OTHERS' VIEWS

OTHERS' VIEWS

SUNDAY 1-DEC

 

Hearn confirms Joshua’s 2025 return date
https://reubenabati.com.ng/sports/hearn-confirms-joshua-s-2025-return-date

Why Nigeria Needs Tax Reform – Oyedele
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/why-nigeria-needs-tax-reform-oyedele

Okpebholo, APC Jittery Over Exposure Of Systemic Rigging In Edo, Lies To Cover Fraud – Obaseki
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/okpebholo-apc-jittery-over-exposure-of-systemic-rigging-in-edo-lies-to-cover-fraud-obaseki

CBN tells Nigerians to report cash withdrawal issues from December 1, banks to face penalties
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/cbn-tells-nigerians-to-report-cash-withdrawal-issues-from-december-1-banks-to-face-penalties

Local Government Autonomy….Concerns Mount Over Non-execution Of Supreme Court Ruling
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/local-government-autonomy-concerns-mount-over-non-execution-of-supreme-court-ruling

Tinubu Tax: North’s anger grows as youths attack Deputy Senate President
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/tinubu-tax-north-s-anger-grows-as-youths-attack-deputy-senate-president

OAuGF report reveals huge financial infractions in NNPCL, NUPRC, NMDPRA
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/oaugf-report-reveals-huge-financial-infractions-in-nnpcl-nuprc-nmdpra

Rivers: N27bn IGR behind Fubara, Wike rift, INEC now APC member – Adeyanju
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/rivers-n27bn-igr-behind-fubara-wike-rift-inec-now-apc-member-adeyanju

‘I Am Against Tax Reform Bills, It Gives Some States More Advantage’ – Ningi
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/i-am-against-tax-reform-bills-it-gives-some-states-more-advantage-ningi

[STATE HOUSE PRESS RELEASE] President Tinubu Congratulates New NUJ President And Executive Team
https://reubenabati.com.ng/news/state-house-press-release-president-tinubu-congratulates-new-nuj-president-and-executive-team

[PRESS RELEASE] President Tinubu Approves Funds for UNESCO Media and Information Literacy Institute in Nigeria
https://reubenabati.com.ng/news/press-release-president-tinubu-approves-funds-for-unesco-media-and-information-literacy-institute-in-nigeria

Trump threatens 100% tariff on BRICS countries over currency plans
https://reubenabati.com.ng/news/trump-threatens-100-tariff-on-brics-countries-over-currency-plans

‘From Secular To Sacred’ - Filmmaker, Mike Bamiloye Reflects On Transformation To Gospel Drama
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/from-secular-to-sacred-filmmaker-mike-bamiloye-reflects-on-transformation-to-gospel-drama

Darey Art Alade and wife Desola mark 18th wedding anniversary
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/dare-art-alade-s-wife-deola-celebrate-18th-wedding-anniversary

Sokoto NLC Suspends Planned Strike Over ₦70,000 Minimum Wage
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/sokoto-nlc-suspends-planned-strike-over-70-000-minimum-wage

Nigeria needs collaborative leaders for national progress - Peter Obi
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/nigeria-needs-collaborative-leaders-for-national-progress-peter-obi

How Tinubu’s fiery critics became spokespersons, loyalists
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/how-tinubu-s-fiery-critics-became-spokespersons-loyalists

2027: Atiku, Obi deny joint presidential bid after reunion
https://reubenabati.com.ng/feature/2027-atiku-obi-deny-joint-presidential-bid-after-reunion

Tax Reform Bill: Atiku Calls For Transparency, Inclusivity In Debate
https://reubenabati.com.ng/news/tax-reform-bill-atiku-calls-for-transparency-inclusivity-in-debate

 

The clamour for the separation of the ‘Office of the Attorney General of the Federation’ from that of the ‘Minister of Justice’ which is largely attributable, rightly or wrongly, to the perceived politicisation of the office of the AGF has been raging for quite some time. It, however, gained momentum based on the experiences of Nigerians in the 4th Republic. They question the fidelity of such an appointee of the president to the Constitution under a partisan system. Can he/she consciously discern that his/her functions of the AGF are not subject to the dictates of the President, unlike his/her functions of the Minister of Justice?

While the AGF is the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and is charged with protecting the public interest by ensuring the proper implementation of the laws, the Minister of Justice deals with the implementation of the policies of the government in the justice sector and is subject to the direction of the President in whom the Constitution vests all the executive powers of the federation. Nigerians who hold the view that the offices should be separated believe that one must be a saint to be able to navigate the delicate balance or the rather thin line that separates the appointee when acting as the Attorney General of the Federation from when he is discharging the duties of the Minister of Justice. Since we are all subject to human frailty, it would amount to burying one’s head in the sand to fail to acknowledge that such an appointee may sometimes consciously or unconsciously become susceptible to the political influence of the appointor (the President) or the political party. Where this happens, the appointee may lose the requisite objectivity required to discharge the functions of his/her office equitably, fairly and in accordance with the dictates of the law and conscience.

Given Nigeria’s experience with the holders of the office under a partisan political system, there are palpable fears that an Attorney General who is lacking the requisite integrity, diligence and independence, will unwittingly become a tool in the hands of a powerful president enabling him/her to ride roughshod over the rights of the people. Thus, instead of insisting on his fidelity to the constitution and serving as a check on the excesses of executive power, the appointee may feel obligated to his/her appointer and may be moved to descend into the political arena and have his/her vision beclouded by the murky waters of politics to the detriment of the people.

In view of the foregoing, Nigerians have been vocal in their clamour that the two offices be separated and held by different persons. They want the Office of the Attorney General of the Federation to be insulated from politics through an appointment process and remuneration that guarantees its independence from the Minister of Justice. This view has found expression in the ongoing Constitution Review Exercise by the National Assembly which is considering proposals for the amendment of the constitution to separate the office. The practice around the world and some commonwealth jurisdictions supports separating the office. For instance, in the United Kingdon, the Office of the Attorney General is separate from the Minister of Justice. In India, Kenya and South Africa, to name a few jurisdictions, the offices are separate. This means that the concerns of well-meaning Nigerians advocating for such a separation to depoliticise the office are not misplaced.

 

To achieve the objective of separating the office, views are divided as to whether a constitutional amendment is required. Reacting to these contending positions, my predecessor in office, Chief Michael Kaase Aondoakaa, SAN, recently opined that an amendment to the constitution was not necessary to achieve such an outcome. In his view, the provisions of section 150 of the constitution merely provide that there shall be an Attorney General of the Federation who shall be the Chief Law Officer of the Federation. He therefore contends that the president is, therefore, free to appoint a separate Minister of Justice in much the same way as he appoints other ministers not expressly mentioned in the Constitution without any consequential amendment of the constitution.

I am, however, of the respectful view that section 150 of the constitution goes beyond providing for the office of ‘Attorney General of the Federation’ and ‘Chief Law Officer.’ It adds a third ‘portfolio’ of a ‘Minister in the Government of the Federation’ to such an appointee thereby making it mandatory for the Attorney General of the Federation to be made a Minister in the Government of the Federation. For the avoidance of doubt. The section is hereby reproduced in ex tenso: “150 (1) There shall be an Attorney General of the Federation who shall be the Chief Law Officer of the Federation and a Minister of the Government of the Federation” (emphasis supplied). I, therefore, humbly opine that there is need to amend section 150 of the Constitution by deleting “and a Minister of the Government of the Federation” to effectively separate the offices.

I am convinced that to achieve the objective of depoliticising the office, the Attorney General of the Federation should not be a Minister. This is because by virtue of section 148 of the Constitution, ministers are delegates who exercise executive powers of the president. They must therefore be subject to the direction and control of the president while exercising such powers. The Attorney General of the Federation should, therefore, head the Department of Justice akin to the offices of the Accountant General of the Federation, Auditor General of the Federation, and Surveyor General of the Federation, etc., and should be independent. The Attorney General of the Federation should be guided by the dictates of his/her conscience and the overriding public interest, and reporting on the activities of the office at least once in a year to the National Assembly.

 

Apart from the physical separation of the offices, care must be taken to address issues that are likely to impinge on the independence of the office holder. These include: the appointment process, qualification, tenure and remuneration. For instance, in the United States of America, the Attorney General is appointed by the President on the confirmation of the Senate while in the United Kingdom, the Attorney General is nominated by the Prime Minister and appointed by the Monarch (King) on the advice of the Prime Minister. Similarly, in Kenya, the Attorney General is nominated by the President with approval of the National Assembly and appointed by the President and reforms are being proposed to limit the tenure to 10 years. In India, the Attorney General is appointed by the President at the instance of the Union Cabinet. In South Africa, the Attorney General is appointed by the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Affairs after consultation with the Solicitor General and can be removed with the approval of both Houses of Parliament.

In addition to the appointing process, some jurisdictions prescribe qualifications, the most significant one being where the Attorney General is required to have the same qualification as the Chief Justice or Justice of the Supreme Court as is the case in Kenya and India respectively. In the United States, a Bar qualification will suffice while in the United Kingdom, qualification is not specified, but holders of the office have traditionally been Barristers who continue to practise with the Crown as their client. Also, the remuneration for the office is carefully considered to insulate the appointee from influences that may derail him or her. What is important is to ensure that the appointee is well compensated for the onerous duties he or she is discharging and to insulate him from financial pressures as has been done in some jurisdictions.

Given the peculiarities of Nigeria, care should be taken to ensure that the appointment process is clearly specified in the Constitution establishing the Office of Attorney General of the Federation and his counterparts at the state level. I submit that the Attorney General of the Federation should be appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate. The appointee should have the same qualification as the Chief Justice of Nigeria and should be appointed for a fixed, non-renewable tenure of six years only. The appointee should not be removed except for misconduct, violation of the provisions of the enabling law, convictions or inability to discharge the functions of the office due to infirmity of the body or mind. The President should only remove the appointee upon an address supported by two-thirds of the Senate. The remuneration of the appointee should be stated in the Instrument of Appointment and should be reasonable enough to compensate the appointee and insulate him from monetary inducement. The remuneration so specified should be subject to yearly adjustments based on inflation to ensure that the salary is not eroded.

It is also necessary to clarify the duties of the Attorney General of the Federation as well as that of the Minister of Justice to avoid jurisdictional overlaps. The Attorney General, who must be a seasoned lawyer, should be appointed under section 150 of the Constitution to head the Department of Justice. He will be assisted by professional staff such as the Solicitor General, Director, Public Prosecutions, Director, Civil Litigation, Director, Legal Drafting, Director, Solicitors Dept, and Director of International Law. He will also superintend all the law officers and be responsible for posting them as pool officers to other ministries to deal with legal matters and proffer legal opinions on his behalf. The Attorney General shall not be a Minister but shall attend the Federal Executive Council to render legal advice where required, attend Court as amicus curie even in a matter where the Government is not a Party and attend the National Assembly to render legal advice. The Attorney General shall also superintend the exercise of prosecutorial powers by prosecutorial agencies such as the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) the Independent Corrupt Practices and other related Offences Commission (ICPC), the National Agency for the Prohibition of Trafficking in Persons (NATIP) and the national Drug law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA). To be effective, all these Agencies as well as the Nigeria Police should report to the Department of Justice. For instance, In the United States of America, the Attorney General is assisted by Deputy Attorneys General, Associate Attorney General, the Solicitor General and heads of Litigating Divisions such as Criminal, Civil, Antitrust, Civil rights, Tax, National Security etc. The Enforcement Divisions include Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), US Marshals Service (USMS), and Interpol Washington.

 

On the other hand, the Minister of Justice need not be a lawyer and should be appointed under section 148 of the Constitution. However, care should be taken to appoint a person with knowledge of the justice sector. The Minister of Justice will be responsible for implementing Government policies in the justice sector. This will cover issues such as government policies on the administration of justice, access to justice, law reform, research, legal education, law reporting, etc. The Minister will be assisted by the bureaucracy comprising relevant professionals and technocrats such as the Permanent Secretary and relevant Directors. The Minister of Justice shall superintend over parastatals such as the Nigerian Law Reform Commission, Legal Aid Council of Nigeria, Nigerian Law School, Nigerian Institute of Advanced Legal Studies.

Finally, while the above proposals are designed to strengthen the hand of the appointee to do justice to all those who encounter the justice system, there is no guarantee that the separation alone is enough to insulate the office from politics. The occupants of the office must have the requisite moral fibre and strength of character to resist subtle pressures from the powers that be in the discharge of their onerous duties. The search for a suitable attorney general of the federation or his counterparts at the state level should go beyond mere knowledge of the law to x-raying the antecedents of appointees over a fairly long period to determine their suitability.

Adoke was attorney general of the federation and minister of justice from 2010 to 2015.

Abdullahi Sule, governor of Nasarawa state, says northerners were misled into believing that the tax reform bills would result in additional financial burden.

Sule’s comments come on the heels of the Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) throwing its weight behind the proposed tax legislation before the national assembly.

On Thursday, the NGF in a statement issued after its meeting with the presidential tax reform committee, proposed an “equitable” sharing formula for value-added tax (VAT).

The governors recommended that there should be no terminal clause for TETFUND, National Agency for Science and Engineering Infrastructure (NASENI), and National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA) in the sharing of development levies in the bills.

 

They also supported the continuation of the legislative process at the national assembly that will culminate in the eventual passage of the bills.

Speaking on Politics Today, a programme on Channels Television, on Thursday, Sule said the endorsed tax reforms by the NGF aim to eliminate inefficiencies and create a fairer tax system.

Sule also dispelled notions of a divide between the northern governors and the President Bola Tinubu administration.

 

“Most of the people in the north have been sold the idea that there are going to be additional taxes. Today, by this agreement, there is no additional tax,” the governor said.

“Definitely it will settle the dust. And if you look at most of the debates, people are saying ‘we don’t want additional taxes’. We are saying today that by this, there are no additional taxes.

“And it also puts people who want to put heads between the president and some other people to rest. Now, they can understand that what those other people have done is actually in the interest of Nigeria.”

‘ENACTMENT OF TAX BILLS WILL ATTRACT MORE INVESTMENT’

 

The Nasarawa governor said if the tax legislation is passed, it will stimulate economic growth and attract investment to the country.

Sule noted that the reforms extend beyond VAT, covering critical areas like stamp duties and royalties to foster a more investment-friendly environment.

“The bigger picture at the end of the day is to get it passed for the interests of Nigeria in order to attract more investment into Nigeria. Part of the reform is actually the attraction of additional investments into Nigeria,” he added.

“That’s why you are eliminating multiple taxations in the first place. You are also going to look at stamp duties. You are also going to look at all the other royalties and the rest of that; and you are addressing them.

 

“This will encourage some of these companies that are moving away from Nigeria to stay. That’s why I say the tax bills are more than just VAT matters.

“There are so many other issues in it. So if you have not taken time to go through them, you may not understand. So I think this is the first catch that is going to be there for Nigeria.”

 

The Nasarawa governor said his state is attracting investments in mining and agriculture, making it an ideal destination for investors.

He added that a harmonised tax system will be implemented through coordination between the Federal Internal Revenue Service (FIRS) and the state’s Internal Revenue Service (IRS), ensuring that taxpayers are given a specific tax amount to avoid double taxation.

 

BACKGROUND

On October 13, 2024, Tinubu asked the national assembly to consider and pass four tax reform bills.

[TheCable]

Last modified on Friday, 17 January 2025 11:09

I watched with utter shock and disbelief how the father of Salome Adaidu recounted the rushed and nocturnal burial of the dismembered body of his daughter. He looked resigned – it is hard to tell – whether to his own fate or to that of his young girl or to both. In his voice, I sensed a powerlessness beyond description. Meanwhile, right across the front porch of the police station where a journalist interviewed the murder suspect, Timileyin Ajayi exuded the air of a monarch who wielded absolute power over his fiefdom; an iku baba yeye whose decision to execute his errant subject was irreversible. “I took a knife and chopped off her head…. no regrets,” he said quite dismissively. You should have heard him speak with a ring of finality as he batted off an insect buzzing around his left ear. It was a collage of cynicism to watch the victimised father and the boyfriend from hell speak with unruffled disposition about a very sinister incident.

Is it not bewildering that boyfriends now exercise the powers that even fathers hardly contemplate over their girl-children? The power of life and death over the female gender is a relic of the ancient world where for instance, the father of a Roman household decided at will whether his new-born girl child could join his family as a living member or would be sent back to the great beyond as an unwanted intruder. When the new bride was handed off by her father, the husband inherited that patria potestas, the absolute power which a male family head wielded over all members of his household. Even then, this life and death power was used with some restraint. In Nigeria today, boyfriends from hell have taken it upon themselves to exercise this power over girls whose romantic relationship parents may not even be aware of let alone give their conjugal blessing to.

How do you invest so much in raising your daughter, sending her to school amid pain and struggle for survival only to have her life tossed nonchalantly into an unmarked early grave by a boy whose identity you got to know only when the unthinkable had happened? Yet the Nigerian society looks on without a sense of outrage. Almost day after day, week in, week out, a report breaks on social media of a beheading, dumping into a dry, disused well, a drugging to death, a strangulation or a casting into insanity on the street. And when you check, the majority of the victims of these violent incidents happen to be the female gender, young promising girls under 25 years! Before we had processed what just happened, other comic, musical or half-nude reels arrived to take our fleeting attention away from grieving or seeking a stop to this social malaise. The Nigerian society has become so desensitised to tragic occurrences. Enikan l’omo: only the victim feels the pinch.

 

Like Cain, we have ceased to be our brothers’ keepers. In this instance, we are even farther from being our sisters’ keepers. The feminine gender has become an endangered species of sorts. We miss the bygone days when the proverbial 200 eyes focused on raising a single child in our communities. While mothers routinely demand that the girl child prepare to be a wife and mother, fathers fail to insist that boys must learn to grow into disciplined and decent husbands and fathers. Hence, the epidemic of boyfriends from hell in Nigeria. Parents who have boys are less apprehensive than those who are “blessed among women” when it comes to the potential for tragic outcomes in romantic relationships. Oftentimes, it is the parents of the girls who must bear the brunt if anything goes south.

What parent of a girl child has peace of mind these days with the spate of wanton killings for ritual or revenge at the hands of boyfriends from hell? Do parents now have to become paranoid when male classmates, male neighbours, male youth corpers, or male co-workers are seen with their young girls? How can parents possibly forbid their girls from getting involved with the male gender as they go on to higher institutions or enter the workplace? In short, how do we protect our girls from boyfriends from hell unless we constantly keep a vigilant eye on the relationship proceedings and encourage our girls to keep the lines of communication open with our parents in the loop? He get reason why as they say in local parlance.

We need a whole of society approach to tackle this social problem that is confronting us daily. As the old saying goes, it takes a village to raise a child. Outsourcing parental responsibilities to teachers at school and via private lessons at home ought to be looked at again. Abandoning children’s learning and development to new media (TikTok, Instagram, Telegram, YouTube, Facebook etc. have to be reconsidered. The assumption that real moral training of children is taking place at religious institutions must be revisited. The economics of boyfriends from hell is based on the “free rider problem” – the notion that the other person will do the needful; therefore, I don’t need to worry too much about the issue. Parents who have boys think it is the business of those who have girls to protect their girls. Parents who have girls think it is the problem of those who have boys to curb their boys. In the final analysis, neither does what the other expects.

 

Many of us parents feel that it is too much for us to get involved with our children’s schools. We simply think that our clergymen have the magic wand to turn our children into angels. We also hope that our children are learning only the right things on social media. Should I tell you where mere feeling, thinking and hoping has landed us? A country full of boyfriends from hell. If this does not scare you, Armageddon will mean nothing to you.

As a young boy growing up in the 1980s, I was conscious that all along my route to school were elderly eyes watching and mouth would also wag where hands failed to whack your buttocks if you were late or displayed any unacceptable social behaviour. This moulded you into a fairly responsible adult at least. But nowadays? We adults simply take out our phones and try to make content from out-of-school children that we come by if they pulled a stunt that would make people laugh.

If we insist that the tide of civilization never flows backwards, meaning that it is impossible to re-enact the days when communal parenting was the norm, we must then devise other means to cope with the problem. But what alternative is there to fall back on? Artificial Intelligence? Are we going to programme it to help us reorganize our society morally? What kind of ground rules will machine learning set to help us govern society so that boyfriends from hell are detected early and weeded out from the system? Will the predictive capabilities of algorithms be able to tell us from the moment of in vitro fertilization (IVF) what embryo would grow up to be a boyfriend from hell so that we can label it accordingly and help our daughters avoid him for sure in the future?

As far as I am concerned, there is no alternative to the old-fashioned, painstaking way of being hands-on, rolling up our sleeves collectively as a society and getting our hands dirty in raising our boys and girls on the basis of the fear of God and respect for all mankind. It is not a task that can be outsourced or performed using the Uber or Airbnb business model. There is the talk about garnering “elite consensus” to fix the political and economic problems of Nigeria. But we don’t have to be elites to raise our children right? Change begins with me. It begins with you. The future safety of our girls and the eradication of boyfriends from hell in the Nigerian society depend on it.

 

Lekan Olayiwola is a peace and conflict researcher and practitioner. 

In a nation often riddled with parochialism and sectionalism, the decision by Governor Alex Otti of Abia State to appoint an Edo State-born civil servant, Benson Ojeikere, as the Head of Service stands out as a shining testament to meritocracy and national unity. This rare and remarkable act deserves to be celebrated, not just for its symbolic significance but for its potential to inspire a new wave of inclusivity and excellence in governance across Nigeria.

Governor Alex Otti’s appointment of Benson Ojeikere, a man who hails from Edo State but has dedicated over two decades of his career to the Abia State Civil Service, is groundbreaking. In a country where political and administrative appointments are often viewed through the narrow lens of “Indigeneity”, this move defies convention and sets a precedent for putting competence above other considerations. 

In his remarks at the swearing-in ceremony, Governor Otti reiterated his administration’s commitment to upholding excellence and meritocracy. He enjoined Ojeikere to justify his appointment by delivering on the government’s vision of a robust and efficient civil service. These words reflect a deep understanding of leadership rooted in fairness and results, rather than pandering to regional or ethnic sentiments.

Benson Ojeikere’s journey into the Abia State Civil Service began in 1999 when he was posted to the state for his National Youth Service Corps (NYSC). Recognized as the best corps member of his batch, he was granted automatic employment by the state. Over the years, his work ethic, dedication, and pursuit of excellence distinguished him. Rising through the ranks, he became a permanent secretary in 2023 and now, under the forward-thinking leadership of Governor Otti, has achieved the pinnacle of the civil service as Head of Service.

Ojeikere’s appointment is not an act of charity or political maneuvering. It is a recognition of his exceptional qualifications and contributions to the Abia State Civil Service. His own astonishment at the appointment speaks volumes about the entrenched belief among non-indigenes that their career progression in another state’s civil service has a glass ceiling. Governor Otti has shattered that ceiling, proving that excellence knows no tribe or geography.

At this juncture, it is germane to clarify that appointing non-indigenes as special advisers, commissioners, or director-generals in many states in Nigeria, particularly in Lagos, is not uncommon and has become a testament to the cosmopolitan nature of such states. However, the appointment of a non-indigene as the Head of Service, as demonstrated by Alex Otti, is a rare and groundbreaking move that transcends conventional practices. By making this bold decision, Otti has shattered glass ceilings and set a precedent for inclusivity and meritocracy in governance, signaling a shift toward embracing competence over ethnicity in critical state roles.

 

Governor Otti’s action is particularly significant in the Nigerian context, where non-indigenes are often treated as second-class citizens, especially in the distribution of public offices. Despite constitutional provisions against discrimination, many states prioritize indigenes in employment and appointments, relegating others to the background regardless of their qualifications or contributions. 

This discriminatory practice not only stifles national unity but also deprives states of the opportunity to leverage the best talents available to them. It perpetuates a parochial mindset that weakens governance and fosters mediocrity. Governor Otti’s decision to appoint Ojeikere challenges this status quo and offers a blueprint for a merit-driven approach to governance.

In appointing a non-indigene as Head of Service, Governor Otti has sent a powerful message: that the Abia State Civil Service is an inclusive institution where dedication and competence are rewarded, irrespective of an individual’s state of origin. This move also reinforces the idea that the public service is a civic institution, not an ethnic enclave. 

 

By recognizing Ojeikere’s contributions and capabilities, Governor Otti has demonstrated true Nigerianess, a quality that transcends tribal or regional affiliations. His action aligns with the ideal of a united Nigeria where every citizen, regardless of origin, has an equal opportunity to contribute and excel.

Governor Otti’s bold step should serve as an example for other leaders across Nigeria. The appointment of competent individuals, regardless of their state of origin, is not only morally right but also strategically beneficial for the development of state institutions. By prioritizing merit and inclusivity, leaders can build stronger, more effective administrations that inspire trust and confidence among citizens. 

This approach also has the potential to foster national unity, breaking down the barriers of distrust and division that have plagued Nigeria for decades. When people see that their efforts and abilities are recognized and rewarded fairly, they are more likely to develop a sense of belonging and commitment to the nation.

 

While many leaders in Nigeria pay lip service to the ideals of national unity and inclusivity, Governor Otti has shown what it means to practice these values in action. His decision to elevate Benson Ojeikere should not be an isolated case but part of a broader shift toward governance that prioritizes competence and fairness.

To achieve this, political leaders must challenge entrenched biases and systems that perpetuate discrimination. They must embrace policies that promote diversity and inclusivity in appointments, ensuring that public institutions reflect the rich tapestry of Nigeria’s population. 

Governor Alex Otti’s decision to appoint Benson Ojeikere as the Head of Service in Abia State is a bold and commendable act that exemplifies true leadership. In a country often divided along ethnic and regional lines, this decision is a beacon of hope and a call to action. 

 

It is a reminder that Nigeria can only reach its full potential when leaders prioritize merit over mediocrity, inclusivity over parochialism, and unity over division. Governor Otti has set an example for others to follow, proving that governance can be a tool for national integration rather than division. 

Other leaders must now rise to the challenge, emulating this act of fairness and foresight. By doing so, they will not only strengthen their states but also contribute to building a more united and prosperous Nigeria, a country where every citizen, regardless of their origin, feels valued and empowered to contribute to the common good.

In the often polarizing world of politics, moments of civility and grace can seem like a relic of a bygone era. Yet, the funeral of former U.S. President Jimmy Carter offered a rare glimpse of what respectful political coexistence can look like. It was a moment where ideological adversaries and estranged allies set aside their differences to honor a man whose life epitomized public service and humility. Former President Donald Trump shook hands with his one-time vice president, Mike Pence, and exchanged a rare and serious dialogue with Barack Obama. These simple acts of civility are a masterclass in decorum that Nigerian politicians would do well to emulate.

In Nigeria, where the political landscape is often marred by acrimony, unrelenting rivalry, and an utter disregard for decorum, this moment offers a valuable lesson. It underscores that even in the face of deep disagreements, mutual respect can, and must, prevail. Nigerian politicians need to imbibe this lesson, particularly as the country continues to grapple with divisive political narratives and an economic crisis that demands unity of purpose among its leaders.

The handshake between Trump and Pence was no ordinary gesture. It was a moment laden with historical significance, as it marked the first public reconciliation, however tentative, between two men whose relationship had been severely fractured. Pence had refused Trump’s demands to overturn the 2020 election results, a decision that incited Trump’s supporters to storm the Capitol on January 6, 2021, endangering Pence’s life. Yet, both men put their differences aside, if only for a day, to pay their respects to Carter.

 

Even more striking was Trump’s engagement with Barack Obama, a president whose legacy he had spent much of his own presidency trying to dismantle. The image of the two men talking, Obama nodding seriously before breaking into a smile, served as a powerful reminder that politics need not always be a zero-sum game. It is possible to disagree vehemently without dehumanizing one another.

Contrast this with the Nigerian political arena, where such moments of grace are almost unheard of. The bitterness of electoral campaigns often lingers long after elections are over, poisoning relationships and perpetuating divisions. Political opponents are not just rivals but are often treated as enemies to be vanquished. Even within parties, internal disagreements frequently lead to public spats, defections, and long-standing grudges.

Nigerian politicians must recognize that statesmanship goes beyond winning elections or securing political appointments. It involves fostering unity, building bridges, and maintaining a standard of civility that sets a positive example for citizens. The handshake between Trump and Pence, as well as the dialogue between Trump and Obama, is a reminder that true leaders prioritize the collective good over personal grievances.

 

Nigeria’s recent political history is littered with missed opportunities for such statesmanship. The fallout between former President Olusegun Obasanjo and his deputy, Atiku Abubakar, is a case in point. Their public feud, which began during their time in office, continues to reverberate in Nigerian politics today. Similarly, the longstanding animosity between President Bola Tinubu and his political ally-turned-rival, Akinwunmi Ambode, serves as another reminder of how personal vendettas often take precedence over governance.

If Trump, Pence, and Obama, men with significant ideological and personal differences, can demonstrate civility on such a public stage, what excuse do Nigerian politicians have? Their inability to rise above petty squabbles not only undermines governance but also erodes public trust in the political process.

The importance of civility in politics cannot be overstated. It fosters a culture of mutual respect that makes constructive dialogue possible. In a country as diverse as Nigeria, where ethnic, religious, and regional differences often intersect with political affiliations, such a culture is essential for national unity. Civility also sets the tone for how ordinary citizens engage with one another. When politicians treat each other with respect, it sends a powerful message to their supporters about the importance of peaceful coexistence.

 

Moreover, moments of civility can have a calming effect during periods of national crisis. Imagine the impact it would have if political leaders from opposing parties came together to jointly address Nigeria’s economic challenges or the ongoing security crisis. Such a gesture would not only inspire hope but also demonstrate that the country’s leaders are capable of putting national interest above personal ambition.

To achieve this level of statesmanship, Nigeria must address the underlying political culture that perpetuates animosity. This includes fostering a political environment where dissent is not seen as betrayal, and where losing an election does not mean exclusion from governance. Political parties also have a role to play in promoting internal democracy and resolving conflicts amicably.

The media, too, has a responsibility. Just as the American media highlighted the significance of the interactions at Carter’s funeral, Nigerian journalists must focus on promoting narratives that encourage civility rather than sensationalizing conflicts.

 

Nigerian politicians must rise to the occasion. The challenges facing the country, from a struggling economy to widespread insecurity, require leaders who can set aside their differences and work collaboratively. The rare moment of civility at Carter’s funeral serves as a blueprint for how this can be achieved.

As we approach another election cycle, it is imperative that Nigerian politicians reflect on the example set by Trump, Pence, and Obama. They must ask themselves whether their actions contribute to the unity or further division of the country. The handshake between Trump and Pence may have lasted only a few seconds, but its implications are timeless. It is a reminder that even the bitterest rivalries can be softened by a shared commitment to something greater than oneself.

Let this moment be a wake-up call for Nigeria’s political class. Civility is not a sign of weakness but a hallmark of true leadership. In the words of former President Jimmy Carter, whose life was being honored on that day, “We must adjust to changing times and still hold to unchanging principles.” For Nigerian politicians, one of those unchanging principles should be respect for one another, regardless of differences.

“Two thirds of people in Scotland identify only as Scottish, not British, according to new findings from the census”

“1.8 million people identify as Welsh only (58% of the population) and 218,000 identify their national identity as Welsh-British (7% of the population”)

I was reintroduced to the controversy over the origins, wherewithal and proprietary rights of the name Yoruba, by the altercation between Professor Peter Ekeh and Dr Bala Usman in 2001.

The original introduction came from “Colonialism and the Two Publics of Africa: A Theoretical Statement” by Professor Peter Ekeh. It was published by the Journal of Comparative Studies in 1975

The first salvo was fired by Dr Bala Usman whose ‘imperial historiography’ started with this bombast: “The fact is that, the earliest record we have of the use of the very name “Yoruba” was in the Hausa language and it seems to have applied to the people of the Alafinate of Oyo”.

“This came from the writings of the seventeenth century Katsina scholar, Dan Masani (1595-1667), who wrote a book on Muslim scholars of the ‘Yarriba.’ But it was from a book of the Sarkin Musulmi Bello, written in the early nineteenth century, that the name became more widely used”.

“The Bishop Ajayi Crowther, the Reverend Samuel Johnson, and his brother Obadiah Johnson, among others, came, in the nineteenth century, to widely spread this Hausa name to the people who now bear it, in their writings”

‘Anybody who has read the scholarly writings that have come out of the University of Ibadan from the early 1950’s knows that there has never been and there is nothing like a Yoruba “Race”. There is no way ignorant people can lead. Unless something is done these nincompoops will continue to shout true federalism”

In response, Ekeh countered in (The Mischief of History: Bala Usman’s Unmaking of Nigerian History By Peter Ekeh, Urhobo Historical Society) 

“In the week of April 18th through 25th, 2001, the Nigerian internet community received an ample supply of Bala Usman’s essay titled “Misrepresentation of Nigeria” and “Ignorance, Knowledge and Democratic Politics in Nigeria”..

It is the text of his presentation at a symposium at Bayero University, Kano, on Tuesday, 17th April 2001..” It was a frontal attack on the notion that the Yoruba and Igbo had their own autonomous history, independent of Nigeria”.

“Bala Usman is telling us in his two essays that the Igbo, Yoruba, Ijaw, and Urhobo — his principal examples — had no histories until they were created by British imperialism”

“So what is Bala Usman’s proof that the name “Yoruba” is an “Hausa name”? It is so, to repeat, because, he says, “the earliest record [sic] we have of the use of the very name ‘Yoruba’ was in the Hausa language” — from the writings of a man born in 1595!

“But in fact the name Yoruba was used by a Timbucktu theologian, Ahmad Baba, who was already a distinguished scholar long before Dan Masani was born in 1595. Moreover, Ahmad Baba (1556-1627) wrote in Arabic, not in the Hausa language”.”

I like to upgrade Ekeh’s rebuttal with the disclosure that Usman actually exhibited ignorance in his agitation “that there has never been and there is nothing like a Yoruba race”. To think that he actually titled his missive “Ignorance, Knowledge and Democratic Politics in Nigeria”

He was, of course, writing to the answer of a predetermined conclusion conspicuously manifested in his “misrepresentation of Nigeria”. My former boss at the Guardian, Godwin Darah referred to him in his response as an ‘ideological point man of the Fulani oligarchy for decades’

Regardless of the plausibility of the myth of Oduduwa, the conception of this “Yoruba race” is not determined by biology…or the Oduduwa myth.

Long before Usman passed on, the conception of what constitutes a race has gone beyond biological determinism. ‘Many scholars now consider race to be a social construction.

This means that racial categories, such as “black,” “white,” or “Asian,” are not based on natural or inevitable human differences but are the result of social ideas, values, and practices’

The more the embarrassment for Usman given his affectation of structuralism and socialism while intermittently spewing fascist outbursts.

Of a similar Pan Muslim North ideological orientation, Professor Farooq Kperogi turned on Mrs Kemi Badenock, the leader of the Conservative Party in the UnitedKingdom, UK. “Well, since Ms. Badenoch hates northern Nigeria that much, she might also consider rejecting even the term Yoruba, as it originates from—of all places—northern Nigeria!”

Professor Moyo Okediji rightly made the point. “Why do they assume that if x is found in Yoruba language and it is also found in the Arabic language, x must be an Arabic word by default, but not a Yoruba?. His editor at the Saturday Tribune seconded Okediji in similarly argued article four years ago.

There is also the manipulation of the translation of what Ahmad Baba actually said.The reproduction of his original text (as translated by John Hunwick and Fatima Harrak for the Institute of African Studies Rabat), reads:

“Those who come to you from the following [sic] clans: the Mossi, the Gurma, the Busa, the Yorko, the Ku Tukul, the Yoruba, the Tanbugbu, the Bobo) are considered non-believers who still adhere to non-belief until now…. You are allowed to own all these”

In his book, titled “Partitioned Borgu: State, Society and Politics in a West African Border Region” to which Kperogi made copious reference Dr. Hussaini Abdu rationalised “It’s obvious that Ahmad Baba “Yoruba” as “Yariba” in his 1613 essay because Arabic, the language in which he wrote, does not have the vowel “o.”. The three dominant vowels in Arabic are “a,” “I,” and “u. 

So how, then, does Abdu account for the use of the vowel ‘o’ in the words “the Mossi, the Yorko, the Bobo, as they appeared alongside Yoruba in the original text? ie (“Those who come to you from the following [sic] clans: the Mossi, the Gurma, the Busa, the Yorko, the Ku Tukul, the Yoruba, the Tanbugbu, the Bobo”).

It is not that Kperogi was not aware of the crucial point made by Olagunju and Okediji …it is just that it does not serve the purpose of his neo Bala Usman scholarship. 

He thereafter embarked on a relentless heckling of the Yoruba in his Saturday Tribune column (“Kemi Badenoch’s Yoruba Identity Meets Inconvenient Truths”)

Surprisingly, there are some simple historical facts that one would not expect an average general reader to get confused about.

Kperogi wrote “I was shocked to read recently that even Ibadan, the administrative capital of Western Nigeria, was founded by a northern Nigerian of Borgu origins”. Oluyole, the founder of modern Ibadan, was the scion of Bashorun Yau Yamba, who was of Borgu ancestry”.

From 1820 when Ibadan was founded, the order in which they ascended the Ibadan throne was Baale Maye Okunade,1820-1826; followed by Baale Oluyendun Labosinde (1826 to 1830); Baale Lakanle (1830-1835) and Basorun Oluyole who reigned for 15 years (1835-1850).

From this chronology, how does anyone extrapolate that Oluyole was the founder of Ibadan, ancient or modern? 

Kperogi equally wrote “More than that, several towns and villages in Oyo were founded by Borgu people. For instance, Ogbomoso, a major Oyo town, was founded by a Baatonu (Bariba) prince. The title of the town’s monarch, “Soun,” is a corruption of “Suno,” the Baatonu word for king”.

First, from all available evidence, Soun Ogunlola was of Ibariba ancestry but I’m yet to come across any information that he was Ibariba prince. He was a hunter from a neighboring community to Oyo metropolis who helped get rid of a fiend, Elemosho, who had besieged Oyo.

“The Alaafin was so impressed by Ogunlola’s prowess that he, the Alaafin, requested Ogunlola to stay in the capital (Oyo-Ile) instead of returning to his settlement”.

“Ogunlola politely declined saying “Ejeki a ma se ohun” meaning “let me manage that place” (This is precisely what Soun connotes in Yoruba language).

“His majesty, the Alaafin, granted Ogunlola’s wish to return to his settlement”. Literally, Soun is Yoruba word for, keep minding the other place.

We have to wonder why a principal sovereign monarch, of the status of Alaafin, would have to look outside Yoruba cultural heritage, to pick a title for a subordinate monarch.

For that matter, were any eccentric Alaafin to contemplate any such self-abnegation, the title should be Sonu (which means king in Baatonu language, according to Kperogi) not Soun.

Two more contenders on this evergreen Yoruba nationality consciousness syndrome have come to my notice.

According to the Cambridge University Press “English ethnologist Richard F. Burton reports of a Yoruba account in 1861, noting that the name “Yoruba” derives from Ori Obba, i.e. -The Head King. It was applied ex-situ originally in reference to the Yoruba sociolinguistic group as a whole. Centuries later however, it evolved to be applied exclusively to the oyo subgroup when this subgroup rose to attain imperial status, particularly at its apogee (c.1650 – c.1750) until in the mid-1800s when this trend was reversed back to the original context.

If this account is true then it turns many previous accounts on their heads. It claims that Yoruba have identified themselves as such long before the Oyo empire appropriated the identity (or was appropriated to them). It is doubtful whether a man of this description was mindless or spinning a yarn.

The other says “the people who call themselves Yoruba today, said in Hausa what they usually say when they go to their own markets, to other merchants. Apparently as far back as the 16th century and right up to the 19th..when they get to the market places where they met the Hausa people, they inquired from them in their usual courteous manner, Ya meaning “How”, or Yi meaning “How about” and ribà, meaning “profit” (See the Dictionary of Hausa-English). Ya-ribà or Yi-ribà- How about profit? Hence they were known as the people that say Ya-ribà” (Posted in: Rhythms of Shekere). It will be interesting to know what Yariba theorists have to say on this.

Meanwhile, according to the same Cambridge University Press-”The word “Yoruba,” used to describe a group of people speaking a common language, was already in use in the interior of the Bight of Benin, probably before the sixteenth century”. I’m certain this will not be the last word of the syndrome.

What is the fundamental function of an educator? Part l
 
The joy derived from my students is unparalleled. I have dedicated my time and made sacrifices to ensure their success, continually nurturing their potential through my role as an educator. It is essential to recognize that the teaching profession is foundational in cultivating future professionals. Teaching stands as one of the most influential careers worldwide. Within the classroom, we have the power to transform the lives of our students through our instruction.
 
We inspire aspirations, and our contributions hold significance, even if they go unacknowledged. Regrettably, the current landscape of the teaching profession is disheartening, primarily due to inadequate compensation. Nevertheless, it is imperative that all stakeholders and individuals shaped by this esteemed profession come together to uplift it. In many advanced nations, such as Finland, Germany, Singapore, Dubai, and Japan, teaching is held in high regard, with educators recognized as the cornerstone of society. In stark contrast, the situation in Nigeria is troubling, where teachers are often undervalued. Who will advocate for this esteemed profession? Who stands as a supporter of educators?
 
I encourage everyone to reflect on the impact a teacher may have had in their lives—someone who has inspired, motivated, and facilitated change. It is crucial to show appreciation, whether through gifts or small tokens of gratitude. My aspiration is for other professionals to contribute back to the teaching profession and support educators. I aim to leverage social media and the internet to advocate for the teaching profession, address issues affecting educators, and promote their welfare within society. Before exploring this subject further, let us consider the role of a teacher.
 
 
 
What is the fundamental function of an educator? Part ll
 
John Dewey articulated that the role of a teacher extends beyond merely imparting knowledge or instilling habits in students. Instead, teachers serve as integral members of the community, tasked with selecting the influences that will shape a child's development and aiding them in responding appropriately to these influences.
 
In this capacity, educators become collaborators in the learning journey, facilitating students' independent exploration of meaning within their subjects. I would like to take this opportunity to express my gratitude to all educators worldwide, particularly in my home country, Nigeria. It is a privilege to be involved in the lives and journeys of students. While they may not retain every word spoken, they will undoubtedly remember the feelings evoked by their teachers.
 
Confucius wisely noted that those who possess all the answers have not been asked all the questions. Our fundamental responsibility transcends mere instruction; it encompasses the shaping and transformation of a nation through education.
 
 
Teaching is undoubtedly one of the most challenging professions globally. We serve as mirrors, role models, leaders, and mentors for our students. Let us strive to challenge and inspire them. In closing, I would like to share a thought of my own: Teachers possess a wealth of knowledge, and one cannot engage in this noble profession without continually learning. My students are my greatest source of joy, and my mission is to contribute to the development of our nation through my teaching, both inside and outside the classroom. 
 
 
Shosanya Babatunde Oluwaseyi Ph.D in view Music education

On the eve of Donald Trump’s inauguration as the 45th President of the U.S., on January 19, 2017, I wrote an article I could easily write now. It was entitled “A Memory of America on Obama’s Last Day.” With minor edits, it’s worth repeating as Trump happens again as the 47th President of the U.S.

Only exceptionalism could have offered that opportunity. Only exceptionalism could produce a Barack Obama and, eight years later, bring forth a Donald Trump—one neoliberal and the other a neo-anything-is-possible.

The peculiar aspect of the U.S. is that everything is extraordinary. If any doubt remains, the election of Donald J. Trump, who takes office on Friday as the 45th President of the United States of America, resolves the matter.

Everything about Trump is unsettlingly peculiar. He has weakened his party, exploited voters’ most basic instincts, ignored the media, and mocked U.S. allies. Nonetheless, he has secured a victory that has made him even more powerful and audacious. Everyone else, including the party and the nation, seems weaker, more bewildered, and divided.

In Trump versus the rest of the world, Trump is the indescribable enigma. The rest are demystified and stranded.

As the new Trump world order emerges, exceptionalism – once a distinctly American concept – assumes a different significance. I grappled with that word when I first encountered it from my lecturer, Ayo Akinbobola, many years ago in school.

Exceptionalism. How do I explain it? It’s that special quality for which most people love America; the idea that you can become whatever you wish to be, whoever you are, regardless of your background; that through hard work, persistence, and innovation, you can attain grace from grass; that America is the only place on earth that confronts its diversity with courage, not shying away from its own worst demons; that America is a land of both genius and demagogue, each pursuing their path, but within a system that also strives to protect the weak and vulnerable while, some would add, paradoxically creating its own weak and vulnerable.

I learned from my US-trained teachers in school and saw from the cowboy movies I watched growing up that this made America unique.

My first American friends embodied the generosity of spirit I had always heard about. Melvin and Paula Baker, whom my family and I met during a holiday in Florida over ten years ago, have consistently treated us like family, offering themselves and everything they have at our disposal whenever we visit.

Melvin and Paula are white, but colour or creed has never been a concern—whether we or they are visiting. Occasionally, I’m amused to see them sweating over a meal of pepper soup, even when it contains the mildest spices.

America is exceptional not because it is perfect but because, despite its flaws, people like Melvin and Paula made it extraordinary.

Then 9/11 happened. Fear took hold, and exceptionalism faced its most significant test since Vietnam. The political elite and the military leaders started a catastrophic war in Iraq by dressing up fear and suspicion as facts.

That changed everything. Al-Queda, the Taliban, ISIL and other terror franchises around the world were born by the mother of all wars from which America and the world have not recovered.

I felt the change around this time seven years ago when I visited the U.S. before Christmas. A young Nigerian man, Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab, had planted a bomb in his pants to bring down a commercial plane over Detroit. Coming at America’s vulnerable moment, there was a severe backlash from that incident.

During my visit in January 2010, many U.S. airports and border posts opened a black book for Nigerian travellers. The intrusive body searches at these airports and the cold, hostile stares at non-whites left me in no doubt that something was changing in America

But Barack Obama’s election was supposed to halt the tide; it was supposed to send a message that America had not wholly forsaken exceptionalism, that if a black guy with a funny Muslim-sounding name could become president in America, you could be what you want to be – no matter who you are – if you work at it.

That’s Obama’s story, which he calls “the audacity of hope.” How else could someone born to a Kenyan father and raised by an Indonesian stepfather become a senator and then the 44th president of the United States?

Yet, some say that it is precisely this exceptional quality that is the trouble with America. They say it is exceptionalism that produced an Obama who is not black enough to meet black expectations, not white enough to be accepted by whites, and not brown enough to attract the sympathy of those in between.

Evangelicals regard him as the anti-Christ for endorsing stem cell research and despise him for his late remarks on gay rights. Millions of Nigerians will also not forgive him for never once visiting the world’s most populous black nation during his eight years in office, opting instead to throw stones from Ghana, the country’s backyard.

It’s a deep bucket, but who can deny that America’s exceptionalism produced a miracle that Martin Luther King could only dream of?

Eight years ago today, America was on its knees, broken by a catastrophic terror war and greedy Wall Street.

Globalisation was also taking its toll and would become a significant factor in U.S. politics. To think that this was the moment when the country elected its first black president –when the lines of failure seemed to have fallen in the most unpleasant places – is hard to imagine now.

But it happened, and Obama made the most of his lemons. In several ways, he’s leaving America better than he found it: jobs growing, the country cured of its addiction to oil, its economy in better shape, and its youth unleashed and innovating.

Obama is leaving without the scars of scandals that marred many of his predecessors. The dignity of his office is intact.

Only exceptionalism could have provided that chance. Only exceptionalism could produce an Obama and eight years later produce a Trump – the one neo-liberal and the other neo-anything-is-possible.

In the days ahead, no one is exactly sure what to expect – not pollsters, pundits, or even members of Trump’s cabinet. But we’ll see, one tweet at a time, just what is left of what has made America exceptional.

Ishiekwene, Editor-In-Chief of LEADERSHIP, is the author of the new book Writing for Media and Monetising It. 

Peter Obi in his New Year message reminded Nigerians of the obvious:  the worsening political, economic and security situation of our country. Food insecurity that has become our new national norm; our nation and its fortunes are in clear reverse, while Nigeria remains one of the poverty capitals of the world, with over 100 million people living in extreme poverty and more than 150 million in multidimensional poverty.

To change the narrative, Obi wants President Tinubu to cut down what he considers as his “wasteful foreign trips; travel around Nigeria by road to observe the condition of most of our collapsed highways; visit our national hospital, make both impromptu and planned visits to our tertiary institutions, visit various IDP camps and assure these Nigerians that they will soon return to their communities.

Finally, he wants the president to ensure “future elections are credible and truly reflect the will of the people”.

The president has already acknowledged some of these problems and the harsh effect of his economic policies. What he said was that to avoid mortgaging the future of our children the way PDP did by selling or sharing properties kept in their care for our children, we needed to make some sacrifices today.

In fact, the expectation of most Nigerians was that the president’s first act in office was going to be resettlement of those driven from their land to IDP camps back to their land. That is distributive justice.

 

Nigerians did not only expect the president to visit the hospitals, they had expected him to sponsor a bill stopping all political appointees and lawmakers from embarking on medical tourism. This is the only way to equip our teaching hospitals.

Obi is also allowed to make few exaggerations including his claim that Tinubu’s less than two years administration should be held responsible for the current figure of 100,000 Nigerians living in extreme poverty despite ARISE Television’s admission during the interview that the figure as at the time Buhari took over power 10 years ago (2015) stood at 70%. After all, government is a continuum.

Obi who claimed victory despite coming a distant third in the 2023 election and who is yet to congratulate the winner of the contest despite INEC’s verdict and the Supreme Court’s celebrated judgment also has the right to call on the president to guarantee the sanctity of the 2027 contest. 

I think what Felix Morka decries is Obi “crossing the line of truth and peddling false narratives, arrogant unwillingness to acknowledge obvious markers of progress, mobilizing outrage and stoking tension against the government’ which he thinks  are not exactly the most admirable hallmarks of leadership.”

He also frowns at the fact that Obi led a restless band of online mobs, who continue to attack, intimidate, bully and issue death threats to other citizens who dare disagree or criticize Obi or his opinions or position on any subject or matter of national conversation.

Even here Obi has not crossed any red line. The beauty of democracy is that no one has the last say especially in a world where the media is a captive of the dominant ruling class and where no newspaper or news platform can be said to be truly free. We have seen selective coverage of Israel’s war on Gaza by CNN and presentation of alternative reality by the Fox News which aided Trump’s triumph in his re-election bid despite his election denials and sponsoring of an insurrection against his own government.

This is why I also think ARISE television cannot be accused of crossing any red line for  its decision to play the devil’s advocate following attempt by APC and its spokesman, to discredit Obi and  his message. It was obvious whose battle was being waged when Felix Morka, the National Publicity Secretary of the All Progressives Congress (APC), was confronted during an interview on its THIS WEEK program on Saturday, January 4, with a question such as –  “You have actually hit back with a volley of attacks, calling Peter Obi a prophet of doom. Some of you have said he is always embarking on voodoo economics that are not in line with current realities. Don’t you think that is a slingshot that has gone beyond normal politicking?

 

Morka’s: “No, he is the one throwing darts. Mr. Obi is shooting from the hip… Obi has crossed the line so many times. And, I think that, at this point, he has coming to him whatever he gets. He should manage it” would have been sufficient answer for those not engaged in politics of mischief and subterfuge. But for ARISE reporters   “it is a threat to free speech”; for Obi  it is an indication of impending crackdown by an intolerant federal government  while for former VP Atiku Abubakar, “an alarming disdain for democratic principles.”

I sympathize with Morka who, as a result of “Peter Obi’s allegations has received  about 400 documented threats, about 200 of which are explicit death threats messages, individuals have detailed how they plan to harm me—threatening to shoot me, behead me, and carry out other gruesome acts”. But even in spite of the above, I still don’t think anyone has crossed the red line. Free speech is another name for democracy.  

The beauty of democracy is that it is not without its democratic ethos which for instance celebrates character. In this regard, the messenger is often the message. Probing the character of purveyors of messages is as important as free speech.

Unfortunately, the common denominator between Peter Obi and Atiku Abubakar is opportunism. Atiku Abubakar has moved from PDP, through ACN to PDP, back to APC from where he went back to PDP where he first served as vice president in 1999. Upon his return, he waged war against those who kept the party together while he was shopping for presidential tickets from other parties. And tragically his breach of PDP’s constitution was to put the party in disarray in the run up to the 2023 election.

Peter Obi is tarred with the same brush.  He first rode on the back of Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu’s APGA party to power. After publicly declaring he would never abandon APGA, he jumped boat after his second term to join PDP. He rose rapidly and became Atiku’s running mate in the 2015 but following Atiku Abubakar’s breach of PDP constitution which would have allowed Obi to emerge as PDP candidate in the 2023 election, Obi decided to pull down the edifice on the heads of everyone.

Obi decided to play identity and religion politics by exploiting the sentiments of his Igbo people that had since 1999 supported PDP to victory. Close to 70% of his six million votes in the 2023 election came from Southeast and South-south populated by his Igbo brethren,

For Atiku and Obi’s infidelity and opportunism, Tinubu’s eight million votes would have been no match for PDP and Labour’s close to 14m votes.  Their loss was Tinubu’s gain.  Sadly despite being deficit in character, both men still pretend to be part of solution to Nigerian crisis of nation building.

Peter Obi, the Obidients’ best candidate to govern Nigeria, displayed no special skill as governor of Anambra, a state he left as a jungle. As a business man once described as ‘a container economist’ by President Tinubu, all he has told us publicly is that he was a wine importer. And for Atiku Abubakar, Obasanjo’s testimonial on him was damning.

I think we must start to interrogate how we got to this sorry path while remembering with nostalgia, the role of Nigerian youths in the evolution of the Nigerian state. While the nation is today being haunted by a mob ready to fight and kill for a man who believes in nothing, we easily recollect how it was that 20 Nigerian law students who in 1920 first proposed the idea of a Nigerian federation patterned after Switzerland to the colonial masters.

While we today have in Lagos some youths who do not behave much differently from the Almajiris of the north, visiting violence and destruction on government and private properties, what we had in the forties in Lagos were youths who organized debates and strategized on how to get rid of the colonial masters.

It is on record that Chief Anthony Enahoro who went on to become one of the  best parliamentarians Nigeria has ever produced was an editor  of a national newspaper at 22, and that Bode Thomas, the deputy chairman of Action Group who died at 33, was the author of ‘regionalism’ despite his principals’ preference for federalism. Even military boys who did not have advantage of education but joined the military to be able to climb the social lather ended up ruling our country in their twenties and thirties.

Underlying the definitions of bullying in dictionaries is power imbalance. To bully someone is to direct aggressive behaviour at them, to intimidate or threaten them, to act cruelly towards someone, or to coerce them. For one to do these, there must be a power dynamic that makes the person at the receiving end vulnerable. Such a tilt of strength can either be embodied by an individual with a disproportionate physical or social power or a group of individuals converging on a weaker party to diminish them. Since the word “cyber-” got appended to bullying in Nigeria, it has acquired a new meaning that has virtually subverted the logic of power that underlies it.

Now, and no thanks to the police’s tendency to meddle in every matter in which a “big man” cries about being inconvenienced with public embarrassment activated by a previously unknown entity, a supposed victim of bullying these days is frequently someone who can commandeer the resources of the state. If you have enough clout to send the police on your errands, can you really claim to be a victim of cyberbullying?

Let us begin with the now infamous case of the singer Burna Boy (Damini Ogulu) at whose behest a singer cum comedian Darlington Okoye (Speed Darlington) has been reportedly incarcerated for months. As the story is told—and which Burna Boy has not denied—Speed Darlington is in jail because he taunted Burna Boy about his association with disgraced artiste Sean Combs (aka P Diddy). In December, the court ruled that his arrest and detention constituted “a gross violation” of his constitutional rights to dignity, liberty, expression, and movement. Despite a direct court order, the police have refused to release him. That makes you wonder, is Burna Boy really a “victim” if the police can sacrifice institutional integrity for his sake?

Meanwhile, the same insinuation Speed Darlington made about Burna Boy has been hurled at several US celebrities who as much as took a photograph with P Diddy. None has asked a man to be incarcerated indefinitely because they got butthurt. Please note that these are people whose reputation far outpaces that of an arriviste like Burna Boy. Yet, they will not take that track because they are self-assured enough to understand the price of celebrity. Unlike the quintessential African “big man”, they are also sensible enough to realise that power should have a more productive function than to abuse others cheaply.

 

Then, there is the case of Olamide Thomas, who was arrested and incarcerated for cursing the President’s son, Seyi Tinubu. This was another case of the police torturing logic just to satisfy a big man with small feelings. They claimed the curse “placed Seyi in fear of death, violence or bodily harm”. That would be hilarious if were not tragic. How does the law assess the effectiveness of a curse? If curses worked the way people who watch too many Nollywood films think they do, something should have happened to Seyi long ago, given that people have been cursing his father (and their family) since 1999! I am genuinely curious as to why Seyi would be so unsettled by curses that it would compel the police (and the court) to overreact to superstition.

Add to that the ongoing case of bloggers, Precious Eze, Olawale Olurotimi, Rowland Olonishuwa and Seun Odunlami, hauled before the Federal High Court in Lagos for “acts of cyberbullying” (some reports describe the allegation as “cyberstalking”) against the CEO of Guaranty Trust Holdings, Segun Agbaje, when they published uncomplimentary remarks about him. I am by no means defending those bloggers (who have long pulled down the publications anyway), but accusations of nepotism, power play, and self-enrichment are so commonplace in Nigeria that accusing a CEO will not elicit as much as a gasp. They certainly do not warrant holding people in custody for upward of three months. The police cannot fight cyberbullying with judicial bullying, sorry.

 

Even more laughable is the amended charge against them that states their alleged offence can potentially cause “a breakdown of law and order in the Nigerian banking system”? How can anyone cause a breakdown in law and order within the banking system when that sphere is not an extricable part of regular life? The officers who came up with that idea will surely have a profitable gig doing comedies in their police uniform. If they must know, the operational deficiencies and the decline of the high standards for which GTB used to be known (and renowned) will result in “a breakdown of law and order in the Nigerian banking system” faster than the opinion of a blogger no one would have otherwise read.

Add to the growing list of police overreach the case of Abraham Daniel, a former minister at Dunamis International Gospel Centre, Abuja. He was recently summoned for questioning regarding an “investigation” into “cyberbullying”’ following his accusations against his former principal, Pastor Paul Enenche, for reneging their “gentleman’s agreement.” While the police summons appeared civil enough, it is still intimidating, especially given that the issue at stake is a matter of personal differences between two individuals who should resolve their matter privately. If one party can get the police to act on his behalf even in a petty issue, can he still be “cyberbullied”?

These cases are worrisome because they show a growing pattern of judicial abuse that began under the previous administration and is becoming gradually routinised. Do not forget that under alleged civilian President, Maj. Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (rtd), the DSS arraigned a man for treason in the courts for, among other spurious offences, insulting the President. Buhari’s wife also had a young man stalked, arrested, detained, and later charged to court for basically calling her “fat”. What astounded me most was that the police spent six months tracking the guy before they apprehended him. If they demonstrate a similar diligence toward their responsibilities to Nigeria, the country will not be so insecure.

Look at all the spheres all the supposed victims of cyberbullying represent—popular culture, politics, industry, and religion—and understand why this pattern is worrisome. Figures representative of virtually every sphere of our socio-political life are one-trick ponies whose only recourse is to use their clout with the police to perpetrate abuse. That is not good for society by any measure. Even worse, at the rate the police are going with their trivialisation of the law by filing sensational charges over minor issues, they will turn every rabble-rouser into an anti-establishment hero. We should properly delineate what constitutes “cyberbullying” (or “cyberstalking”) so that it stops being exploited by anyone who has some money in their pocket and can purchase justice.

No matter what you think or how you feel about any of those people standing trial for cyberbullying, we should not be so numb that we fail to ask if the issue is about legal protections against malevolent speech or just an increasing pattern of intolerance for human rights. When people who have commensurate power say nasty things against each other on social media, the police never swoop in to “investigate”. Regardless of how vicious the exchange by the warring parties gets, the police never take sides to lament “injurious speech” that therefore warrants filing charges of cyberbullying, cyberstalking or even criminal defamation. It is when the matter becomes a case of the top dog vs an underdog that they become animated. Their conduct calls into question the whole idea of “bullying” as an act of aggression and intimidation. If bullying (cyber- or wherever else it takes place) is about a powerful person preying on a weaker party, what constitutes it when the supposed victim is the one who can afford to hire the police?

 
Page 4 of 301