It’s been over three weeks since the military junta led by General Abdourahamane Tchiani sacked the administration of democratically elected President Mohamed Bazoum of Niger Republic – our next door neighbor – on July 26. During the period, leaders and heads of governments in the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have held two extra-ordinary summits in Abuja to agree on what to do next, especially defending democracy in the sub-region.

Bazoum and his family have been under house arrest since the Presidential Guard launched the coup. No one is sure of Bazoum’s fate but it has been reported that he is held under inhumane conditions. Bazoum’s daughter, Zazia, 34, who was on holiday in France when her father was overthrown, told The Guardian of London that electricity supply to the presidential residence was cut off. They also don’t have clean water, and their gas oven is running out of fuel, she said.

If anything, the military junta is likely to infringe on Bazoum’s human rights. For the avoidance of doubt, military coups in the region have not helped anyone; instead, they are a bloody waste of time and plundering of resources. They inflict more pain on the people, retard their progress and increase multi-dimensional poverty.

This explains why the international community condemned the coup in Niger. ECOWAS, the United States, the European Union, the UN and the Africa Union have all spoken with one voice: this coup is unacceptable.

But observers are not surprised neither are they impressed that Mali, Burkina Faso and Guinea declared support for the Nigerien junta – they are birds of the same feather. The Interim President of Mali, Colonel Assimi Goita, has been in charge since the night of May 24, 2021. Elections that were supposed to hold last year were suspended by Goita. Who can challenge the military strongman after announcing that the transition to democracy will be delayed for two years?

In the case of Burkina Faso, the story is not different. On September 30, 2022, a coup d’état that removed Interim President Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba took place, and he was replaced by Captain Ibrahim Traore as the new interim leader. Damiba who was also the beneficiary of a military takeover eight months earlier, was sacked over his alleged inability to deal with the “security situation” in the country.

President Alpha Conde of Guinea was captured in the capital Conakry by the country’s armed forces in a military coup on September 5, 2021. Special Forces commander, Mamady Doumbouya, released a broadcast on television announcing the dissolution of the constitution and government.

Even in Sierra Leone, a coup attempt was foiled recently. If we look at the evolving playbook of instability and military takeovers in the West African sub-region, Chad will not be exempted for its own self-inflicted wounds ranging from repression of dissent, food insecurity, humanitarian crisis, corruption, violence and endemic poverty. 

The seed of instability was planted by Chadian President Idriss Deby who died on April 20, 2021 in a military action while commanding troops in the Northern Chad offensive. He was both politician and military officer, and he became president of the country in 1990. He was succeeded by his son, Mahamat, a four-star general.

On the UNDP’s Human Development Index, Chad is ranked miserably at 187th out of 189 countries. This is a country that links central and western Africa with Sudan and the Maghreb. Isn’t it a shame that most countries on the west coast of Africa do not appreciate what they have in terms of strategic locations and the resources that they are endowed with?

Suddenly, ECOWAS believes the disturbing pattern of coups must end, but how does the regional body intend to go about it? Interestingly, all the so-called interim leaders in the Francophone coup-prone countries with outdated one-way allegiance to France cite the same reasons for staging coup d’états: widespread insecurity, electoral malpractices, corruption and bad governance.

As the Chairman of ECOWAS, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu is wearing two caps, and he must have experienced awkward moments in deciding the course of action with his colleagues. The seven states in Northern Nigeria bordering Niger whom he hosted in Aso Villa are opposed to any act of aggression. 

This position is similarly canvassed by opinion leaders and other stakeholders from that section of the country. They see Nigeriens as their kith and kin with whom they have shared a common ancestry and heritage over several decades. 

The other matter is that the Nigerian Senate turned down President Tinubu’s request to use military force in Niger. It is evident that the optics do not favour war that could escalate, in spite of the bluff from the military junta in Niamey.

The dilemma of ECOWAS is that the initial ultimatum for the military junta in Niger to restore constitutional order and bring back Bazoum as the country’s leader within seven days was hasty and wrong-headed; it was not a strategic decision.

With the military leaders in Niger digging in and forming a government, they have sent a strong message to ECOWAS that they mean business.

At the second ECOWAS meeting in Abuja after the ultimatum lapsed, President Bola Tinubu explained that the regional body would explore all diplomatic means to engage the Nigerien junta, adding that the use of force should not be ruled out.

However, military intervention in Niger by ECOWAS has been trailed by unpopular sentiments in Nigeria and Niger. Some analysts believe it is a face-saving gesture by ECOWAS leaders. But the military junta is over-reaching itself by snubbing emissaries from Nigeria. It is certainly not a good idea and it is in their best interest to embrace dialogue and discuss a democratic order.

But who will pay for the military confrontation in Niger? Wars cost money and Nigeria is not in a position economically to play any “big-brother” role in the sub-region. In terms of military might, Nigeria is way ahead of Niger and other countries in the sub-region but it is important to note that it is ECOWAS – not Nigeria – that has a dog in the fight.

Why is Alassane Quattara, the President of Cote d’Ivoire, asking for the use of force against Niger instead of pushing for a diplomatic resolution? Quattara has been in office since December 4, 2010 and if he did not engineer a constitutional amendment in 2016 that paved the way for his third term, his two-term limit of five years each would have ended three years ago.

Quattara described those behind the coup in Niger as “terrorists,” but he has no moral authority to speak on the crisis in Niger. Coup plotters point to sit-tight leaders like him as the reason for their military interventions. 

As we have seen in the last three years, such military actions instigate political violence and armed conflict in the sub-region. The Ivorian president must admit that he abused constitutional democracy in his country and apologise to his people.

Going forward, ECOWAS should be clear about their next line of action. Are they pursuing dialogue and diplomacy or the use of force? What is the “standby force” all about? While I concede that ECOWAS should continue to defend democracy and promote peaceful resolutions as much as possible where there are conflicts, the body should avoid war and continue to apply sanctions on Niger and force the junta to the negotiation table.

The mere fact that the USA, Russia and France have boots on the ground in Niger is a clear indication that a “proxy” war is inevitable. These countries, as always, would protect their strategic interests in Niger and other countries where they have presence.

If coup d’états are becoming fashionable in West Africa with “interim presidents” that refuse to leave office, shouldn’t we be worried about the coup in Niger that is in our backyard? Is that why ECOWAS is considering a military option? Is President Tinubu also inclined to go to war to teach the military junta a lesson?

As we search for answers to these questions, there are useful lessons that we can learn from the Russia-Ukraine war that has dragged on for 18 months with significant casualties on both sides and avoidable humanitarian crisis before we embark on a military action in Niger.

Braimah is a global public relations and marketing strategist. He is also the publisher/editor-in-chief of Naija Times (https://ntm.ng) and Lagos Post (https://lagospost.ng), and can be reached via This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..

161 days after the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) picked a winner in Nigeria’s presidential election at the beginning of March and 72 days after the inauguration of a new administration, the Senate on August 8, 2023, transmitted to the presidency the names of 45 persons whom it had cleared for appointment as ministers, including some politicians, described as some of “the most violent, corrupt politicians the country has ever seen”.

Azu Ishiekwene –a columnist who is not unsympathetic to Bola Ahmed Tinubu– writes about the in-coming cabinet that “a few nominees…. make the legend of Robin Hood look like a child’s play” and raises informed doubts about the “integrity of the nominees’ list”. This is an insult to Robin Hood who is reputed to have accomplished some good with his plunder.

This raises two legitimate questions about the cabinet list. The first concerns its provenance. On this, Leadership newspaper alleged that an original list of cabinet nominations had been “tampered with”, laying responsibility for this at the feet of the chief of staff and former speaker of the House of Representatives, Femi Gbajabiamila. The new chairman of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and immediate past governor of Kano state, Abdullahi Ganduje, claimed that neither he nor the president knew anything about a female nominee from his state who was subsequently stood down from the list of nominees, before being replaced.

The second question goes to the strategy that informs the list. For an answer to this, we must look at the composition of the cabinet list. Eight of the 45, representing 17.78%, are women. This is a marginal improvement on the seven women (16.67%) who made Muhammadu Buhari’s 42-member cabinet in 2019 but considerably less than the 13 (31%) in the 41-member cabinet of President Goodluck Jonathan in 2011. Three of the eight women are from the southeast zone, which gets the least number of ministers. Two are from the north-west, which has nearly double the number of ministers from the south-east.

The final list that returned to the presidency also features eight former governors and a similar number of former or serving legislators. With a ministerial list largely comprising a majority of former elected officials or senior political office holders, the screening felt like a mutual admiration club mostly bereft of both seriousness and purpose. What passed for ministerial screening for most of the nominees was a process of ritualised bowing, after which the senate set them free to go.

In response to what has become known as “bow-and-go”, columnist, Nosa Igbinadolor, complained that the “Senate has turned its screening powers into a laughable jamboree that ensures that incompetent and corrupt former governors and unproductive MDA chiefs walk boldly through the process to become ministers because they are not being sufficiently asked critical questions”.

For playing their part excellently in this ritual, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, himself also a former governor and former minister, announced to the senators with some initial relish at the end of the process, that they were the proud recipients of a “token” to see them off to their holidays. When some fastidious officials called his attention to what appeared to be a faux pas, Senator Akpabio upgraded the token to “prayers”. This was a mere fortnight after he appeared to take equal relish in joking about the contagion of poverty in Nigeria. The appearance of a self-absorbed senate leadership was not lost on Nigerians.

As they departed for their holidays after the screening, some senators at least appeared to share that feeling. Senators reportedly let it out that the “token” sent to them from the Senate President was a mere N2 million. Some of them could not hide their disappointment at the “paltry sum” while others appeared to be clearly upset that the senate president had gratuitously exposed the fact “that they received bribe money from ministerial screening”.

Premium Times computed the sum of money administered among senators for this “token” at N218 million, a figure ostensibly arrived at by multiplying the number of senators (109) by two million. It is claimed that the money was part of a pot of N1 billion contributed by or on behalf of the ministerial nominees to facilitate the screening process. If so, then it seems clear that some members of the senate would have received more than just N2 million and that the sum of N218 million is only a fraction of what got shared out, unless the senate president was overcome by an uncharacteristic affliction of selflessness.

Sources in the senate compare this with the sum of $30,000 which was the reported capitation for each senator after the conclusion of a similar process four years ago. If that figure is correct, it was nearly fifteen times the size of the “token” administered this time around to the senators.

If, however, the suggestion that the screening process was underwritten by a deferred quid pro quo turns out to be true, it could go a long way in explaining why the process felt like a mutual back-slapping festival enacted with parliamentary circumstance. For instance, the senate failed to account for the fact that at least two of the nominees, a male from Lagos and a female from Katsina, do not appear to have done the mandatory National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme. The NYSC Act, which is entrenched in the 1999 constitution, makes national service mandatory for eligible persons. Those who fail to undertake it are ineligible for employment assuredly in public service or political office.

In 2018, Kemi Adeosun, whose NYSC discharge certificate turned out to have been invented, was forced to resign as finance minister. Five years later, the 10th Senate under the leadership of Senator Akpabio appears to have decided to retrench the NYSC Act into a statutory artefact without any need for a formal parliamentary process.

For some reason that remains still undisclosed, however, the senate at the point of voting through the confirmations, failed to extend its forbearance to three nominees. One of the three is the former minister of the Federal Capital Territory and recent governor of Kaduna state, Nasir el-Rufai. Neither the senate nor the presidency has issued any formal reason for the failure the confirm El-Rufai besides the unspecified claims of delayed “security clearance” or “suppressed animosity” from the presidency.

El-Rufai’s first ministerial screening in 2003 was nearly scuppered after he accused some senators then of bribery. This time around, his nomination appears to have been sunk by “allegations of human rights abuses, unguarded public utterances, and a purported flood of petitions” masterminded by some well-connected persons.

In a quarter of a century in public life, he has got into what has been delicately described as a “romance with controversy”. In 2016, El-Rufai gloated as state governor that he had paid identified killers in Southern Kaduna to stop killing. Ahead of the 2019 general election, he threatened international observers, warning them that they would “go back in body bags”.

Shortly thereafter, El-Rufai went to Lagos, the political home of Tinubu, to attack him as a political godfather who needed to be defenestrated. He has been viciously intolerant of criticism and one of his foremost critics as governor, Dadiyata, has been missing for over four years. This record forced the Nigerian Bar Association (NBA) in 2020 to cancel an invitation to him to address their annual general conference.

After the senate declined to vote through his nomination, El-Rufai remembered that he is a doctoral student in the Netherlands and stood down so he could return to school. It is not inconceivable that his record as governor will attract attention if and when he reports to Europe to pursue his doctoral research.

In the interim, Muhammad Pate, an accomplished doctor in both medicine and academia and one of the few experts in the world on health systems, emerged as one of the few bright spots on the ministerial list. Another bright spot on the list is the talented Yusuf Tuggar, Nigeria’s current ambassador to Germany. Both Yusuf and Muhammad, coincidentally, are from Bauchi state.

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

Anyone who still wonders why Nigeria and its citizens have become mendicants in spite of their rich natural endowments should take another look at the number of manufacturing companies that have gone under or relocated from the country in the last five decades.

In the 70s and 80s, Nigeria-made goods were the gold standard in the West African market — from automobiles to tyres, to batteries, to household toiletries. From Lagos to Abidjan, our companies had a captive market for their products. Companies competed for freshly minted graduates to fill their ever increasing vacancies as they expanded to meet up with market demands. Final year university and polytechnic students were spoilt for choices between competing companies scouting for fresh blood.

Those were the days! Gradually, we were afflicted by the importation bug. Our rulers, intoxicated by the newfound wealth occasioned by petrodollars, abandoned the ‘Buy Nigeria’ mantra, and started showing signs that, as far as they were concerned, charity began abroad. Afrobeat superstar, Fela Anikulapo-Kuti, criticised the burgeoning insanity at the time in his album titled “Buy Africa”:

Se tiwa ni o, mi o fe (Is that our product? I reject it)

Se tiwa ni o, mi o ra (Is that our product? I won’t buy)

Ta lo ma ba wa je? (Who’s going to eat this with us?)

Ta lo ma ba wa je? (Who’s going to eat this with us?)

Afi ta ba ra tiwa o (If we don’t patronise our own)

Ki la se ma l’owo l’Africa? (How can Africa prosper)

Afi ta ba ra tiwa o (If we don’t patronise our own)

We didn’t listen to Fela. We watched as one iconic manufacturing concern died after another.

Just as the death of any human being diminishes the rest of humanity, the demise of any corporate entity is a source of distress for its surviving peers. In many parts of the world, when successful corporate players who have become household names succumb to the economic variant of the grim reaper, the funeral train stretches from the location of the company to the rest of the country.

In Nigeria, we have become so used to erstwhile manufacturing giants biting the dust that it is no longer news. In a sense, one can say that the general attitude is to ask, who next?

Many manufacturing companies have died over the years. Last week, it was the turn of GlaxoSmithKline, GSK, to announce its own obituary after 51 years in Nigeria. The company is well known for its pharmaceutical products, especially household brands like Panadol and Sensodyne. (“If it is not Panadol…”)

In a corporate filing, the pharmaceutical giant said it would now adopt a distributor-led model to supply the country with its products.

“In our published Q2 results we disclosed that the GSK UK Group has informed GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Nigeria PLC of its strategic intent to cease commercialisation of its prescription medicines and vaccines in Nigeria through the GSK local operating companies and transition to a third-party direct distribution model for its pharmaceutical products,” the company said.

“For the above reasons, and having, together with GSK UK, evaluated various other options, the board of GlaxoSmithKline Consumer Nigeria Plc has concluded that there is no alternative but to cease operations.”

GSK Nigeria’s sales in the first half (H1) of 2023 dropped to N7.75 billion from N14.8 billion in the same period a year ago. In its 2023 H1 report, the company lamented that the business environment continued to be very challenging with foreign exchange (FX) availability affecting its ability to settle foreign currency-denominated trade payables with product suppliers. The company made more money from the sale of its consumer healthcare brands than its pharmaceutical brands (N2.49 billion).

It made more sense to simply import and sell finished products than to manufacture goods in an environment where every manufacturing firm has to generate about 70 percent of its power requirements, depend on black market operators for foreign exchange to import raw materials, contend with multiple taxation and inadequate municipal infrastructure, tiptoe around corporate landmines planted by corrupt government officials, and compete with smugglers and importers of competing Asian brands dumped in the market.

In an interview with The Cable, Ade Popoola, managing director of Reals Pharmaceuticals, described the situation thus: “It’s like being in the middle of an expressway. When you have too much traffic, the rate at which you will progress will be difficult no matter how good your car is,” Popoola explained.

“The look-alike from India crowded them (GSK) out. You find out that if you have been selling 250,000 units per year, when cheaper alternatives come in, it will first of all reduce to 200,000, and subsequently to 150,000, and 100,000.

“Later you will find yourself struggling to sell 50,000 because the hospital buying from you prefers alternatives because the other companies too may be quality. Once they crowd you out, you find it difficult to maintain your volume, and when you can’t maintain your volume, you cannot pay your cost. The Indian will sell at 20 percent of your price. It has happened to me, so I know what I am saying.”

Eleven years ago, the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines and Agriculture (NACCIMA)  raised an alarm that at least 800 companies had closed shop in Nigeria between 2009 and 2011 due to the harsh business environment. It warned that half of those remaining were ailing  and that capacity utilisation in industries hovered around 30 per cent and 45 per cent on the average. Successive governments did not solve the problems; they introduced complexities of their own.

Nigerian manufacturers self-generate 13,22 million 3.67 mega MW of electricity, according to a survey carried out by the Nigerian Energy Support Programme and Deutsche Zusammenarbeit (GZ) in 2015.

In 2014, Procter & Gamble set up a $300 million diaper plant in Agbara Estate, Ogun State. It was celebrated by the government, being the United States’ biggest non-oil investment in the country.

However, four years later, the company announced its decision to quit production. An insider revealed that apart from problems associated with electricity generation and inadequate infrastructure, the company’s refusal to bribe customs officers and other revenue agencies led to perennial frustration, making the management decide to beat a retreat.

Apparently, the business climate of Ghana is considered more clement. That is the only reason that could account for the relocation of some of the businesses that left Nigeria for Ghana. Among such firms are Berec Batteries; Exide Batteries; Okin Biscuits; Osogbo Steel Rolling Mills; Nigeria Sugar Company; Bacita; Tate and Lyle Sugar Company; Matches Manufacturing Company, Ilorin; Nigeria Paper Mill Limited located in Jebba, Kwara State; Nigerian Newsprint Manufacturing Company Limited, Oku-Iboku, among many others.

Elsewhere, responsible governments move mountains to keep the wheels of manufacturing firms rolling as both Presidents Bush and Obama did across two administrations (Republican and Democrat) to save the automobile industry in the United States. The federal bailout of General Motors Co, Chrysler and parts suppliers in 2009 saved 1.5 million jobs and preserved $105.3 billion in personal and social insurance tax collections,

Critics of the bailout at the time had argued the companies should be allowed to fail and the industry that resulted from the aftermath would be stronger. Treasury officials had repeatedly said the bailout was not an investment meant to turn a profit, but a move to save US jobs.

Now, who is to save Nigerian jobs being shipped away to other climes while we stand akimbo and continue to wallow in our regression? At this rate, Nigerians may soon have to buy commonplace items such as toothpaste and methyl balms from neighbouring countries. I have seen how some of them bend over backwards to accommodate foreign manufacturing firms. The fact that the level of corruption in many of those countries is of kindergarten proportions compared to ours, makes their terrain even more attractive.

It is not just GlaxoSmithKline that is leaving Nigeria, it is Nigerian jobs that are growing wings! Do we love our country enough to staunch this economic haemorrhage?

If we continue to lose the capacity to produce and instead throw more people into the unemployment market, the requiem won’t just be for the manufacturers who have bitten the dust but for the whole country of economic bystanders who cannot produce what they consume.

Congratulations, Prof Okojie

Hearty congratulations to Emeritus Professor Julius Okojie, former Executive Secretary of the National Universities Commission, (NUC) on the Inaugural edition of his annual Speaker Series and the launch of his Taco Charity Foundation.  I’m convinced, more than ever before, that living for others is an investment in immortality. Happy 75th birthday, Prof.

 “When you were born, you cried while the world rejoiced. Live your life in such a way that when you die, the world cries while you rejoice.”― Ancient Sanskrit saying

The word on marble above shows the organic source of the topic. It is from a classic from Robin Sharma, the original ‘Monk Who Sold His Ferrari’. The topic derives from his book, “Who Will Cry When You Die?” It is a time to resort to motivational writing for our leaders who don’t seem to be listening to what oracles and sages in the civil society including the media have been saying and writing. Our leaders appear to have missed the road again. They hate media reports of their listless activities. They don’t like the constitutional role of the media – monitoring governance and holding government to account. They lean only on their understanding through their friends and relations who pose as consultants and experts. They don’t want to respect even the organic law of the land, the constitution, let alone public service rules and regulation. They don’t like to comply with treasury rules as encapsulated in the financial instructions. They drop the appropriation acts as soon as the executive ink on the documents dry up.. They don’t study editorials and commentaries as warning signals and writings on the walls anymore. After all, our leaders have invested heavily in the multi-media business. They don’t need the ‘irritation’ of independent media anymore. After all, the political economy of a free press is quite toxic and complicated at this time.

Our leaders can afford to recruit even media executives to do even dirty jobs for them. They can pay hack writers to publish what they would like to read. They now pay dubious ‘media entrepreneurs’ to monitor adversarial reports about them. They constantly receive awards from such artful ‘media entrepreneurs’ who have polluted the media space. They have assisted in diminishing the influence and agenda-setting role of the media. Our leaders don’t listen to what the people are saying through the media anymore. Sadly, they don’t understand the times. We have written and written, spoken and spoken million truths to their power. They pretend to be deaf and dumb. They are even specialising in denying reports they regret giving out. They engage lawyers to write to the editors to remove even authentic stories from digital portals. They don’t want anybody’s voices of reason and wisdom. They don’t want the law to rule them. They are the law. They are the lords. It is rule of lords, not the rule of law. They don’t care about features that after elections, there should be governance.

They don’t care about the implications of winning elections and losing the people. They don’t listen to commentators who warn daily about the danger of ignoring civic competence in governance. They celebrate mediocrity as long as the mediocrities and neophytes they recruit are loyal and useful for tomorrow’s political engagements. They employ mercenaries daily to appear on early-hour television shows to deceive the people. They don’t know about the power of the truth they daily bury in the grave. They haven’t read in their classics that you can bury truth in a grave but it wont stay there. Yes, our leaders lean only on their understanding. They can’t understand why Authur Miller once warned leaders to note that, “a good newspaper… is a nation talking to itself”’. They don’t know why a leader of leaders once preferred a newspaper without government to a government without newspaper. They want to kill the independent media. 

But we will not give up the fight for a new Nigeria that works for all. That is why I would like to resort to motivational talks to our leaders. May be that will make them listen. Let’s share some tested words of life with them. I would like to encourage our leaders to get some soft power from words of grace from the masters such as Robin Sharma, among others who have been motivating successful business and political leaders who care to listen to what the civil society, including the media is saying to them. I mean leaders who will not bury the truth told to their power in the grave. And so let me introduce some wisdom nuggets from the classics of Sharma, “The Monk Who Sold His Ferrari”. It isn’t a compilation of editorials. It is a compact and useful book our leaders should read too. But they should also ask their political consultants and aides to buy for them the one that inspires today’s topic: ‘Who Will Cry When You Die?’
 
We are unarguably passing through an area of turbulence and our pilot, the commander-in-chief, is supposed to tell us that there is nothing to fear. But we the citizens in the flight can’t believe the hubris from our pilot that we have nothing to fear now. This is therefore a time to motivate our leaders at all levels that they need to do some introspection on who will genuinely cry in this country if they die today. We may even extend it to them to reflect well on ‘who will cry if their regime, sorry government dies today?’. That is the motivational message here today. It is also a time to stir their conscience about what another author and inspirational writer, David McRaney calls  “the public goods game”.  

“When you were born, you cried while the world rejoiced. Live your life in such a way that when you die, the world cries while you rejoice.”― Ancient Sanskrit saying

Does the gem of wisdom quoted above strike a chord deep within our leaders? Do they often feel that life is slipping by so fast that they just might never get the chance to live with the meaning, happiness and joy they think they deserve? If so, then this very special book (‘Who Will Cry When You Die?’) by leadership guru Robin S. Sharma, that has transformed the lives of thousands, will be the guiding light that can lead them to a brilliant new way of living and governance. 
 
In this easy-to-read yet wisdom-rich manual, Sharma offers more than 100 simple solutions to life’s most complex problems, ranging from a little-known method for beating stress and worry to a powerful way to enjoy the journey through life while creating a legacy that lasts. When our leaders are finally ready to move beyond a life spent chasing wealth and popularity through media from pages and prime time without life-changing projects, to one of deep significance, this is the ideal manual for them. They need to reflect today on a life of significance, Rick Warren, another purpose-driven author has written extensively about. 
 
Our leaders who keep recycling themselves from commissioner to governor and from governor to senator and from governor to minister should look into the seed of time and ask themselves: Who will cry when you die? If this set of dealers, sorry leaders feels that few people will miss them, it may be a time to make some changes. To give your best and to enrich other people’s lives takes a bit of effort, but it’s worth it. All these never-do- well leaders should aim to find personal fulfillment and live their lives to their full value. They can make an active change by using their time productively and recognising what is most important to the people. They will then realise that the best version of them is one that will surely be missed by others.

In ‘Who Will Cry When You Die?, Sharma offers advice on overcoming the difficulties of life while developing personality and skills. 
Our leaders, once again, ask yourself:  Who will care about you when you die? Have you ever thought about who will attend your funeral? Who will speak? Who will cry? And who will still be loving you? Asking ourselves questions like these can bring peace and calm to our daily life. These questions help remind us that we are human. We are not robots, and our days do not have to be repetitive. 

Similarly, the Sharma’s manual urges us to schedule our daily life tasks. This is what will make our leaders to think more about accountability and servant leadership. We should pay attention to this schedule and identify when we are not spending enough time being human.  We must allocate time for our loved ones, family, friends, and nature. We must also allocate time to being alone. Being alone allows us to think about life and the communities we serve. We should do what we love to do. Scheduling, passion, and self-discipline are ideas that consistently arise throughout the self-development manual. Scheduling is an important art that everyone needs to master to become highly effective and successful. Our leaders who daily make mistakes even on simple governance issues need to take the basic lessons seriously. We should make a to-do list to be significant in office and power every day.
The real secret to getting things done is to know what things need to be left undone. Our leaders appear disorganised and disoriented every day. That is why we are not making progress. An ancient word of life teaches us that we should let things be done properly and in order. I learned from a Middle-East ancient journal that being organised and orderly, is a national culture that is driving development in the United Arabs Emirates (UAE) an indeed most parts of the oil –producing and prosperous Middle East.   
 
Studying ‘Who Will Cry When You Die? can help leaders live life to the fullest. People dying is a tragedy but often people’s lives are a greater tragedy. This is because they are wasting their time on frivolities on earth. We all want to leave a legacy when we die. We all want people to remember us forever. Let our leaders talk of life’s concept remarkably without losing its very essence. Our leaders should work to show themselves approved by the people they govern. Let’s look at some of our past leaders we cried for when they died. Most southwest political leaders like to don the famous Awolowo cap. But how many of them can be cried for as we continue to do for the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo who died since 1987 at the age of 78? The iconic Awolowo, an uncommon strategic thinker and planner who was once referred to as “the best president Nigeria never had” introduced a free and compulsory basic education policy as fundamental objective and directive principle od state policy in Western Nigeria. He established a world-class regional university as a ‘glocal’ centre of research for tropical agriculture and medicine. Another leader, Sir Ahmadu Bello in the North also established another world-class university, Almadu Bello University in Zaria. In the same c0mpetitive federalism spirit, Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe established another remarkable University in Nsukka. Inexplicably, a federal military government seized all the three centres of excellence in 1975 without paying compensation to the regions. But then, before we debate their return to the owners someday, let our leaders of today note that when the three leaders, (Awo, Bello and Azikiwe) died, we all cried for them. And so our leaders should ask themselves today: who will cry when they die?