the architectural landscape but also create job opportunities and attract investments, particularly from the Diaspora. He said that the project’s approval process took 17 months due to necessary redesigns to align with urban regeneration goals. He further reiterated his commitment to supporting projects that enhance the state’s economic foundation.
In his opening remarks, Prince Rotimi Martins, a member of the Olumo Courts development team, described the project as the first smart city estate in the GRA, symbolizing growth and investment potential for the state.
Oba Adedotun Aremu Gbadebo, the Alake and Paramount ruler of Egbaland, emphasises that Olumo Courts exemplifies how environmental improvements could foster development. Senator Iyabo Obasanjo, daughter of former President Obasanjo, who also spoke at the event, adding that Abeokuta’s unique geographical advantages position it as a beautiful city ready to welcome the world.
Anytime you hear that Ogun State tops the chart among the leading economically viable states in Nigeria, don’t scream. Across all indices of growth, there are 1001 reasons the state sustains its competitive edge. Governor Abiodun’s innovative spirit, creativity, resourcefulness, commitment to good governance, and creation of an enabling environment for investment through infrastructural transformation did the magic. All that is required to keep the state at the top of the economy is a good successor who can carry on the good work of his administration.
Ogbonnikan writes from Abeokuta, Ogun State capital
![[OPINION] Children as coup plotters - Etim Etim](/media/k2/items/cache/f3aa3922358f7b8ca5aaa181752f5257_S.jpg)
The Nigerian Police routinely outcompetes itself in absurdities, but the arraignment of 30 children last week in Abuja by the police for allegedly plotting a coup to topple the Tinubu administration was the lowest point the police has ever sunk to. It is the biggest embarrassment and ridicule this country has been thrown into in decades and I think that the IGP should apologize for humiliating the country before the international community. The children are among the 70 people brought to court last Friday, charged with treason and inciting a military coup after they took part in the protests last August. Aged between 12 and 16, they were arrested in different parts of Northern Nigeria, and incarcerated in Abuja in a terrible detention centre, something that didn’t happen even under Gen. Abacha. We all know how Abacha was unbelievably cruel, but he never locked away children to starve them to death. The police authorities should be ashamed of themselves for perpetrating such a heinous abuse of minors.
At the Abuja High court, the kids looked famished, emaciated, tormented and traumatized. Four of them even fainted, forcing the presiding judge, Justice Obiora Egwuatu, who was visibly alarmed and irritated at the sight of the young, famished and sickly boys, to adjourn sitting abruptly. On resumption of sitting, the court adjourned the case till January. If those kids are detained till January in the same conditions, a few of them will not come out alive. The scene at the court was despicable, a throwback to what might have happened in Idi Amin’s Uganda.
The prosecution counsel, Audu Garba, told the court that the four kids were rushed outside because there was no space in the courtroom for all of the accused persons. He lied. However, the judge insisted that space should be created for all of them as he wanted the all in the courtroom. The prosecution then proceeded to ask the court to strike out the names of the sick defendants and discharge them pending when they are well enough to stand trial. But the defense counsel, Marshall Abubarkar, asked the court to discharge and acquit them. The court eventually discharged the four sick children – Umar Yunusa; Usman Suraju; Musa Isiyaku and Abdul Ganiyu – pending when they recover, and admitted the rest of the kids on stringent bail conditions. I’m shocked that this is happening in Nigeria under President Bola Tinubu, who was once a prodemocracy activist. The outrage across the country reflects our overall shock and disbelief.
I am relieved that the Attorney General of the Federation, Lateef Fagbemi, has asked the police for the case file, possibly to intervene and set the children free. But does it mean that the AGF was not aware of the fate of these kids all this while? If these children had died, who would have held the police responsible? Who regulates the activities of the Nigerian Police police?
A week earlier, the government had accused The Guardian newspaper of inciting the military to take over the government. In a press statement issued on Saturday, October 26, Bayo Onanuga, the President’s spokesman, said the paper’s lead story published the previous day, ‘’openly incites unrest against President Bola Tinubu and advocates regime change under the guise of journalism’’. He argued that ‘’The Guardian’s agenda is unmistakable from the cover illustration to the article. In attempting to create a balanced veneer, the author condemns military rule while fanning the flames of military intervention’’. The paper had in its Friday lead story, published a lengthy feature article in which it reported that faced with harsh cost-of-living crisis, Nigerians have resorted to extreme measures, including calling for military coups. The Guardian has launched a robust rebuttal to the government’s allegation.
But why is the Tinubu administration so obsessed with the fear of a military coup? Why does the government seem to habour a phobia for coups despite repeated assurances from the Defence Headquarters that the military will never be involved in unconstitutional change of government? There are two theories that can explain this. One, by frequently accusing the opposition of coup-baiting, the government wants us to live in fear and silence, weaken critics and frighten the civil society. Second, effect of a terrible experience. Between President Tinubu and Bayo Onanuga, there could be something in the past that triggers an irrational dread for the military coups. Both men were very active in the prodemocracy struggle of the 1990s. The former was a journalist while the later was initially a politician and later a pro democracy activist. In 1995, Onanuga’s colleague at The News magazine, Kunle Ajibade, was jailed for life by the Abacha junta for the story the magazine published. Tinubu and many other activists had fled into exile overseas, and those who did not leave the country were murdered by junta’s snipers. After Abacha’s death in 1998, Tinubu returned, contested election and was elected Lagos State Governor in 1999. He then picked a young police officer, Kayode Egbetokun as his chief security officer and ADC. On taking office last year, the president appointed Egbetokun as the IGP and Onanuga as spokesman. Psychologists believe that past traumatic or negative experiences can have long-lasting impacts on our behaviors and outlook on life. This is known as ‘’Negativity Bias’’ in psychology and could be the reason Onanuga and Egbetokun are obsessing about coups. Dr. Eric Nass, a clinical psychologist in Belmont, Massachusetts, has done extensive work on how anxiety, traumatic experiences and fear impact negatively on the ability of leaders to make informed decisions.
I should also note that both Presidents Obasanjo and Buhari also lived through terrible experiences during the military era. So, why did they not publicly display symptoms of anxiety and fear for coups? Buhari in particular was constantly demonized in the press and called all sorts of names, but I can’t remember Femi Adeshina issuing press statements claiming that a newspaper was engaged in ‘’coup baiting’’. What is different now? Any psychologist around?
Etim is a journalist and author
[OPINION] Nation of the living dead: Slapped, oppressed, does Ikwechegh represent it? - Ikeddy IsIguzo
Admin![[OPINION] Nation of the living dead: Slapped, oppressed, does Ikwechegh represent it? - Ikeddy IsIguzo](/media/k2/items/cache/3c7d0b6472afb0f969394f563da98ce1_S.jpg?t=20241103_085155)
MINUTES after we rendered the last stanza of the national anthem with impressive passion, the lyrics put us to immediate judgement as the tales of woes that were painted had deep strokes that held their hues. Silence descended on the hall, making the voices on the devastations of oil and gas exploration – maybe, exploitation is better – in the Niger Delta, more eerie.
We had just sung:
O God of all creation,
Grant this our one request,
Help us to build a nation
Where no man is oppressed,
And so with peace and plenty
Nigeria may be blessed.
Each of those lines put us on trial as speaker after speaker discussed the report that John Tucker Mugabi Sentamu, 75, a retired Anglican bishop, and life peer, who was Archbishop of York and Primate of England from 2005 to 2020, delivered its summary in a quivering voice that appeared propelled by anger at what human beings can reduce other human beings to profit from oil and gas.
The words tumbled off his tongue in a rapidity that set his Swahili accent in a perpetual battle for superiority with the English language much like the same perpetual disdain the oil companies and Nigerian governments have for any ameliorations of the living conditions of the peoples of the oil-producing areas.
At the international conference on environment, the report of the Bayelsa Oil and Environmental Commission presented in Abuja on Wednesday, showed the dark sides of oil and gas production glittering from a documentary in which darkness was so pitched that no lighting could brighten it a bit.
Waters, farm lands, residences, animals, people are mere soots dressed in layers of the darkness of mis-managed oil spillages. More oil wells, more explorations, more millions of barrels per day mean more meaningless life for inhabitants of the areas, the least of whose woes is that they could be kicked out of their lands once substantial crude is found under their feet.
Oil pollution in Bayelsa, Nigeria Delta
The report, _An Environmental Genocide, The human and environmental cost of Big Oil in Bayelsa, Nigeria_, is scientific, used verifiable data, and drew from hundreds of interviews, visits to sites of pollutions, and engagements with affected communities, many of which had lost every hope of their cries being heard. All stakeholders were represented.
Communities had for over six decades been devastated, cultures lost, and future generations are guaranteed diseased existence from their polluted environments. The curse of oil has cost them the present. Those who make it to the future would arrive their destination loaded with toxins that could lower the quality of their lives to the point that they could be a different specie of the human race.
While other children would inherit healthy genes from their forebears, children born in Bayelsa would be of indeterminate genes because of illnesses that their parents have, foods and water that are polluted beyond considerable safe levels and the worsening settings of where they would be born.
Some diseases found in the Niger Delta are new, local to the areas, unknown or where they are known, the improvised peoples of the areas cannot afford the medications and treatments they need.
Central to these pollutions is oil spillage that the oil companies blame on sabotage, their way of blaming youths of the region for the spills. The report’s findings do not support this position.
“Analyses suggest that Nigeria’s pipelines are 565 times more likely to spring a leak per 1,000 kilometres than those in the EU,” says the report. About 21,000 kilometres of these pipelines ring the Niger Delta, taking products from over 5,000 oil wells to export terminals and refineries.
Oil pollution in Bayelsa, Nigeria
Efforts to harness the travials of Bayelsa and the surrounding States into a scientific report that could be used in solving the problems that oil exploration has imposed on the peoples and environment of the Niger Delta, especially Bayelsa, were activated in 2019 by Governor Seriake Dickson who instituted the Sentamu Commisdion and received its interim report in 2020 before he left office. “I know that by 2021/2022 they submitted their final report which was presented in London in the House of Lords. I was delighted that they came to make a presentation of the final copy to the State, which has formally adopted it at the State Executive Council,” Dickson, now a Senator, and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Ecology, said at the event which he also chaired.
The completion of the report is a milestone, a lot of work still has to be done, Dickson said. “I call on all the Governors of oil-producing States, and the people of the Niger Delta generally, to rally round and use this report as a basis for our quest for a safer environment. All of us must rise up for Bayelsa and the Niger Delta and fight against environmental terrorism, which the Commission has clearly found to be a genocide,” Dickson said.
The report is unrelenting in its case against the oil companies and the slackness of the regulatory agencies. “A study conducted on pipelines in six States in the Niger Delta found that more than 70% of the pipelines were over 20 years old and over 40% were more than 30 years old with much of the infrastructure suffering from mechanical failures due to poor construction and maintenance,” according to the report.
More frightening pictures emerge as we peep through the darkness of oil production, the Nigerian version.
King Bubaraye Dakolo, Chairman, Bayelsa Traditional Rulers Council, was illustrative with his sketching of the destructions that oil exploration cause. “You can call me the living dead,” he said, using data from the report on the levels of toxins found in tests conducted on the inhabitants of the areas. They were horrifying data.
“Overwhelming tide of oil contamination and associated activities such as dredging, mangrove and swamp forest clearance, and artisanal refining has turned the Niger Delta – home to some of the planet’s largest mangrove and freshwater swamps, forests, and Africa’s largest wetlands – into one of the most polluted places on Earth. Bayelsa is one of the States most affected within the Niger Delta,”the report lamented.
“Since 2006, oil produced in Bayelsa generated over US $150 billion for the Federal Government and billions for the international oil companies that operate its wells,” said the report.
There is no evidence yet that a cent is kept anywhere for the $12 billion that the report said would be required to clear the pollution.
Governments are occupied with squeezing more oil and gas out of the areas than fix the damage to people and places. Nobody is being held responsible for the future of the people.
“Oil producers are already beginning to divest themselves of their onshore assets to evade potential liability for historic pollution. There is an urgent need for action now,” the report warns.
Dreary as the devastations of oil are, the most commanding news item was Honourable Alex Ikwechegh, of the House of Representatives, slapping his way to prominence by brutalising a taxi driver whose major or general offence was failure to realise that he was before Ikwechegh, who was so majestic that he wondered if people knew who he was, and that he was magical with his abilities to cause people to disappear.
Ikwechegh too is a subscriber to a “nation where no man is oppressed”.
Then Nyesom Wike talks down on residents of the Federal Capital Territory, calls them names, and nobody calls Wike to order. He takes his imperious bearings to Rivers State, sustaining different manners of lawlessness there. He too swore to the Constitution and attends events where the national anthem reminds him of our aspirations to “a nation where no man is oppressed”.
Fuel increases, continued brutality by security agencies, and the dedicated manhunt for Bobrisky all slap us, oppress us, and enlist us among the living dead.
As our governments, National Assembly, and all those who can do something about the Niger Delta, which they live off, turn blind eyes to the plight of the region, we should understand more, why they do nothing about the rest of us.
Can’t we just agree that we are building a nation where oppression is a national value?
Finally…
THOSE street beggars, some of them minors, accused of terrorism, and planning to change President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s government illegally, should be released and compensated. There must be limits to ridiculousness.
ISIGUZO is a major commentator on minor issues
![[OPINION] America’s 2024 Presidential Election : Trump, the man to beat - Bisi Olawunmi](/media/k2/items/cache/15d0f379dacf5734fbf3423861223921_S.jpg)
With a few days to the November 5, 2024 U.S. presidential election, the tempo of the campaign has reached fever pitch, with the two candidates, Vice-President Kamala Harris ( Democrat ) and former president, Donald Trump (Republican) in a dead run to the finish line. The final national New York Times/Siena poll, published on 25 October 2024, had the two candidates deadlocked at 48% to 48% for the popular vote. Aggregate of national polls also project the election as neck-to-neck , with the two candidates tied at 48%, making it a cliff-hanger.
Both candidates have carried the electoral battle to the battleground states which oscillate in their voting pattern between the two parties, states whose votes can swing the election either way. About 10 states are considered swing states , with seven of them – Michigan 15, Wisconsin 10, Pennsylvania 19, Georgia 16, North Carolina 16, Nevada 6, and Arizona 11, with a total of 91 electoral college votes – being of focal attention in this race. In 2008, former President Barrack Obama won in eight of the states, Trump took Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania in 2016 to clinch the presidency while in the 2020 election, Biden not only took back the three states but also wrestled Arizona and Georgia from Trump, on his way to The White House.
Two major issues have dominated the 2024 presidential election campaign , the economy and immigration with issues of abortion, Lesbian-Gay-Bisexual-Transgender (LGBT) and foreign policy taking second place. The economy , under the Biden/Harris administration had experienced high inflation rate and consequent higher cost of living felt by all. Trump highlights the improved economy under his administration before the advent of COVID-19, the global pandemic that ravaged the world economy. Trump plans to use tariff on imports to raise revenue and as well protect local industries. Harris is for taxing the rich to generate revenue but laissez faire on unbridled imports, in spite of its consequent drag on the U.S. economy, a manifestation of Democrats Father Christmas disposition to making America a liberal market for imports.
On immigration, while Trump is not opposed to legal migration, he pledges to stop the tidal wave of illegal immigrants from south America on its southern border and to deport illegal immigrants. According to him, illegal immigrants are polluting American way of life and taking the jobs of Americans. Some dub this a racist agenda but it resonates well with Trump constituency. Democrats are liberal on immigration and not committed to forceful removal of illegal immigrants, a stand that earns Democrats 65 % of Latino votes in southern U.S. States .
The issues of abortion and LGBT are not just election issues but are matters which have deeply polarized America to the extent that die hard conservatives have fire-bombed abortion clinics and launched murderous attacks on gay and lesbian gatherings. Trump is opposed to LGBT and an indiscriminate, free for all abortion. Democrats, and particularly Kamala Harris, celebrate LGBTs with Harris insisting they should be allowed to flaunt their sexual preferences !! She is a disciple of Barrack Obama, the evangelist for Gays and Lesbians, who had threatened African countries which enacted anti-Gay laws with sanctions !!! The audacity of it all. The Democratic candidate’s vocal stand on LGBT has its cost in votes.
Foreign policy may be a muted election issue but it had in recent times crept into American public consciousness with Israel’s genocidal war against Hamas in Gaza for the Palestinian group’s October 7, 2023 incursion into Israel which left about 1200 Israelis dead and over 200 abducted and being held hostage. However, Israeli military killing over 40,000 Palestinians in its one year battle with Hamas, has prompted unprecedented outrage and demonstrations across America, especially on university campuses, against Israel and the Biden/Harris administration for its refusal to pressure Israel to agree to a ceasefire. Vice President Harris risks loss of votes in this regard , particularly in the crucial swing state of Michigan with an estimated 200,000 Arab-American population. On Europe, while Trump regards the Russia-Ukraine war as avoidable and pledged to bring it to resolution if elected, the Biden/Harris government is inclined to perpetuating the war, recently pledging additional $20 billion military package to embattled President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. This runs counter to emergent American mood against avoidable war and its cost to American tax payers. The anti-war voters will be a loss to Harris. These seemingly little losses of votes for Kamala can become significant in tight election contests where razor-thin victory vote margins can win bountiful electoral votes. For instance, in the 2008 presidential election between senator John McCain ( Republican ) and senator Barrack Obama ( Democrat ) McCain narrowly won Arizona state with just 3, 903 votes out 2,887,725 votes cast in that election !
TRUMP AND UPSURGE IN VOTER TURNOUT. Trump’s foray into presidential election contest in 2016 as an unconventional outsider, as against the deodorized correctness of professional politicians, literally took the political Establishment by storm, and electrifying the electorate. In the 2016 presidential election between Trump and former U.S. Secretary of State , Hillary Clinton, voter turnout was 136,787,187 ( 59.2%) as against 129,139,997 ( 58.0%) in 2012 , an increase of 7.6 million voters. By the 2020 election that pitted President Trump against former Vice President Joe Biden, the stakes got higher and so was the surge in voter turnout, with 158,429,631 voters ( 66.8%) casting their ballot , an increase of a record 21.6 million voters over the 2016 turnout ! The turnout promises to be higher again in 2024.
THE BIG BUCKS FACTOR . Top billionaires, Bill Gates, Warren Buffett and Elon Musk have waded into the presidential contest. Gates and Buffett were one time the richest men in the world while Musk is the current richest man in the world. Bill Gates donated $50 million to a pro- Harris non profit organisation while Buffett who had endorsed Presidents Barrack Obama and Joe Biden has decided this time around not to endorse any candidate, which, by inference, meant non support for Kamala Harris. On his part, Musk has not only donated $75 million in support of a Political Action Committee (PAC) engaged in getting out the vote for Trump, particularly in the swing states, he has been actively engaged in political election campaigns with the Republican candidate.
HARRIS LOSES MAJOR MEDIA ENDORSEMENTS. Contrary to what has become a contentious media practice of endorsing presidential candidates, owners of major newspapers have stopped planned endorsements of Harris in this election cycle. These newspapers include The Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, USA Today, America’s largest newspaper chain, The Chicago Tribune and Minnesota Star Tribune. Gannett, owners of USA Today, in announcing the stepping down of Harris endorsement stated : “ our public service is to provide readers with facts that matter and the trusted information they need to make informed decisions”. For decades, American media had brazenly violated media code of ethics which demands fairness, accuracy and non partisanship in media content.
PROGNOSIS . Kamala Harris brought sunshine charm, infectious laughter and irrepressible energy into the 2024 American presidential election campaigns, that almost rattled Trump., and which gave her an initial momentum. However, this momentum has since waned. That former President Obama had to complain that Black American men are not enthusiastic enough about Harris’s presidential bid is indicative that she may not get the huge Black American block vote of 87% given to Democratic presidential candidate Biden in the 2020 election. Her ardent advocacy for gays and lesbians will be another significant vote loss. During the campaign, Harris could not defend the administration’s performance record on the economy, but would rather launch into what she would do, if elected. So, her biggest albatross is a national economy that is in the doldrums and which remains a big concern for the electorate who will be inclined to vote for a change in government for a new economic direction. The omens are, therefore, dicey for Kamala Harris.
As for Trump, he faces a formidable battle in the gang up of America’s Political Establishment - Democrats and Republicans – against his re-election. Former Republican Vice President, Dick Cheney, and his daughter, former Congress woman, Liz Cheney, lead the anti-Trump posse. Trump’s abrasive, and perceived crude manner will alienate votes. Ultimately, though, the parlous state of an inflation-wracked economy under the Biden/Harris administration and a sustained, aggressive grassroots get-out-the-vote mobilization have the prospect of tilting the presidential election outcome in Trump’s favour. This makes Trump the man to beat.
Dr. Bisi Olawunmi, a Senior Lecturer, Department of Mass Communication, Adeleke University, Ede, is former Washington Correspondent of the News Agency of Nigeria ( NAN) and Fellow, Nigerian Guild of Editors ( FNGE ) Email : olawunmibisi@yahoo.com Phone : 0803364 7571.
More...
![[OPINION] Professor Godini Gabriel Darah’s crab mentality - Bolanle Bolawole](/media/k2/items/cache/3e27e5f26984d2c6e5528369897c106e_XS.jpg)
Professor Godini Gabriel Darah (GG Darah or simply “Comrade”, as we fondly called him) was one of our fire-spitting Marxist lecturers and staff advisers at the then University of Ife (now Obafemi Awolowo University), Ile-Ife aka “Great Ife”. Respect, sir! But how “great” is “Great Ife” today when it does not even rank among the top 10 universities in the country? It seemeth the university authorities have been sleeping and snoring, living in past glory! OAU has repeatedly failed, year-in, year-out, to measure up among the country’s first-tier universities. What’s the matter is, however, a topic for another day!
Comrade Darah’s “Tinubu’s regionalism gamble” is my concern here today. In it, the professor of Oral Literature and Folklore who hails from Delta State displayed the crab mentality that is as intriguing as it is unfortunate. If you put a hundred snails in a container, you will need a strong lid over the container with another heavy metal or stone on top to still find the snails in place the next day. But put a hundred crabs in the same container and leave the top open (with no cover whatsoever), you will find all the crabs intact the next day without any fuss! As one tries to make an escape, the others pull it back! Crabs are a typical demonstration of the “Pull Him Down” syndrome!
Maybe I should first let you read Professor Darah; when we return, we shall make a few comments. Darah wrote: "Pandef, Pandef, beware of false prophets masquerading in electronic garments. There is sour mutilation of historical facts in the narrative on 'How Tinubu Is Reversing The Damage Ironsi Did To Nigeria' attributed to Reno Omokri.
"During British colonial rule, Regions were created in 1939 and their elected governments were in office from 1951. The Regions were three in number: Eastern, Northern, and Western. There was gross inequality and injustice in the regional system. For example, the territory of the Northern Region was larger than the combined territory of the Eastern and Western Regions.
"This lopsidedness triggered agitations for more political restructuring. Furthermore, hundreds of minority groups were lumped with more populous and hegemonic ethnic groups. The situation in the Northern Region was more bizarre as about 300 ethnic groups were put under the political yoke of the Fulani-controlled Islamic Sokoto Caliphate.
"From the 1940s agitations for more regions or states rattled the colonial regime. The agitation of the oppressed minority groups for autonomy dovetailed into armed uprisings in the Benue-Plateau areas, leading to federal armed campaigns to quell them. At the 1957-58 constitutional conferences in Lagos and London, the demand for the creation of states caused stalemates.
"The British responded by setting up Henry Willink’s commission on the fears of minorities and how to allay them. The commission toured all of Nigeria and received bundles of memoranda from freedom-seeking minorities. The commission’s report did not support creation of new administrative units with the excuse that doing so could derail the march to Nigeria’s independence scheduled for 1960.
"But the agitations continued unabated after independence, culminating in the creation, by plebiscite, of the Midwest in 1963. The emergence of the fourth Region fired more insurgent demands. The military governments from 1966 inherited this unresolved problem. Gen Aguiyi Ironsi’s quibbling approach fuelled more intense agitation. Gen Yakubu Gowon, from the ‘ulltra-minority’ Ngas ethnicity in Plateau province, could not ignore the matter. Thus, on May 27, 1967, he created 12 states, six each in the northern and southern halves of the country...
"Therefore, from 1967, the idiom of federalism shifted from regions to states. There are now 36 states. The 2014 National Confab recommended 18 more in furtherance of a more balanced federal system for the 389 ethnic nationalities in Nigeria. Perhaps, with the exception of the Igbo and Yoruba separatist extremists, the option of returning to regionalism is not on the agenda of the other 387 ethnic nationalities.
"Therefore, President Tinubu is swimming against a raging historical flood with his “panel-beater” method of “smuggling” the issue of regional governance into the national political discourse. His efforts are likely to end up in fiasco because the existing States will not meekly accept the option of “impeachment” and unconstitutional replacement which President Tinubu’s regional gamble portents”. That's GG Sarah's clarion call or battle cry addressed to PANDEF (Pan Niger Delta Forum), which is like the AFENIFERE, OHANEZE, NORTHERN ELDERS FORUM, etc.
It is true there is no standard objectivity since “objectivity” is moderated by the individual’s subjectivity. This was writ large in Professor Darah’s “Tinubu’s regionalism gamble”. The summary is that he does not want a return to regionalism. He is okay with the present 36-State structure that gives the advantage to the North - 19 in the North and 17 in the South. If more States are created “in furtherance of a more balanced federal system for the 389 ethnic nationalities in Nigeria”, Prof. may not object, the clamour that we scale down the cost of governance notwithstanding!
Funke Egbemode once aptly referred to the States as “begging bowls” that throng Abuja monthly for allocations from the Federation Account. Many of the States as presently constituted are not financially viable. The weight of the cost of governance is killing. Part of the argument - “insurgent demands” to Darah! - for regionalism is not fuelled by those Prof. called “separatist extremists” but by people who feel the country as a whole - all the four Regions - made better progress under the regional system of government in the First Republic and that a return to regionalism would reduce the cost of governance, cut wastages and accelerate the pace of development all over the country.
There is, therefore, no “sour mutilation of historical facts” in the statement that the four Regions made landmark progress under the regional arrangement of the First Republic. That arrangement was also more “federal” than the present military-imposed 36-State structure that makes a mockery of federalism. Whereas Prof. used regions and states interchangeably, there were no states in Nigeria before the military take-over of 1966; all we knew were regions. And regions and states are not the same thing in the Nigerian context at least.
Now, Prof. was right when he said, “During British colonial rule, Regions were created in 1939 and their elected governments were in office from 1951. The Regions were three in number: Eastern, Northern, and Western. There was gross inequality and injustice in the regional system. For example, the territory of the Northern Region was larger than the combined territory of the Eastern and Western Regions. This lopsidedness triggered agitations for more political restructuring. Furthermore, hundreds of minority groups were lumped with more populous and hegemonic ethnic groups. The situation in the Northern Region was more bizarre as about 300 ethnic groups were put under the political yoke of the Fulani-controlled Islamic Sokoto Caliphate. From the 1940s agitations for more regions or states rattled the colonial regime. The agitation of the oppressed minority groups for autonomy dovetailed into armed uprisings in the Benue-Plateau areas, leading to federal armed campaigns to quell them”.
The “gross inequality and injustice” Darah spoke about were not in regionalism as a system but in the way it was skewed to favour some at the detriment of others. And when the “agitations” this engendered were to be addressed by the coalition government of Nnamdi Azikiwe and Tafawa Balewa in 1963, a new region was neither created out of the Northern Region where there had been armed uprisings nor from the Eastern Region where the Ijaws were becoming restive (witness Isaac Adaka Boro's short-lived revolution that followed); but it was from the relatively more peaceful Western Region that the Mid-west, where Darah hails from, was excised simply to weaken the West and prepare it for take-over by opposition forces, which eventually led to political upheavals in that region and the collapse of the First Republic.
Prof. simply said the Midwest Region was created “by plebiscite” in 1963; why was there no such plebiscite in the two other regions - the North and East - “in furtherance of a more balanced federal system for the 389 ethnic nationalities in Nigeria”? Darah conveniently side-stepped the fact that the creation of the Mid-west Region was, more than anything else, a North/East conspiracy to weaken the Southwest and marginalize the Yoruba in the politics of the First Republic.
The creation of 12 states on May 27, 1967 by the then military Head of State, Yakubu Gowon, was portrayed by Prof. as a further attempt to address the agitations for a more balanced federal system; also conveniently ignoring the fact that it was a deft military strategy to cut the ground from under the feet of “rebel leader” Emeka Odumegwu Ojukwu and his secessionist agenda, which declaration came three days later on May 30, 1967.
So enamoured is Prof. with state creation that he gloated that “therefore, from 1967, the idiom of federalism shifted from regions to states…” It is not the “idioms of federalism” that shifted, it is federalism itself that gave way to military control and command structure where orders are rammed down the throat of everyone from an omnibus, omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent Centre. What we operate at the moment is not federalism. Examples of federal states are there all over the world for us to compare and contrast with the caricature and contraption that we have here.
Darah said only the Igbo and Yoruba “separatist extremists” still savour the option of returning the country to regionalism while the other 387 nationalities are content with their “begging bowl” status as States. He needs to tell us where and when he conducted his survey or opinion poll! No matter how much we may camouflage or pretend, the words that we wield have a way of creating an expressway into our inner recesses. So the Igbo and Yoruba agitators are not “nationalists” or “freedom fighters”! They are not even ordinary “separatists” but “separatist extremists”! Call them “separatist terrorists” if that suits you better!
I am sure Darah himself qualified as an “extremist” in his days at Ife, if I remember correctly! Times and tides have changed, though! Comrade’s language today is that of the Establishment. However, there is nothing wrong in being an extremist or separatist. History is replete with extremists who have changed the course of history. Darah taught his students some of those extremists at Ife. Chairman Mao, Fidel Castro, Che Guevara, Karl Marx, Engels, Lenin, Cabral and a host of others. For decades, Nelson Mandela and his comrades were branded as extremists and terrorists. So also were Samora Machel, Robert Mugabe and a host of others. To be decorated with the badge of extremism like these our illustrious forebears is, therefore, an honour and not a reproach.
The crab mentality demonstrated by Darah is prevalent among the country’s ethnic minorities. Nigeria appears as their only sure bet. Can they stand or weather it alone? Do they have all it takes? What replaces for them the nebulous prestige of coming from the “Giant of Africa”? So, any ethnic group that exudes the confidence to run solo must be shot down. Whereas that is understandable, it is not a solution. Self-determination is a right recognised by the UN charter. Some have gone ahead. Others will surely follow. No crab will hold the Igbo and Yoruba down forever!
![[OPINION] Sharia Gambit And Representatives' Welcome Opposition - IfeanyiChukwu Afuba](/media/k2/items/cache/5255dcf30c776ec4beb8840ad53e72ee_XS.jpg?t=20241103_074809)
Given the failure of governance so far in the Nigerian State, public analysts are wont to be seen as anti - government. In the circumstance, it's important that once - in - a - while little steps of sanity in the system are acknowledged and encouraged. We therefore applaud the House of Representatives for it's rejection, last week, of an attempt to dismantle the religious neutrality of Nigeria's Constitution.
On Thursday, October 24, the media reported that a member of the House of Representatives, Hon Aliyu Misau from Bauchi State introduced a constitutional amendment bill in the House seeking to elevate Islamic law in the Constitution. The bill sought to alter Sections 24, 262, 277 and 288 of the 1999 Constitution by deleting the qualification "personal" to all references to Islamic law. Explaining the need for broader recognition of Islamic legal system, Misau argued that the "Constitution did not envisage the dynamism and development that may come into the country" citing the advent of Jaiz Bank as Islamic financial institution, in 2003. He therefore called for accommodation of Islamic commercial law and Islamic international law. He was supported by Abdul Hakeem Ado (Kano State), Saidu Abdullahi (Niger State), and Ahmed Satomi (Borno State).
Leading the front against the bill were Hon Solomon Bob (Rivers State) Bamidele Salam (Osun State), Jonathan Gaza (Nasarawa State), Ademorin Kuye (Lagos State) and Awaji - Inombek Abiante (Rivers State). Hon Bamidele Salam's caution on the secular status of the Nigerian State captured the thrust of opposition to the bill. Mercifully, the vexatious bill was thrown out after the first reading in a voice vote verdict.
The lawmakers who defended the multi religious character of the Nigerian State deserve commendation. They are to be applauded for standing up for the equality of religious faiths before the law. Section 10 of the 1999 Constitution states that the "government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as State religion. By the letters and spirit of Section 10 of the Constitution, internal religious policies should not intrude in the common sphere of government and administration. No religion should be accorded such recognition as to dominate the public estate. And no religion should be favoured or elevated by singling it out for special treatment.
In 2008, the Anglican Diocese of Awka filed application with the National Universities Commission for registration of Saint Paul University, Awka. The NUC approved the name of the institution as Paul University, pointing out that it's guidelines prohibits the use of religious markers in Nigeria's university system. To date, many Church - sponsored universities suffer the identity loss brought about by this policy of anonymity. And yet, Christianity is a way of life for about half of Nigeria's population. If Christian identity cannot be established in the name of universities and religious profession is also deliberately omitted in Nigeria's census forms, on what superior grounds can extension of the Islamic legal system in the Constitution be founded?
I am impressed by the alertness of Hon Bob Solomon and his group. They must have seen through the veil with which the proposed amendment bill was draped. It's difficult to believe that in the emergency situation Nigeria's economic woes have forced on majority of the population, any serious - minded legislator will consider advocacy for personal religious interests on floor of the National Assembly, time well spent. How could anyone, of all the suffocating hardships Nigerians are contending with, be concerned with merely removing the word "personal" from constitutional references to Islamic law? Ordinarily, no one would, except where there's a deeper mix. And in the instant matter, there is.
Hon Aliyu Misau knows that some of us know where his eyes are set. The lawmakers who objected to his bill know the end game of Misau's harmless - looking bill, even if for political correctness, they chose not to specifically pronounce on it. Perhaps, more importantly, the proponents of the bill consider that they cannot accomplish their mission in one fell swoop. It's a long - term project. Because of the difficulties involved, the route of achieving one item at a time is also being explored. The agenda of Sharia has been on for a long time. And efforts at it will obviously continue. It takes no prescience to predict that this rejected bill will be represented in the National Assembly in the foreseeable future with slight modifications.
I doubt if there are any other issues that have generated as much divisiveness in the Nigerian polity as the quest for introduction of Sharia. This singular subject produced stalemates at the 1978, 1989 and 1994 constitutional conferences. At each juncture, it took the dictatorial power of military rule to force it's constitutional tolerance. But for the imposition of the military, Sharia would not have a mention at all in our Constitution. Sadly, since the collapse of the First Republic, we have not had a people's Constitution, with wide input by civil society; subsequently ratified in a referendum.
In 1986, Nigerians were jolted with news of the country's sudden membership of Organisation of Islamic Countries, as the body was then called. Notwithstanding that Nigeria was under military rule at the time, the development provoked outrage among non - Muslim population. The sense of betrayal generated by the secret admission heightened religious consciousness to the extent that top government positions were subsequently subjected to data analysis of their occupants' religion. Asked about the decision to join OIC at a public event at the time, then Chief of General Staff, Ebitu Ukiwe, had turned to the Chief of Air Staff, Ibrahim Alfa, seated next to him as he shrugged off the responsibility: "Was there any time we discussed the OIC at the SMC?" he asked. Many believed this was one of the reasons for Ukiwe's unceremonious removal as CGS.
Recently, we witnessed pitched battles in some States where Muslim students were insisting on wearing hijab in Christian - based secondary schools. The 2023 presidential election further showed how deep religious sensibilities run in Nigeria. APC's muslim - muslim ticket was viewed as disregard for Nigeria's Christian community. The perceived humiliation had the effect of mobilising support for Labour Party's Peter Obi as a counter force to religious marginalisation. It's also instructive that the candidates won majorly in areas associated with their religions.
These should be sobering reality for those contemplating religious supremacy under whatever guise. It will not work. Aside the demand for equity, social stability and fair play, Sharia is not compatible with our common laws. The philosophies that underpin them are markedly different.
Afuba is Director, Public Administration Circle, Awka.
![[OPINION] Time to Reconsider Our Ties With Israel - Femi Fani-Kayode](/media/k2/items/cache/917277ff5313ec4fc5832960d57bbfbc_XS.jpg)
In an article titled "Is Nigeria fuelling Israel’s genocide against Palestinians?" which was published in Businessday on October 30th 2024, one Suraya Dadoo, who wrote in from South Africa, opened his contribution by quoting our Hon. Minister of Foreign Affairs, my friend and brother, Ambassador Yusuf Tuggar who he attributed the following words to.
“There is no justification for the carnage that is going on in Gaza… the complete disregard for the proportionality of force that is being meted out on innocent civilians. This carnage is completely out of hand and totally unacceptable. There is no way to explain the double standards; it has to stop”.
He went further by quoting our nation's number two citizen, Vice President Kashim Shettima's words at the UN General Assembly (UNGA) in September where he said the following.
“Justice is antithetical to revenge… Freedom is an inalienable right and a natural entitlement that cannot be denied to any person. The Palestinian people deserve their independence.”
Both the Minister and the Vice President have done us proud with their courageous words and bold stand and it is a reflection of the fact that the Tinubu administration represents the thinking and has expressed the sentiments of the overwhelming majority of Nigerians and have opted to tread the right path when it comes to the tragic events in Gaza and the pitiful plight of the Palestinian people.
Dadoo went further by writing the following,
"The Nigerian government has consistently condemned Israel’s military occupation of Palestine and has been particularly outspoken against Israel since October 7. Historically, Nigeria has been a strong supporter of the Palestinian struggle for liberation, and Nigeria was central in efforts to ensure that Israel was not granted observer status at the African Union (AU). According to sources who were at the October 2021 meeting of the AU executive council attended by Africa’s foreign ministers in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, Nigeria’s then Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama took the lead in objecting to Israel’s accreditation and urged other member states to do the same".
Again this is comforting but he follows it by getting to the crux of his essay and the heart of the matter by dropping the following clanger. He wrote, "While the Nigerian government has strongly condemned Israel’s military onslaught on Gaza it also stands accused of fuelling the Israeli war machine that had already killed, at the time of writing, more than 40,000 Palestinians through direct violence and bombing".
To substantiate his point he wrote, "According to a recently released report titled “Behind the Barrel: New Insights into the Countries and Companies Behind Israel’s Fuel Supply,” Nigeria accounts for 9 percent of the total crude oil supplied to Israel between October 21, 2023, and July 12, 2024. Researchers analysed satellite imagery, ship positions, shipping logs, commodity trade flows, information from port authorities, and financial and media reports to track 65 oil and fuel shipments to Israel in that period".
He concludes by alleging that, "Over 133 kilotons of Nigerian crude were delivered to Israel from Chevron, Eni, Exxon, Shell, and TotalEnergies. Gabonese crude accounted for 22 percent, and the Republic of the Congo supplied 6 percent, but it is Nigeria’s contribution that has raised eyebrows given the country’s vocal criticism of Israel".
Dodoo's allegation, if proven to be true, is deeply troubling and needs to be taken very seriously indeed lest we leave ourselves open to his grave charge of complicity in the genocide that is being unleashed on Gaza by the Zionists.
The matter can be resolved by simply banning all crude oil shipments from Nigeria to Israel.
I hereby call on our President, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to do precisely that and take an even stronger stance against the Zionists by banning all arms purchases from them and terminating any military and/or intelligence advice or services that the Israelis are offering or providing us with.
If he could find the courage to implement a number of bold and much needed fiscal, economic and constitutional reforms and policies such as the removal of the oil subsidy, the floating of the naira, the establishment of autonomy for the local government areas, the implementation of the students loan fund, the numerous tax reforms and most important of all the refusal to go to war against Niger Republic despite the enormous pressure that the western powers, led by France and the United States of America, put on him to do so earlier this year, he can certainly muster same to kick the Zionists out of Nigeria, nullify their pervasive influence in our country and sub-region and sever all trade, economic and diplomatic ties and relations with them.
General Yakubu Gowon, our reverred former Head of State, did this in 1973 when he was in power and as Chairman of the then OAU (AU) in order to punish the Jewish State for its attack on the Palestinians during the Yom Kippur War.
For a number of years before then and specifically during our three year civil war Gowon had viewed Israel with much distrust and suspicion given the covert support she gave to the Biafran secessionists and her complicity in the attempt to dismember and break up our beloved country.
However the straw did not break the camels back until 1973 after which the final break took place and diplomatic relations between our two countries were not restored until September 1992 by the then Head of State General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida.
I am constrained to say that now is the time to break diplomatic ties with Israel again.
This is the right and proper thing to do in the light of their insatiable compulsion and appetite for mass murder, ethnic cleansing, crimes against humanity, war crimes and genocide and given their insane and psychotic disposition for murdering helpless and defenceless women and children and for killing babies.
Again this is the right and proper thing to do given the fact that they have not only illegally occupied the land of the Palestinian people for over 76 years and slaughtered and incarcerated millions of them but they have also unleashed what can best be described as the second holocaust against them over the last one year killing over 60,000 in Gaza alone and thousands more in the West Bank, Lebanon and Syria!
If the world could go to war with Nazi Germany in 1936 as a consequence of the first holocaust every civilised nation ought to, at the very least, be able to break diplomatic ties with Zionist Israel as a consequence of the second.
Morality, decency and justice demands no less and those nations that insist on applauding the atrocities of the Jewish state and selling weapons of mass destruction to her are not only complicit in her war crimes but are also from the pit of hell and in the service of shaitan.
The Holy Bible says there can be no fellowship between light and darkness. It says we must either choose God or Belial.
It also compels us to resist evil and to fight for the weak, the poor, the vulnerable and the oppressed.
The Holy Koran does the same and is emphatic on the importance of justice for all and support for the less privileged and the vulnerable.
Nigeria can and must NEVER be seen to be complicit in the bestial barbarity that is going on in Gaza or to have relations with the beasts that have relentlessly unleashed it.
Though we have many challenges, ours is a nation of decent, God-fearing, just and right-thinking people who have a long history of standing for the oppressed all over Africa and contributing to the efforts of numerous liberation struggles.
Let us prove to the world once again that that is who and what we are by openly and loudly challenging the barbarity, lunacy and thuggery of the State of Israel at the International Court of Justice, the International Criminal Court, the United Nations, the African Union and all other relevant fora and calling her out for her continuous violations of international law, her disdain for an international rules-based system and her racist, fascist and ethnocentric disposition.
Let us expose her contempt for humanity and human life, her total and complete adoption, espousal and implemention of apartheid as a fundamental principle and cardinal policy in her system of Government and her religious fanatacism and proselytising bigotry.
Let us vigorously and aggressively resist her hatred for Arabs and Africans, her appauling treatment of Christians and Muslims, her rejection of the two-state solution, her desire to ethnically cleanse, wipe out and totally eradicate and eliminate the Palestinian race, her intention to establish a 'Greater Israel' whose borders would stretch from Egypt to Iran and her heinous crimes and unspeakable atrocities in Gaza, the West Bank and Lebanon.
These are concrete and cogent steps that we as a people and nation can take to contribute our quota to the collective fight against the tyranny and oppression of the Zionists and I believe that we are still big and strong enough to take them.
May God guide and protect us in this noble endeavour and may history and posterity be kind to us.
(Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, is the Sadaukin Shinkafi, a former Minister of Aviation and a former Minister of Culture and Tourism of Nigeria)
[OPINION] Feasting On Both Sides: Nyesom Wike's Dual Game And The Need For Political Consistency In Nigeria - Isaac Asabor
Admin![[OPINION] Feasting On Both Sides: Nyesom Wike's Dual Game And The Need For Political Consistency In Nigeria - Isaac Asabor](/media/k2/items/cache/7e1ef389e5f3d72f3ca08d7218cf6e01_XS.jpg)
In the world of Nigerian politics, party loyalty has often been considered an unspoken rule. When a prominent politician like Barrister Nyesom Wike, a stalwart of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), appears to be playing on both sides, straddling both PDP’s legacy and a prominent role within the All Progressives Congress (APC)-led government, the situation calls for scrutiny. For years, Wike championed the importance of party loyalty, decrying cross-party affiliations. Yet today, he occupies a ministerial position under the APC-led administration while maintaining roots within the PDP, casting serious doubts on his previously firm stance. This double standard not only reflects on Wike's political journey but also holds a mirror to broader issues within Nigeria’s political landscape.
Wike has never been shy about his views on political loyalty. In his years as governor and a leading figure within the PDP, he criticized politicians who switched allegiances for personal gain, asserting that politicians should stand by their parties regardless of the challenges. His speeches from past forums are a testament to his passion for maintaining party loyalty, wherein he argued that leaders should make decisions that align with their party’s vision and should not serve personal interests at the expense of integrity. This standpoint resonated with many Nigerians who saw him as a rare politician committed to a cause larger than himself.
However, Wike’s recent move to accept a ministerial position within an APC-led administration has left many Nigerians questioning his principles. By accepting this role while maintaining ties with the PDP, he seems to be abandoning his long-held position that politicians should be unwaveringly loyal to one party. Wike’s actions raise the question: Can politicians uphold the integrity of the parties they represent while actively serving the interests of another?
Wike’s dual allegiance has implications that extend far beyond his own career. In a political system where party lines should represent ideological and policy differences, such mixed signals from a high-profile figure only blur these distinctions, leaving Nigerian voters disillusioned. If a prominent political figure can alternate between affiliations so freely, it sends the message that the platforms, values, and promises of Nigeria’s political parties are secondary to individual advancement.
This practice further complicates the task of building a solid democratic framework in Nigeria, where parties should ideally be driven by consistent philosophies and principles. The fact that Wike has positioned himself as a member of both parties dilutes the essence of party loyalty and integrity. How can voters believe in a political system when even senior leaders, who once advocated for party loyalty, freely shift alliances without explanation?
To extend the football analogy: In a real-world sports team, loyalty is highly valued because it binds players to a collective purpose, instilling in them a sense of shared identity. Imagine if Lionel Messi donned the jersey of both Barcelona and PSG on the same match day. Such a spectacle would not only disorient fans but erode the competitive spirit of the game. Wike’s recent moves similarly disorient the political “fans”, the Nigerian electorate, who deserve leaders who represent clear, consistent values.
Wike’s stance exposes a concerning double standard. Over the years, he has castigated others for crossing party lines, creating a public image of steadfast loyalty. This reputation, however, is now at odds with his current political choices. While some may argue that his decision to accept the ministerial role in the APC government is a strategic move to secure influence for his home state, this explanation still conflicts with his earlier advocacy. If anything, his decision highlights an element of political expediency that belies his past image.
In a democracy, politicians should be held to account for their words and actions, and consistency is a core aspect of public trust. A shift in allegiance, especially at the ministerial level, should come with a clear rationale to the public that previously supported Wike on the basis of his strong words on loyalty. Leaders cannot build credibility if they abandon their principles when it is convenient. For Nigerian democracy to flourish, the actions of political leaders should align with their stated beliefs, lest the public begin to view all political commitments as hollow.
Wike’s move contributes to the erosion of distinct party identities, which has plagued Nigerian politics for years. In countries with mature democracies, political parties are defined by core values and policies. Members of these parties are expected to embody and promote these ideals consistently. The Nigerian experience, however, is one where ideology often takes a backseat to personal gain. Party switches are commonplace, and alliances shift based on who is in power rather than on shared beliefs or goals.
By playing both sides, Wike risks furthering the perception that Nigeria’s political parties are little more than vehicles for power. This is detrimental to the entire democratic structure. Without clear party distinctions, voters are left with blurred choices and a weakened ability to hold leaders accountable. Wike’s position exemplifies this problem, as he appears to wear the “jerseys” of both parties, diluting the meaning of each and making it harder for the public to place their trust in either.
For Nigerian democracy to progress, its leaders must embrace ideological clarity and respect the principles they claim to uphold. Leaders like Wike, who once advocated for steadfast loyalty, should serve as role models. When politicians demonstrate consistency, voters can make informed choices based on clear differences in policy and philosophy. If Wike is no longer aligned with the PDP’s vision, he should state as much openly and embrace his new political path fully.
The credibility of Nigeria’s political system rests on the transparency and integrity of its leaders. By openly affiliating with both parties, Wike sets a dangerous precedent, one that suggests party allegiance is only necessary until a more beneficial offer comes along. Such a trend threatens to undermine voter confidence, especially among young Nigerians, who may see this as further evidence of a broken system.
Wike’s recent political choices bring to light the urgent need for Nigerian politicians to choose a side and stick with it. His dual loyalty raises questions about the nature of political commitment in Nigeria, and if leaders like him can shift allegiances without consequence, it sets a damaging example for others to follow.
As Nigerian politics continues to evolve, the electorate deserves leaders who stand by their convictions, even when it is inconvenient. If political parties are to serve their purpose as vehicles of representation and vision, their members must abide by the commitments they make. Otherwise, the Nigerian people are left with parties that are only as loyal as their members’ personal interests allow.
Just as in a football game, where a player’s jersey symbolizes their team loyalty, Wike must remember the significance of his political “jersey.” For the sake of Nigerian democracy, he should embrace one party and give it his full allegiance, anything less is a betrayal of the values he once championed.