OTHERS' VIEWS

OTHERS' VIEWS

The FIFA window for international football for the month of March is now over. Sadly, for the Super Eagles, no one is sure yet if it has not left us worse than it met us.

The Eagles did an amazing job in Kigali against Rwanda, gave Nigerians a credible, professional performance and a fantastic result and then undid all the good work a few days later in Uyo.

This is the story of what has become one of Nigeria’s worst World Cup qualifying campaigns in recent history.

In a group that has South Africa, Benin Republic, Rwanda, Lesotho and Zimbabwe, Nigeria has only managed to win a game in six matches, failed to win any of the three games played at home and kept just one clean sheet. Such an abysmal form. This is not deserving of a World Cup ticket in any form or shape. It cannot sniff a playoff spot either.

 

However, despite these failings, the Eagles are not totally out of the picture. The race for the 2026 World Cup is still on for Nigeria. This is a miracle in itself. That the other teams in Group C have conspired to leave the race open just gives Nigeria a thin, tender thread to hang on. It must be stated here and now that in spite of the precarious situation they are in, I have not given up on them. The race to the 2026 World Cup has become very difficult to win but they are still in it so anything can still happen.

It is good to reflect on some issues here. Listen to some parts of Coach Eric Chelle’s post match statement after Tuesday’s game against Zimbabwe in Uyo: “We could have introduced a defender, but we introduced a striker because I told my boys to try to get another goal. We are talking about it because we did not win, but it would not be an issue if we won.” Of course, what does he expect?

We would speak and make a big issue out of it because the tactic backfired. One can appreciate Chelle’s honesty and desire to play on the front foot to get a big win, play attractive attacking football and score goals aplenty but things are not always that straightforward. One expects Chelle to be more pragmatic and cautious. His tactical naivety cost Nigeria two very precious points. 1-0, 2-0, 3-0, 4-0 give the same number of points. Get your three points secured in the bag before seeking to improve your goal difference. At the end of the day in Uyo, we lost both ways. Two points dropped and no improvement in the goal difference. You do not lose a good result while looking for a better one. Secure the good result before looking for a better one.

 

In Kigali, the game management by the Eagles was top notch and very professional. In Uyo, it was the opposite. I hope this serves as a very useful lesson for coach Chelle in his fledgling career.

There is also something here for the players, especially the senior and more established ones. As the main actors on the pitch, they should be able to adapt the instructions received from the coach to the realities and flow of the game. When the Zimbabweans were pouring forward in attack and carving out some decent goal scoring opportunities, the Eagles could have adjusted and adapted to the present and obvious dangers of the moment. Perhaps, that could have prevented the collapse of the team’s defensive network leading to the heart breaking equaliser.

Despite all these, however, I must admit that I have been impressed with the attitude and work ethics of the new Eagles handler. He is doing a lot of things right. He is soaking himself well in Nigeria’s domestic football, meeting the coaches in the Nigeria Premier Football League (NPFL), getting a first hand knowledge of the thrils, frills, culture, spirit and essence of the Nigerian game and people. He wants to live here so he can ‘feel’ the mood and understand the demands as well as the high level expectations and pressure that come with managing the nation’s number one football brand. Chelle is developing a good rapport with the players. It is in Nigeria’s best interest that he is supported to succeed with the team. It is shocking that some sections of the media are already pushing for his sack. Ridiculous!

Another interesting narrative spreading like wildfire is that the Godswill Akpabio International Stadium in Uyo aka Nest of Champions is jinxed and the Eagles are incapable of winning crucial games there or even playing good football there. I have had to remind a few of those spreading the.narrative that one of Nigeria’s best World Cup qualifying campaigns was the 2018 World Cup qualifiers and all the home games of the Super Eagles were played and won with excellent football in Uyo. The venue, day of a game and jersey colour do not decide the outcome of football matches. Rather it is the attitude, commitment and hunger of players that do.

 

Right now, since we are still in the World Cup race, let us see how to turn the thin and tender thread holding our dreams together into a battling rope, the type used for tug of war contests. To make the ‘miracles’ happen, the sports authorities have to ensure that the only FIFA window available before hostilities begin again in September is optimally utilised. The Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) has announced that friendly matches against Ghana and Russia are lined up for June. Not only must this period be used for team bonding and confidence building, it must also be used to educate the players that qualifying for the 2026 World Cup is a national project and all hands must be on deck to make it happen.

It is noteworthy and commendable that the Presidential Support Group (PSG), National Sports Commission (NSC) and the Nigeria Football Federation (NFF) are seamlessly working together. The synergy is good, strong and healthy as this is galvanising tremendous support and goodwill for the Eagles. Also, the different factions of supporters now sing and dance as a forceful unit. Their voices are clearly heard. This is encouraging. The icing on the cake will now be for the results on the pitch to ‘fall in line’ as we continue to hope against hope.

Last Saturday, March 22, at the Transcorp Hilton, Abuja, the Tony Elumelu Foundation unveiled its 11th cohort of 3,000 young entrepreneurs from 54 African countries and they will receive the traditional funding, training and mentorship.

It is an incredible opportunity that Tony Elumelu, a leading African investor and philanthropist, and his wife, Awele, a medical doctor and entrepreneur (co-founders of the Foundation), created through the TEF Entrepreneurship Programme “to drive poverty alleviation, catalyse jobs, and ensure inclusive economic environment.”

March 22 is Tony Elumelu’s birthday and it is the day each cohort is unveiled every year. My birthday is March 21 – just one day apart.

Although the Tony Elumelu Foundation was founded in 2010 with a vision of a self-sustaining and prosperous Africa powered by the energy of innovation, and resilience of its young men and women, it wasn’t until five years later that the TEF Entrepreneurship Programme was launched. The goal at the time was to empower 10,000 entrepreneurs in 10 years with US100 million, but the good news is that the Foundation has now funded 24,000 entrepreneurs – a remarkable achievement – within the period.

Since 2015, these 24,000 Africans created 1.5 million jobs and generated US$4.2 billion in revenue, while lifting over two million Africans out of poverty. As a mentor of the programme, I should know. The inspiring stories of these young entrepreneurs and the impact they are making are changing the economic landscape of Africa. Each Tony Elumelu entrepreneur receives a non-refundable seed capital of US$5,000. If we do the math, the 2025 cohort of 3,000 entrepreneurs will receive UD$15 million (about N23 billion). The Foundation embodies the philosophy of Africapitalism, Tony Elumelu’s belief that African entrepreneurs are the key drivers of the continent’s economic transformation.

What these young entrepreneurs also receive is a world-class business training on TEFConnect, one-on-one mentorship, and access to global networks and investment opportunities.

But Elumelu’s approach to philanthropy is to leverage influence and impact. This explains why TEF has been able to forge strategic global partnerships to further scale the 2025 TEF Entrepreneurship Programme in collaboration with Google.org, the UAE Office of Development Affairs, Khalifa Bin Zayed Al Nahyan Foundation (an affiliate of Erth Zayed), and Deutche Investitions und Entwicklungsgesellschaft (DEG).

Apart from launching this noble initiative with his wife, Tony Elumelu is also the Chairman of UBA, Africa’s Global Bank and Group Chairman of Heirs Holdings, an African investment conglomerate. By the way, the recently released financial report for 2024 showed that UBA Group grew its Profit After Tax (PAT) to N766.6 billion, a 26.14 per cent increase from N607.7 billion in 2023.

Isn’t it better to be taught how to fish, as the popular saying goes, than being given a hand-out of fish? From the moment you set up a business, you can learn the ropes and avoid burning your fingers. Make no mistake about it, mistakes will be made, but the basic ingredients in your business plan should include a description of the business, vision, mission and values; competitive advantages, market analysis, organisational structure, products and/or services, marketing strategy, financial projections and funding request, if applicable.

In a previous article five years ago, this was what I wrote: “The TEF founder says entrepreneurship is the most effective way to establish true prosperity and he has continued to expand his vision to touch lives by providing seed money for young African entrepreneurs. But more importantly, the TEF founder wants a paradigm shift from the existing narrative whereby Africa depends largely on aids from multilateral institutions; it is not sustainable and it confers on Africa a weaker negotiating position in international trade.”

Last Saturday, Elumelu reiterated his unwavering belief in the potential of Africa’s entrepreneurs. “Today is the day we dedicate each year to democratise luck, spread hope, and create economic opportunities for young Africans across the continents,” Elumelu stated.

“When my wife and I founded TEF in 2010, we recognised the challenges young African entrepreneurs face, the barriers that stand in their way of ambition and their drive for Africa's economic transformation.”

Elumelu also told the audience that he has always believed immense opportunities exist in Africa and understands the power of transformative entrepreneurship. “I also know the obstacles,” he continued. “But I am certain that if we empower and invest in our young people, they will be the ones to solve Africa’s pressing challenges.”

Elumelu, through the Foundation – which is the philanthropic arm of Heirs Holdings – never hides his passion of creating enduring prosperity and social wealth in Africa by empowering entrepreneurs and enhancing the competitiveness in the private sector.  

These young entrepreneurs, demonstrating their talent, vision and ambition, represent the beacons of enterprise and they are poised to create “enduring wealth” in Africa as the programme continues to scale. Out of the over 200,241 applications received on TEFConnect, TEF’s proprietary digital platform (40% were women), only 3,000 (1.5 per cent) made the cut for 2025 after a rigorous and highly competitive selection process by Ernst & Young, to ensure independent assessment.

Applicants were assessed on their financial understanding and entrepreneurial mindset, as well as the feasibility, demand and scalability of their business ideas. About 48 percent of the successful applicants are Nigerians which is clearly a reflection of our population compared to the rest of Africa. The breakdown showed the sectors represented included Agribusiness (34%), Creative Industry (11%), Green Economy (11%), amongst other sectors.

Although 24,000 African entrepreneurs have been empowered so far since the inception of TEF, Elumelu knows that there are millions also waiting to receiving grants to start their own businesses. This is why at every given opportunity, the TEF Chairman continues to advocate globally for a shift from aid to investment. “In the 21st century, what Africa needs is not charity; it is investment in infrastructure, in businesses and, most importantly, in our young people, because the future of Africa lies in their hands,” he said confidently.

In her own message of encouragement, Dr. Awele Elumelu, TEF Co-Founder, congratulated and praised the young entrepreneurs. “We are incredibly proud of you and excited to witness the impact that you will create,” she said. Awele also acknowledged those who were not selected this year, and asked them to keep their entrepreneurial dreams alive.

Some of the TEF alumni who shared testimonials include Tabitha Arenson Abimiku, 2018 Alumnus and founder of Virtuous Pads; Ayodele Ognin, 2019 Alumnus and founder of Wurami Consulting, and Mohamed Dhaoufi, 2017 Alumnus and founder of Cure Bionics.

As these young African entrepreneurs of the 2025 cohort pursue their dreams, they need all the support and encouragement that they can get. When you listen to the stories of entrepreneurs, funding is always a major obstacle. TEF alumni are forever thankful to the Tony Elumelu Foundation for helping them overcome this challenge.

“I had an idea but I lacked the resources and didn’t have any network,” Abimiku, 2018 Alumnus and founder of Virtuous Pads, the multiple-award winning social enterprise, lamented some years ago. ”There was also no strategic direction, but from the seed funding, we raised additional US$50,000. We have been able to distribute more than a million reusable and washable pads across Africa.”

There are similar stories of impact that won’t be forgotten in a hurry, thanks to the Tony Elumelu Foundation.

Braimah is a public relations consultant and marketing strategist. 

Last modified on Thursday, 27 March 2025 20:44

Monday, March 24, 2025, was Emeka Ihedioha’s day in the sun. Granted, some will say he had already achieved a lot in six decades. Having been a three-term member of the House of Representatives, where he served as Chief Whip, Deputy Speaker and even Speaker, albeit temporarily, and Governor of Imo State, nothing can be truer.

Yet, his 60th birthday marked with a colloquium at the Abuja Continental Hotel, was epochal. It was not only a day of recognition, it was also a day of validation and triumph for a man who suffered, perhaps, the most grievous injustice in this present political dispensation.

On January 14, 2020, a seven-member panel of the Supreme Court led by Chief Justice Tanko Muhammad, the man who doesn’t know what technicality means in law, truncated Ihedioha’s governorship and awarded victory to Senator Hope Uzodimma on a platter.

 
 

That unconscionable judgement, which the late Justice Centus Nweze unequivocally said on March 4, 2020, “will continue to haunt our (Nigeria’s) electoral jurisprudence for a long time to come,” was delivered by Justice Kudirat Kekere-Ekun, yes, the incumbent CJN. Any wonder our judiciary has become the butt of jokes locally and internationally.

But, I digress!

Back to Ihedioha’s birthday and why it remains his moment in the sun. Attendance at the colloquium with the theme, “Is democracy failing in Africa,” delivered by the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese, Matthew Hassan Kukah, was topnotch. Except for former military president, General Ibrahim Babangida’s recent book launch in Abuja, it will not be an exaggeration to say that no other event has attracted such an array of dignitaries in recent times.

It was also a measure of Ihedioha’s national appeal and political clout that the guests came from all the nooks and crannies of the country. For a man who has been out of public office for more than five years with no patronage to dispense or the resources to buy loyalty, that was an incredible feat.

But even more significant were the remarks by guests, starting from the former governor of Cross River State, Liyel Imoke, who chaired the planning committee. Describing Ihedioha as a very determined person, with egalitarian worldview, Imoke said, “Emeka is one man who is intentional, extremely intentional. He sets his eyes on a goal and his commitment to achieving it knows no bounds. He is the right man to have beside you at any given time. In any political war, it is better to have Emeka on your side than on the other side.”

Former President Olusegun Obasanjo, who chaired the colloquium, concurred. Now, anyone who knows Obasanjo will agree that he is as stingy with money as he is with praises. But with Ihedioha, he makes an exception. “There is no perfect human being but the little I also know about you, you are almost a perfect human being. Again, the little I know about you, you take things as they come and you are unperturbed by even the seeming and apparent injustice when they come to you,” Obasanjo said.

For those who may think that he was playing to the gallery, Obasanjo had expressed the same sentiment privately. In his birthday message on March 20, the former president wrote: “I have watched you over the last 25 years as you conducted yourself socially, politically and economically and I have always said to myself that there is something in you that would make you to continue to be a great man of service to humanity and to God, your creator… my prayer and hope is that you will continue to live as you have done thus far without diversion, distraction or deviation.”

But Imoke and Obasanjo were not alone in praising Ihedioha’s political sagacity and exceptional leadership qualities. Former Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Chief Emeka Anyaoku, former Senate President David Mark, former Speaker of the House of Representatives Aminu Tambuwal and all others who had the privilege of mounting the rostrum harped on those remarkable qualities and the need for Imo people to ensure that he goes back to Douglas House, Imo seat of power, to continue with the urgent and existential task of rebuilding the much abused Eastern Heartland.

Osita Chidoka, former Minister of Aviation and master of ceremony at the colloquium, put it most succintly. “For every Igbo man, the question is where do you stand on the removal of Emeka Ihedioha as the governor of Imo State? If you stand on the left, you are forever a man of history; if you don’t stand on the right side of history, you will forever be remembered for shame and disgrace to Igboland,” he said.

But characteristically, Ihedioha chose to stand above the fray, insisting that what needs to be protected is democracy itself. Expressing gratitude to all, Ihedioha said: “When we were commencing this process, some people felt we were going to discuss Emeka and the issues in Imo State. I am happy that you can see that is a matter in the past. That is not the subject. And the subject is not to talk about my future, either. The subject is simply to gather Nigerians and talk about the well-being of our people and the democracy which we believe in… So, I urge all men and women of goodwill, all of us gathered here, very distinguished Nigerians, it is important that we do everything we can, without fear or favour, and speaking truth to power, to sustain and protect this democracy.”

So, is democracy failing in Africa? Are we doing enough to sustain and protect democracy in Nigeria?  

Bishop Kukah believes democracy is not failing but with a caveat: development must be democratised. Democratisation of development, he said, will ultimately lead to the development of democracy.

Obasanjo disagrees. It is not only that democracy is failing in Africa, Nigeria inclusive, it is dying, he insists. And democracy is dying because the leaders have failed to prioritise the needs of the people.

“Democracy is meant to be a system of government that delivers to all the people, not just a section of the people, not just a few,” he said. “Today, we have a democracy which is government of small number of people, by small number of people over large number of people who are deprived of what they need to have in life. That is not democracy that will endure. So, if you are talking of democracy failing in Africa, democracy in Africa has failed and why has it failed? Because in context and content, it is not African. It does not have any aspect of our culture, our way of life, what we stand for, what we believe, Ubuntu – I am because we are.”

Now, the African concept of Ubuntu emphasizes interconnectedness and shared humanity. ‘I am because we are’ or ‘humanity towards others.’ It is a philosophy that values community, compassion, and mutual respect.

Obasanjo said that is quite different from what obtains today in Nigeria, particularly under Tinubu’s presidency, which is, “I am because I can grab.”

Then, he asked the million-dollar question: “What sort of democracy brings you and you grab everything illegally, and you say go to court when you know that even in the court you cannot get justice? So, it is not that democracy is failing, democracy is dying.”

Peter Obi, former governor of Anambra State, and presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the 2023 elections, amplified Obasanjo’s position, insisting that democracy has collapsed under Tinubu’s watch.

With unimpeachable anecdotal evidences, Obi surmised: “Democracy is not working in Nigeria. Everything has been knocked down. Democracy is collapsing.”

Expectedly, the government is firing back. Picking on the soft target – Peter Obi – Bayo Onanuga, Tinubu’s Special Adviser on Information and Strategy, called him out.

“Only a discontented and disgruntled Peter, who benefits from the very free speech democracy provides, could perceive such a democratic downfall through his lens. If democracy had indeed collapsed, as Peter claims, and we were living under a regime antithetical to democratic principles, he would not have been able to make his comments on Monday at Emeka Ihedioha’s colloquium,” Onanuga said.

Who says? That argument is rather puerile. In any case, the fact that free speech is now considered a privilege under Tinubu, rather than a right speaks volumes. It says a great deal and tells the real story of where we are and why we are where we are.

The truth remains that Tinubu is systematically dismantling all the guardrails of democracy. By the time he is done with the demolition job, unless he is resisted and time is of the essence, the General Sani Abacha dictatorship will be child’s play.

 

The question is not where US President Donald Trump has not touched in less than 100 days in office. It is how the world is coping with the shock and devastation of his touch and the trail of chaos it is leaving behind.

Because of its vulnerabilities, Africa was never far from Trump’s reach. When the continent thought the looming mass deportation of immigrants and the scrapping of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) were among the worst measures in the early days of Trump’s second term, he unleashed a body blow that has left South Africa in a daze.

As of March 23, South Africa’s Ambassador to the US, Ebrahim Rasool, arrived back in Cape Town to tumultuous cheers from large crowds after he departed Washington. He was declared persona non grata by the Trump administration on March 14 for his comments at a webinar.

Rasool’s ‘sin’

Secretary of State Marco Rubio described Rasool’s criticisms of President Trump’s policies as “unacceptable”, adding that the ambassador harboured animosity towards the US president. Rubio said on X, where he also announced the expulsion, Rasool “hates America.”

The last time the US declared a foreign ambassador persona non grata was 17 years ago, under President George W. Bush. And even then, it retaliated against Bolivia after that country expelled the US ambassador for allegedly interfering in its “internal affairs.”

What was it that Rasool said? He told a webinar hosted by a South African think tank that Trump was “mobilising a supremacism” and also trying to “project white victimhood as a dog whistle” as a reaction to the demographic reality of a diminishing white population.

He said, “We see it in the domestic politics of the USA, the MAGA movement as a response not simply to a supremacist instinct, but to very clear data that shows great demographic shifts in the USA in which the voting electorate in the USA is projected to become 48 percent white.”

Inconvenient truth

That was the inconvenient truth. Could it have been said differently? Did Rasool walk into a trap, or was Rubio’s excuse a red herring? Apart from Somalia, no other African country has been targeted by the new US administration as much as South Africa. 

First, there was an executive order freezing US assistance to Pretoria for alleged “unjust racial discrimination” against white Afrikaans over the Expropriation Act, which seeks to redistribute land in the country, and then followed the stoppage of the USAID-funded HIV/AIDS programme that has put hundreds of lives at risk.

Rasool did what he had to. I won’t remove anything from his words. Relations between Pretoria and Washington were already testy, and the beads holding them had been broken from the waist by Trump’s chaotic dance steps. It was not a matter of if but which way the beads would fall.

Behind the story

The anti-Pretoria lobby in the US has had it for South Africa for a long time, especially following that country’s stand against Israel in the ongoing war on Gaza.

During my visit to Israel last December, the talk at the Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs was that South Africa took a bribe of $2 billion from Iran to mount a case against the Benjamin Netanyahu government at the International Criminal Court (ICC), an allegation that diplomatic sources in Pretoria have denied.

Despite Trump’s expression of displeasure, South Africa said it would not withdraw its case of genocide against Israel, saying it is aware that “Standing by our principles sometimes has consequences.”

Silent Africa

Rasool’s eviction is another consequence of South Africa’s principled stand, and the country is taking it in its stride. My surprise is the loud silence over Trump’s decision across African capitals. The continent’s media have also treated the story like a footnote.

We’re not talking about the US evicting illegal immigrants or smashing drug gangs. We’re talking about an ambassador with a distinguished career in the foreign service who was first appointed to the US in 2010 under Barack Obama.

He served for five years and was reappointed because of his extensive US domestic politics experience and ability to navigate complex international relations.

Contrary to what Rubio would have the world believe, Rasool’s “cardinal sin” was championing the case against Israel at the ICC – a matter of principle for which the ambassador should have no regrets.

Either African governments and the AU are too shocked to offer a clear response, or the continent has accepted chaos as the inevitability of the Trump era.

Dangerous silence

Whatever it is, silence is a dangerous option. If Trump can evict the ambassador of one of Africa’s most consequential countries for expressing an inconvenient opinion, it is only a matter of time before the less endowed countries will be in the firing line.

An academic and diplomat who served in many conflict areas in Africa, Professor Babafemi Badejo, said, “South Africa has, of late, been leading many countries over Gaza-Palestine. About four-fifths of African countries are, at best, lukewarm on this issue.

“It’s not a surprise that African countries have been mute over the US Secretary of State’s action declaring the South African ambassador persona non grata.”

If South Africa’s primary offence is its position on the war in Gaza – a position shared by many African countries – why is the continent unable to rally against Rasool’s eviction? Why is the AU silent?

European example

 In 2018, three European countries – France, Germany and the UK – took a common stand against the US in response to Washington’s unilateral withdrawal from the comprehensive action plan to guarantee the nuclear agreement with Iran. They bypassed the dollar-trading system and set up their mechanism to trade with Tehran.

Why is Africa a spectator in its own case? “Fear of punishments and resignation to a life of minimal relevance, if at all, has been the stance of many African countries,” Badejo said. “How does a Lilliputian state begging for food aid for its people assert itself.”

Africa’s other reasons

There could be a less apparent reason Trump would get away with his diplomacy of bullying. Several African leaders would like to copy him. In West and Central Africa, for example, five countries – Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger, Guinea and Chad – are under military rule.

Four of them have broken away from the regional group ECOWAS. Their leaders, who might have been in soup in a different, bygone world, would now consider themselves lucky beneficiaries of a chaotic global order. The last thing they would want to do is to challenge Trump.

Apart from the President of Cote d’Ivoire, Alassane Ouattara, whose supporters are already urging to continue for a fourth term against the constitutionally approved limit, the presidents of three other African countries are pressing for an extended term limit, the sort of thing Trump is already hinting at.

I didn’t expect the South African Development Community (SADC) or the AU to call an extraordinary meeting to discuss Rasool’s expulsion. But it’s a measure of how weak and resigned we have become that neither an officer of these organisations nor an African head of state can call out his eviction.

It’s Rasool today. Trump’s next victim is not far away.

_______________________

Multichoice apartheid pricing?

I’m usually not one to interfere with the markets, whatever the invincible foxes or forces want to do. But how can you ignore the nonsense that Multichoice has been up to lately? The pay-tv service provider has increased fees in Nigeria by 21 percent through the backdoor while cutting subscription fees in South Africa by 38 percent! Why? It said the cut in South Africa was a token to subscribers for the cost of living crisis. And in Nigeria? You know the old story – inflation, infrastructure, blah, blah. I wouldn’t mind if Multichoice had a competitor. But it’s nonsense for this monopoly to make most of its profits in this so-called high-risk environment and use it to subsidise subscribers elsewhere.

We had a name for it: apartheid!

 

During an interview on Channels TV on Monday, Professor Wole Soyinka responded to critics who have been taunting him to “say something” about the present administration. In the interview, he said, “People should stop trying to work on my timetable for me. I had not swallowed an alarm clock. I don’t see why I should put my alarm on and say: ‘One year has passed, now, I must make an assessment’ if there is nothing I feel like talking about and if I am busy elsewhere.” Following his earlier statement when he visited Bola Tinubu at Aso Rock in 2023, that he only criticises a government after its first year, it must be disappointing to his monitors that they cannot put their hands in his mouth and force out words.

To be fair to him, Soyinka has not been exactly silent on Nigeria’s situation. He criticised Tinubu’s decision to declare a state of emergency in Rivers State, but his intervention was tame, lame, and lacking characteristic edginess. The Soyinka who once referred to President Goodluck Jonathan as “Nebuchadnezzar” because of a police siege on the National Assembly resorted to prevarications on Rivers’ state of emergency. Time truly changes everything. If Jonathan were Nebuchadnezzar, the enslaving king who lost his sanity at the height of his brutal reign, then to which biblical figure can one similarly liken Tinubu, under whose watch Nigerians have confronted a severe economic crisis and recorded an unparalleled number of human rights abuses? Rehoboam, perhaps. That was the king who ill-advisedly refused to lighten the strenuous taxes his predecessor had tolled the people, incited a public rebellion, and ended up balkanising a united kingdom.

Everyone, including the critics taunting Soyinka for bringing less than the blunt edges of his sharp wit to political discourses, knows he is in an awkward situation under the present administration. He and Tinubu are friends, and their close relationship reportedly started during their NADECO days. Ordinarily, it is hard for a social critic to take down a close friend in power. It is even harder for a man like Soyinka, who has set a high bar of radical public engagement, to continue to meet his own standards now that his buddy is the President. While he has built a towering profile around being an anti-establishment figure, he is part of the political establishment now, even if he does not hold any official position in Tinubu’s administration. He can no longer maintain his previous ideological stance on political issues, and he should make that clear to the public rather than promising to speak when he finally has something to say. There is nothing he will ever have to say on any issue that has to do with Tinubu’s administration that will not be considered tainted and even cynically prejudged, so why bother?

Perhaps if Soyinka had known that a day would come when Tinubu would become the President, he would have been more measured in his criticisms of previous administrations. He would not be in the awkward position where they jab him to prove his patriotic commitment to the nation by criticising an oppressive government now run by his dear friend. The past cannot be helped, but he should also be able to clearly state to the public on whose behalf he has advocated for years, why he would hang up his boxing gloves this time around. It will not be a crime, nor will it mean he has lost the patriotic zeal that pushed him into lifelong social advocacy; it would just be practical under the circumstances. It is not enough to say, “I will speak when I have something to say,” but you must also be accountable enough to the public to point out your closeness to the political subject, how it compromises you, and why you would take a pass on political commentary. Without being upfront about why you have nothing to say during an oppressive reign when you would have had more than enough to say if your friends were not involved, you damage your public image and legacy. Respecting the public enough to be honest about your limits under the circumstances means you can frame your actions as courtesy to a friend rather than leave them to be interpreted as cowardice or hypocrisy.

 
 

One of the several fallouts of the ascendance of the All Progressives Congress to the national stage from being a regional party is that it forcefully retired many anti-establishment figures. Many of them cut their critical teeth railing against the Peoples Democratic Party machine that was in power for 16 years. While at it, they also fraternised with the Alliance for Democracy/APC, the political party that also defined itself against the state. Their mutual affiliation was logical for reasons ranging from ethnic sentiment to the lush funds Tinubu provided from Lagos’ purse. When the APC won the Presidency in 2015, many of them found themselves in the uncomfortable position where they could either maintain their oppositional stance (and risk offending their APC allies) or become apologists for a government that duplicated every political action for which they once attacked the PDP. Before many could figure out their roles under the dispensation, the dynamics of Nigerian political opposition changed. The old guard was replaced by a younger generation who quickly made it clear they would have nothing to do with them.

Soyinka was one of those who soldiered on, although one can argue that his criticisms of the Muhammadu Buhari administration curiously coincided with the sidelining of Tinubu among the APC establishment. While I do not think he is a card-carrying member of the APC, Soyinka’s political posture since 1999 has favoured the AD/APC political class more than any other collective in Nigeria. Now that the same Tinubu has made it to the Presidency, Soyinka is in an even more complicated place. There is no winning for him under the circumstances other than acknowledging that some personal relationships necessarily compromise us. The writer E.M. Forster once said, “If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I should have the guts to betray my country.” This should be one of the times when choosing your friend over your country is the right thing to do.

This is not the first time friendship has put Soyinka in an awkward position where he has to self-justify. In 2016, during one of the many squabbles between Rivers Governor Rotimi Amaechi and his successor Nyesom Wike, it was revealed that the former had spent N82m (about $165,000) to host him to a dinner. Wike’s boys pulled that detail out from official records for no other reason than to embarrass Soyinka, whose intervention in the Rivers matter was perceived as fighting Amaechi’s battles. Soyinka’s response was to deny it was his “business to probe into the catering and logistical implications of the hundreds of institutions and governments all over the world to whom I acknowledge an immense debt of unsolicited recognition over the years”. Yes, while no reasonable person expects a Nobel Prize winner to ask such questions when he is hosted at a dinner, the right thing would have been to condemn such an inordinate expense made in your name. By not calling out Amaechi’s corruption, he fell into Wike’s well-laid trap to make him choose between his friend and the strict moral principles for which he is renowned.

Now he is in another situation that warrants choosing between his friend and his principles, and I suggest he chooses the former. We can borrow the immortal wisdom of Ogbuefi Ezeudu in Things Fall Apart, who told Okonkwo: “That boy calls you father. Do not bear a hand in his death to remind him this unpleasant task needs not to involve him.” Soyinka was right that other people—the Falanas, Sowores, and the Baiyewus—are already doing a good job without him. The thing is, by looking away from his friend’s administrative shortcomings, he will also be losing the moral right to comment on any other leader after Tinubu. He should make peace with that.

At the instance of the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, President Felix Tshisekedi of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and his Rwandan counterpart, President Paul Kagame met in Doha last week in a bid to end the ongoing war in the DRC. The mindless violence in the eastern part of the country, according to the United Nations, has created one of the worst humanitarian crises in history, impacting nearly seven million people—half of them children. The situation is becoming even more dire with the recent capture of two major cities in eastern DRC, Goma and Bukavu, by Rwanda-backed M23 rebels. But in Doha, both Kagame and Tshisekedi agreed on an “immediate and unconditional ceasefire” that seems easier said than done.

Instructively, at about the time the two leaders were meeting, a video was trending on social media of an interview granted by Kagame where he brutally disparaged his Congolese colleague. “You know Felix (President Tshisekedi) spent many years in Belgium. He was a taxi driver. He was many things of that kind but with a very bad reputation. He was employed by an Italian man, an old man now, who had a shop selling pizza. Felix used to deliver Pizza for him,” Kagame claimed in the interview. “When this old man heard that Felix had become president of his country he said, ‘Oh, my God! Felix that couldn’t even do the job of delivering pizza, how did he become president?’”

I shared the anecdote at the 60th birthday colloquium in honour of Hon Emeka Ihedioha on Monday. Chaired by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, I had been conscripted to discuss the paper presented by Bishop Hassan Matthew Kukah on the theme, ‘Is Democracy failing in Africa?’ along with Alhaji Aminu Tambuwal and Mr Peter Obi, both of whom need no further introduction. The moderator, Maupe Ogun-Yusuf of Channels Television, had sought our views on whether democracy is indeed failing on the continent. With Tambuwal answering ‘No’ and Obi saying ‘Yes’, I responded with, ‘Yes and No.’ As a member of the birthday planning committee chaired by former Cross River State Governor Liyel Imoke (who decreed that I be on the panel at the last minute), we were deliberate about the kind of conversation we wanted to provoke.

After the session, Senator Anyim Pius Anyim (also needs no further introduction) told me that he thought my punchline would be that a man who could not deliver pizza would be incapable of delivering democracy and good governance to his people as president. That precisely was the point Kagame made, but I was hesitant to amplify his message that if Tshisekedi was found wanting in the simple task of prompt pizza delivery, it was expecting too much to saddle him with presiding over one of the most resource-endowed countries in Africa. Although I made the point in passing, I deliberately avoided pushing the envelope because it would detract from my central argument within the three minutes I was given. Besides, I had my doubts about the veracity of Kagame’s claim.

From my online check, the report Kagame alluded to was published by a Rwandese journalist, Tom Ndahiro who referenced a Belgian publication. One Francisco Piscopo, owner of Pizzeria Godo in Brussels, was said to have recalled his time employing Tshisekedi for three years. “He runs Congo the same way he delivered pizzas: always late, disorganized, and with missing funds that no one can explain” Piscopo reportedly said. “If I could give him one piece of advice, it would be to take his responsibilities more seriously.” I have read reports which suggest that the story was made up since Tshisekedi comes from a privileged background. His late father, Étienne Tshisekedi, was Prime Minister of Zaire in the 90s. When children of African leaders go to school or reside abroad, they rarely do odd jobs such as selling pizza. Therefore, I would rather take the Felix who couldn’t deliver pizza as a metaphor. I will come back to this shortly.

Every democracy, Kukah said in his thought-provoking presentation, is a work in progress. “Democracy gives you the opportunity to try if you failed and gives you a greater opportunity to correct the former mistakes,” the Catholic Bishop of Sokoto Diocese stated. Tambuwal shared his position, but Obi disagreed. Obasanjo, of course, took a different slant. ‘Western type democracy’, he argued, seems too frail a plant to survive the African climate because it has been reduced to “government of a small number of people, by a small number of people, over a large number of people who are deprived of what they need to have in life.” My problem with Obasanjo’s thesis, on which he has been very consistent, is that it presupposes that the pre-colonial leadership model offers better prospects of delivering the public good.

It is interesting that just about a week ago, Obasanjo publicly lamented the process of selecting traditional rulers in the country. “Today, there are criminals, drug addicts, vagabonds, bandits and kidnappers as so-called traditional rulers” Obasanjo said. “This is a great pity, and it has greatly contributed to the problems of Nigeria. How do we account for a traditional ruler snatching a ballot box at an election polling station and running away with it?” he queried. Reflecting on the past, Obasanjo said traditional rulers used to command respect, particularly during the colonial and early post-independence periods, but not anymore. “The class of traditional rulers with their distinction, honour and dignity, as we knew them in the colonial days and early post-independence days, has been diluted and polluted.”

Although the former president is yet to clarify his thoughts on ‘Afro-democracy’ (perhaps he needs to write a book on the issue), it looks to me like a throw-back to the era of the all-powerful traditional ruler who cannot be questioned (‘Kabiyesi’ in Yoruba parlance). “It’s now our responsibility to chart our own course. Western liberal democracy introduced the concept of opposition, equating it with enmity. Yet, there’s nothing inherently African about this model,” Obasanjo told a House of Representatives delegation last year when they came to seek his support for their bill to replace the current presidential system with the parliamentary system we practiced in the First Republic. Incidentally, I also had an informal session with prominent members of the group in Abuja last year, and I made it clear to them that the challenge of democratic governance in Nigeria comes more from the operators than the constitution or the system of government. For instance, if the same traditional institution that worked in the past is now ‘diluted and polluted’, why does the former president believe that changing the system of government in Nigeria will not suffer a similar fate since it would be operated by the same set of people?

Indeed, nothing illustrates the crisis of the traditional institution better than the process that eventually culminated in the enthronement of the current Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Abimbola Owoade. A former vice-chancellor of Obafemi Awolowo University and globally renowned traditionalist, Professor Wande Abimbola, 92, whose intervention eventually led to a resolution of what had become a logjam, revealed some sordid details. “The kingmakers were consulted to pick a successor, and then interested individuals started giving hefty money to influence their decision. This later divided the rank of the kingmakers because they discovered that the money their leader shared to them was a far cry from what he collected,” Abimbola revealed while explaining how he was asked by Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde to consult the Ifa Oracle on the matter. “The five kingmakers had earlier supported a particular prince who gave them the heaviest sum but after discovering the act perpetrated by their leader, two of them backtracked. They reached out to the government to say they were no longer in support of the candidate, adding that they just discovered that the money their leader collected from the said prince was incredibly heavy from which he gave them peanuts.” In Yorubaland today, according to Abimbola, enthroning a king is now a cash-and-carry affair. “They would buy generators, cars and what have you for the kingmakers to influence the process. The kingmakers may collect money from a hundred candidates, it’s the highest bidder that they will give the stool to. That’s how they are doing it now.”

The lesson is that there is no system that cannot be compromised. So, at the end of the day, it’s about fidelity to the rules of engagement by the operators and being accountable to the people. But before I conclude, let me come back to the Rwandese journalist who amplified the statement of his president to knock Tshisekedi. According to Ndahiro, the fortune of a country is determined by the leader. So, if such an individual lacks the requisite qualities of discipline, honesty and dedication to duties, it is their people who would suffer the consequences. “The man who once struggled to deliver pizzas in Brussels and now struggles to deliver governance in the DR Congo, serves as a lesson in why evaluating a leader’s past is critical to understanding their potential for national leadership”, Ndahiro wrote, while highlighting what he sees as the failings of Tshisekedi.

 I do not agree with the clearly partisan premise of Ndahiro, but it is difficult to fault his thesis that a leadership recruitment process that ignores such important factors is doomed. Therefore, whether it is ‘Western style democracy’ or the traditional system of the pre-colonial era, if the person at the helm is a ‘Felix that couldn’t deliver pizza’, the system would also not deliver on the public good.

Since whatever goes for Nigeria goes for Africa, the crisis of democracy on the continent is the result of a combination of history, cultural deformities and impunity by a succession of leaders. In post-colonial Africa, the traditional codes of competence, discipline and integrity have also been superseded and replaced by the anarchy of cultism, the worship of corrupt money and transactional religion. And democracy or whatever other system we come up with can only reflect these factors in our contemporary society. The pertinent question therefore is, how do we enthrone a system that shuts out those like ‘Felix that couldn’t deliver pizza’ from critical leadership positions?

That for me is the real challenge across board, and in all spheres of our national life.

Bereavement of Wunti, Ehusani

Hajiya Aishatu Al Mustapha died last week in Bauchi State. She was the mother of my friend, Bala Wunti, the Chief Health, Safety and Environment Officer of the NNPC Ltd. May God comfort the family she left behind. And may He grant her Aljannah Firdaus. Also yesterday in Abuja, I attended the Service of Songs and Mass for Mama Catherine Matureyi Ehusani, mother of Father George Ehusani, who also preached a very powerful sermon at the occasion attended by many Catholic priests, including John Cardinal Onaiyekan. She will be buried today in Okene, Kogi State. In the tribute to his late mother written as a poem, Father George recollects: Like a weary caravan sighting an oasis/I skid at my mother’s love/With a smile as wide as the sea/For an embrace as deep as the ocean.

May she find perfect peace and may God continue to comfort the family. 

 Ayo Olukanni @ 70

Former Nigeria ambassador to Australia with concurrent accreditation to New Zealand, Fiji, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu, Mr Ayo Olukanni, is 70 today. A career diplomat who had at various times also served in Brussels, New York, Tel Aviv, Nairobi, Vienna etc was for four years the Director General of the Nigerian Association of Chambers of Commerce, Industry, Mines, and Agriculture (NACCIMA) after his tour of duty in foreign service. I first met Olukanni when I was presidential spokesman, and he was spokesman to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs at the time. Despite being senior to me in age and not minding his public service experience and exposure, he treated me with much respect and sought the assistance of my office all the time. With that, we worked seamlessly together. As he joins the elite Septuagenarian Club today, I can only wish him happy birthday, long life and good health.

 

Since late February when Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan nearly brought down the roof of the Senate, wagging her finger at the Senate President and shouting, ‘’I’m not afraid of you’’, Nigerian women have found their voice and are rising to assert their influence. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s sexual harassment allegation against Akpabio and her relentless pursuit of the matter have further pumped up our women fold; creating a sense in them that they can’t remain silent further. The other day at the airport, a woman caused a stir as she shouted at a middle aged man, ‘’If you cross me, I will deal ruthlessly with you’’. I don’t know what the matter was, but I had to quickly walk away from the scene. On talk shows, women activists are punching the air to make their points on the issue of gender equality and reiterate their support for the embattled Kogi Senator. Last Saturday, a female guest in a TV interview looked intensely into the camera and bellowed out: ‘’we’ve been quiet for so long. It’s time we, the women, came out of our shells and teach the men some lessons’’. But nothing prepared me for the shock of last night when Dr. Oby Ezekwesili, former Vice President for Africa at the World Bank and former Minister of Education, nearly came to blows with Senator Onyekachi Nwebonyi, deputy chief whip of the senate. I have never seen Ezekweisili so agitated, irascible and emotional.

It was at the sitting of the Senate Committee on Ethics where Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition against Akapbio was to be heard, and the former minister was there in her capacity as the Country Chair of Women Political Leaders (WPL), a nonprofit foundation that operates as a global network of female political leaders. Nwebonyi attended as a representative of the Senate President, who has been in the centre of the storm. According to Nwebonyi, trouble started when the petitioner and his lawyer refused to go on oath before they could make their presentation. Nwebonyi told Arise News: ‘’When they refused to take the oath, I asked the Chairman of the Committee to call off the meeting as the petitioner was not ready. That’s when Dr. Ezekwesili told me ‘shut up your mouth. You are a hooligan’. A shouting match then ensued. Nigerians are sharply divided on who to blame for the altercation. While some argue that as a man, Nwebonyi should have kept quiet and received Ezekwesili’s insults with equanimity, others claim that the former minister ought not to have been rude to the man, a principal officer of the Nigerian Senate, no matter her status. In any case, Nwebonyi was not even addressing her when she interjected with ‘’Shut up your mouth’’.

I have known Ezekwesili right from our days in the university in the 1980s as a respectful, courteous and good-natured, but independent minded person, and I have never thought that a day would come when she would call a senator a ‘’hooligan’’. The anger, emotions and the adrenalins we have seen in Nigerian women since the Akpoti-Uduaghan saga have been enormous. Many have thrown away self restraint as they try to make their point. This is their ‘’Me too’’ moment. I recall that #MeToo started in the US as a social movement and awareness campaign against sexual abuse, sexual harassment and rape culture in which women publicize their experiences of sexual abuse or harassment. The phrase ‘’Me Too’’ was initially used in this context in the US in 2006, on Myspace, by a sexual assault survivor and activist, Ms Tarana Burke; and the hashtag #MeToo was used in 2017 as a way to draw attention to the magnitude of the problem in the US. ‘’MeeToo’’ is therefore meant to empower those who have been sexually assaulted through empathy, solidarity and strength in numbers, by visibly demonstrating the depth of the problems, especially at workplace. So far, Nigerian activists have not used the hashtag #MeToo in their advocacy, but I will not be surprised if someone comes up with a typically Nigerian creative slogan. It’s not long ago that we had #EndSARs; #EndBadGovernance and #NoGreeForAnybody.

Now that personalities like Oby Ezekwesili have come out to openly identify with Akpoti-Uduaghan, it is important that Nigerian men realize just how important this issue is to our womenfolk; how sensitive they are to such matters, and that the women are fighting back in unimaginable ways. To my fellow men, let me warn that the era of leering lustfully at women or making comments about a woman’s bust or length of her skirt is gone. You could be accused of sexual harassment for passing what you think is an innocuous joke. Last May, Mrs Simisola Ajayi, an assistant to the Minister of Foreign Affairs had accused the Permanent Secretary in the Ministry, Ibrahim Lamuwa, of sexual harassment. Mrs Ajayi had petitioned the then Head of the Civil Service of the Federation, Mrs Folashade Yemi-Esan of serially making passes at her despite her status as a married woman. Then Head of Service promptly suspended the Perm Sec, but the matter had since died. Attempts by the House of Representatives to weigh into the matter quickly fizzled out. Activists like Dr. Ezekwesili did not even bother to comment on it, perhaps because Mrs Ajayi is not a senator. That’s how Nigeria works. If you are not a big man (or woman), nobody fights your fight. The reason Natasha’s matter has become an international embarrassment is because she is a beautiful senator married to a Warri chief. If she were a teacher in my village, nobody would listen to her even if her headmaster had torn her skirt!

Nigerian women are fighting back to assert their position as equal partners in society and demand for respect, recognition and a place at the table. But like all struggles, this one requires good strategies and long-term planning; not emotions and insults.

Nigeria has, indeed, come a long way in its democratic journey. Notwithstanding its outward appearance, Nigeria’s democracy has consistently fallen short of true democratic principles.
 
Despite close to 26 years of uninterrupted democratic governance, yet it oscillates between authoritarianism and hybrid regimes with manifest outright dictatorships, pervasive censorship, and an unstable political system that juggles a facade of democratic processes with repressive practices – which includes; widespread use of arbitrary arrest, detention, constant judicial harassment and miscarriage of justice.
 
I am more worried about the legislative arm of government because of the principle of check-and-balances and the enormous responsibilities placed on its shoulder. This article, which is based on sound analysis, considers the legislative responsibilities and political rascality of the Nigerian National Assembly in its unbroken 26 years.
 
Clearly, the examples of the Apkabio/Natasha, suspension of democratic institutions/officials and many others are worrisome. After a brief review of the Akpabio/Natasha’s case, I concluded that “over-familiarity” is the cause of reciprocal arrogance and disrespect between Senator Godswill Obot Akpabio the current Senate President and Senator Natasha Akpoti Uduaghan. They probably remixed their private life with official conduct. Sadly, the outcome was NATIONAL DISGRACE! At the very least, Akpabio should have stepped down to clear his name instead of assuming a judge in his own case.
 
This contribution examines the recent events vis-a-vis Legislative rascality, Judiciary compromises and the impunity of the Executive arm of government. Today serves as a timely reminder that we must critically reevaluate our democracy and get back to the basics i.e. prioritizing genuine leadership and the responsible exercise of political office in the best interest of the people.
 
Following from the above; the most disturbing aspect is the National Assembly rubber stamps executive Impunity in Emergency rule in Rivers.
 
In a profound statement of the Presidential Candidate of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) and leader of the Kwankwasiyya movement, Senator Rabiu Musa Kwankwaso, who strongly criticized President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, describing it as a dangerous precedent for Nigeria’s democracy.
 
Sen. Kwankwaso, Reflecting on his experience in the 1992/93 National Assembly, Kwankwaso warned against repeating past mistakes, where lawmakers were preoccupied with internal power struggles instead of safeguarding democratic institutions. He also accused the 10th National Assembly of failing in its duty to check executive overreach and impunity of the executive arm of government. I believe that, he had in mind, the events of the May 27, 1962 Western Region Crises and of course the Obasanjo’s Costly Failed Third-Term Bid which was a conduit pipe for sharing huge amount of money ranging from one hundred to five hundred millions per each legislators as bribe.
 
Similarly, Aminu Waziri Tambuwal, a Nigerian lawyer and politician who has served as Senator for Sokoto South since 2023. Served as the governor of Sokoto State from 2015 to 2023. Served as the 12th Speaker of the House of Representatives of Nigeria from 2011 to 2015.
 
Tambuwal profoundly posited: “Section 305 of the Constitution is clear and unambiguous about the process for declaring a state of emergency and the role of the National Assembly in approving such a proclamation.” He continued: “The Senate failed to meet the constitutional requirement of a two-thirds majority when approving President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s proclamation of a state of emergency in Rivers State.”
 
Furthermore, former President Goodluck Jonathan and Nobel Laureate Professor Wole Soyinka (WS), have spoken against the suspension of elected officers in Rivers State. While Jonathan described the development as capable of bringing Nigeria into disrepute, Soyinka said it was against the spirit of federalism. Also former President Olusegun Obasanjo accused the NASS members involved in the charade as bribe takers. This is certainly not the best of time in our democracy journey.
 
In conclusion, I like to submit, that, executive impunity is a huge threat to democracy. We find that autocratic governments are more likely than democratic governments to violate the constitution. Therefore, ending impunity and upholding the rule of law means ensuring accountability for crimes and upholding the principles of justice, fairness, and the supremacy of law, which is crucial for a stable and just society.
 
Finally, while we are all equal in the eyes of the law, it does seem that well-connected public officials are more easily able to avoid prosecution than the rest of us. When political position allows public officials to avoid being liable for their actions, there is a real threat to democracy. It also creates incentives for corruption, since those who are considering putting their fingers in the cookie jar are more likely to do so if they believe that they won’t be held accountable even if they are caught.
 
 

The recent altercation between Senator Onyekachi Nwaebonyi, senator representing the state of Ebonyi North, and former Education Minister Oby Ezekwesili during a Senate committee hearing has drawn significant attention to broader concerns surrounding gender dynamics, emotional regulation, and professional conduct in Nigeria’s political sphere. The aggressive outburst by Nwaebonyi has further reinforced the perception that male-dominated political institutions continue to suppress and harass women, especially those like Ezekwesili and Akpoti-Udughan who challenge the status quo. This incident, coupled with the ongoing sexual harassment allegations against Senate President Godswill Akpabio by Senator Natasha Akpoti-Udughan, paints a disturbing picture of the power dynamics at play.

The Gendered Nature of Power Struggles in Politics

At the heart of the altercation is a familiar power dynamic in many political systems: the male-dominated nature of power and the corresponding tendency to suppress, belittle, or dismiss the voices of women, particularly those who challenge the status quo. Women in positions of power, like Ezekwesili and Akpoti-Udughan, often find themselves navigating a system that was historically designed to exclude them. The comments made by Senator Nwaebonyi during the exchange—calling Ezekwesili a “fool” and “an insult to womanhood”—seem to epitomize the unchecked aggression and misogyny that too often characterizes the treatment of women in Nigerian politics. This not only underscores the rampant gender inequality but also reinforces the culture of silence and submission that women in politics are often forced into.

 

From a therapeutic perspective, this aggression can be seen as a manifestation of toxic masculinity—an ingrained cultural belief that men should dominate political spaces and that women’s voices, regardless of their expertise or experience, should be silenced. When a male politician responds to a woman’s call for order with such hostility and verbal abuse, it reflects not only personal animosity but also a broader societal issue where the contributions of women are undervalued. This is compounded by a system where power, control, and dominance are prioritized over empathy, respect, and collaboration—values that are crucial for any functional democracy.

The Role of Emotional Regulation and Professionalism

The exchange between Nwaebonyi and Ezekwesili also sheds light on the lack of emotional regulation and professionalism in Nigeria’s political discourse. Nwaebonyi’s response, fueled by anger, aggression, and a complete disregard for the decorum expected of a public official, points to deeper issues within the political system that discourage self-reflection and emotional maturity. In therapeutic settings, individuals are encouraged to develop emotional regulation strategies that allow them to manage their responses to stress and conflict in a healthy and constructive manner. Public figures, especially politicians, have a responsibility to model emotional control, as their behavior sets the tone for public discourse.

 

During the confrontation, another female present urged Nwaebonyi to “take it easy” as he launched ugly and demeaning words at Ezekwesili. Nwaebonyi, however, flung her hand away twice when she attempted to intervene, a clear sign of his refusal to listen or engage in a more controlled manner. Meanwhile, another male, acting on the chairman’s instructions, tried to mute Nwaebonyi’s microphone due to the loudness of his outbursts. However, Nwaebonyi reactivated the microphone, continuing his verbal assault without pause. Even when the chairman was banging his gavel in an attempt to restore order, Nwaebonyi remained defiant. These actions not only underscored his complete lack of self-control but also revealed a blatant disregard for the rules of conduct expected in a professional environment. Nwaebonyi’s refusal to calm down, even when his microphone was muted by the committee chairman, further highlights a lack of respect for institutional authority and a disregard for the standards of conduct that should govern such proceedings. His refusal to back down, his refusal to take responsibility for his actions, and his continued verbal assault on Ezekwesili escalated the situation and diverted attention away from the serious matter at hand—the sexual harassment allegations involving Akpabio and Akpoti-Udughan. Instead of focusing on the pressing issues that the committee was convened to address, the proceedings became consumed by personal conflict and emotional volatility.

Even If Ezekwesili Provoked Him, Why Such Aggression?

Even if Ezekwesili’s comments had provoked or irritated Senator Nwaebonyi, many questioned why he resorted to such a full-blown aggression, hurling insult upon insult. The level of hostility displayed by the senator went far beyond what could be considered a reasonable response. While it’s understandable that comments can sometimes trigger strong emotional reactions, the magnitude of Nwaebonyi’s response raised serious concerns. Even if her words had annoyed him, his reaction was disproportionate and far from appropriate for a public official in such a formal setting.

 

The video captured Nwaebonyi’s inability to control his emotions, as his verbal aggression spiraled to the point of demeaning and disrespecting Ezekwesili in an entirely unprofessional manner. His insults, calling her a “big fool” and saying she was “an insult to womanhood,” were excessive and unwarranted. This response highlights the lack of emotional regulation and a disregard for the decorum expected in political settings, especially when addressing women in leadership roles. The aggression shown by Nwaebonyi was not simply a reaction to a comment—it was an escalation that disregarded all forms of professionalism, undermining the integrity of the committee hearing.

The Underlying Power Struggles and Male Privilege

The clash between Nwaebonyi and Ezekwesili is also indicative of the underlying power struggles that continue to play out in Nigerian politics. Nwaebonyi’s actions reflect a deep-seated belief in male privilege—a belief that men are entitled to dominate the political space and that women, even when they are experts in their field or hold public office, should not challenge male authority. This perception of male entitlement can be traced back to Nigeria’s patriarchal society, where men have historically occupied positions of power and women have had to fight for even a seat at the table.

 

Nwaebonyi’s behavior is all the more concerning given his position as a “star witness” for Senate President Akpabio in the ongoing sexual harassment case. Akpabio himself has come under scrutiny for his treatment of women in politics, and Nwaebonyi’s actions only add to the perception that the male-dominated Senate continues to operate with little regard for gender equity. As a key figure in the proceedings, Nwaebonyi’s behavior undermines the calls for greater fairness and transparency, casting a shadow over Akpoti-Uduaghan’s claims.

Furthermore, Nwaebonyi’s actions echo a broader issue within the Senate, where, out of 109 members, only four are women. This glaring underrepresentation speaks volumes about the systemic barriers women face in Nigerian politics. Even as Akpabio’s conduct is being challenged, Nwaebonyi’s actions reinforce the deeply entrenched gender biases within the Senate. In an environment where women are already vastly outnumbered, it becomes even more crucial for men in power to set an example of respect, professionalism, and emotional maturity.

The Impact on Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan’s Case and the Need for Institutional Reform

 

For Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan, who has already faced significant challenges in her fight for justice, the altercation only serves to further validate her claims of harassment and the systemic barriers that women face in Nigerian politics. Akpoti-Uduaghan’s petition against Akpabio, alleging sexual harassment and abuse of power, highlights the entrenched gender inequalities that continue to pervade Nigerian political institutions. The verbal assault by Nwaebonyi against Ezekwesili only adds fuel to her complaints, further reinforcing the narrative of women being subjected to both overt and covert forms of harassment and discrimination.

Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case, now being followed globally through news coverage, has raised the volume of her calls for systemic reform. As she has described the Senate as a “cult” that is “anti-female” and “hostile to women,” the recent altercation further affirms her stance. The video of Nwaebonyi’s actions reinforces her claims, demonstrating how the very same toxic culture she’s been fighting against continues to thrive, unchecked and unchallenged. Natasha is now being seen all over the world on global television, highlighting these deep-seated problems. This reinforces the need for institutional reform to tackle the gender-based discrimination that has become so entrenched in Nigerian politics.

The global attention on Akpoti-Uduaghan’s case has shone a light on these systemic issues, but real reform is needed. This reform must address the deep-rooted culture of misogyny within Nigerian political institutions and ensure that women are given equal opportunities to participate and thrive in politics. The Senate must prioritize creating an environment where women are not only heard but respected, and where their rights are protected from the pervasive culture of male privilege and power.

 

The Need for Emotional Regulation in Politics

From a therapeutic perspective, addressing the issues at hand requires not only holding individuals accountable for their actions but also fostering an environment where emotional regulation, respect, and empathy are prioritized. Therapy can play a significant role in helping individuals in power—such as senators and public officials—recognize and address their emotional responses, as well as the biases that influence their interactions with others. In order for true progress to be made, there must be a commitment to changing the entrenched systems of power that perpetuate gender inequality.

Therapy for All: Nwaebonyi, Akpabio, and the Senate

 

It is also evident that there needs to be a broader discussion on therapy and emotional regulation within Nigerian political institutions. Nwaebonyi, Akpabio, and the almost entirely male-dominated Senate of 109 members, with only four women, all require therapy in different areas. This therapy would address not just emotional regulation, but also the internalized biases that perpetuate male dominance, silencing women’s voices, and fostering an environment where power is wielded without empathy or respect.

Breaking the Cycle of Gender Inequality

The incident involving Senator Nwaebonyi and Ezekwesili is a stark reminder of how far Nigeria’s political system has to go in achieving gender equity. It also serves as a call to action for all Nigerians to advocate for a more inclusive, respectful, and just political environment, where the voices of women are not just heard but truly respected. Until these changes occur, the cycle of male suppression, harassment, and inequality will continue to undermine the progress that Nigeria so desperately needs.

 

Institutional Therapy: An Independent Investigation

One form of therapy for the institution is an independent investigation—not a biased, aggressive committee—focused on uncovering the truth, holding individuals accountable, and establishing fair processes that foster a culture of respect, transparency, and equality in Nigerian politics.

It is beyond debate that Professor Humphrey Nwosu, whose remains will be buried on Friday, was an eminently unsung hero in the June 12 story.

Nwosu’s funeral will take place at his residence,  Ogbili Otti Palace, Ajalli in the Orumba North Local Government Area of Anambra State.

Amidst  the preparations for the  funeral of the political scientist, there have been reasoned  voices in favour of  a national recognition of  the historical role played by Nwosu in making  the June 12, 1993 presidential election possible, in the first place.

The election was expected to be the culmination of the circuitous transition programme of the regime of President Ibrahim Babangida. It was an epic contest between Bashorun Moshood Abiola of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and Alhaji Bashir Tofa of  the National Republican Convention (NRC).

As President Ibrahim Babangida, the author of the elaborate  transtion programe, now states unequivocally in his memoirs, Abiola resoundinly won the election.

As an accomplished theorist of politics, Nwosu found a veritable laboratory to test his hypothesis when Babangida appointed the scholar to the post of the  chairman  of the National Electoral Commission (NEC), the body regulating elections in Nigeria in those days. Nwosu performed that national assignment creditably from 1989 to 1993, the year the debacle began. 

Incidentally, Nwosu took over from his former teacher, another icon of the political science disciplne, Professor Eme Awa. Nwosu accepted to do the job with all his energy and commitment to a national purpose. Such was Nwosu’s enthusiasm as the umpire  that his characteristic gesticulation on television while explaining the process were dismissed  as a spectacle by skeptics of the transition programme.  Indeed, with courage and clarity of purpose,  the political scientist performed not a few experiments, the result of which might be of great interest to  future historians  and psephologists (experts in the study  of elections).

It is hardly mentioned in many versions of the June 12 story that the electoral body headed by Nwosu had successfully conducted elections for councillors, local government chairmen,  state governors and members of the National Assembly (NASS) as a substantial part of the transition programme.

So, local governments, state governments and the federal legislature were funtioning well  as at  the time the June 12 election took place. The elected men and women were looking forward to the election of the president for the Third Republic to be fully proclaimed.

But the annulment of the election on June 23, 1993  truncated the process.

The call for a posthumous honour of Nwosu’s memory is squarely predicated on the fact that he led the commission that managed what is now referred  to as the freest and fairest  election in history.

One conspicous voice in favour of honour for the memory of Nwosu came two days ago  in a session of tributes at the headquarters of the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC) in Abuja. It was the voice of the INEC chairman, Professor Mahmood  Yakubu. Yakubu’s important tribute encapsulates  the case for a posthumous honour in memory of Nwosu. The INEC chairman made the point so persuasively that  his statement is  considered worthy of reproduction here for the record:

“Like all his six predecessors and seven successors to date, he (Nwosu)  had the arduous task of managing elections in an extremely challenging context.

“He also introduced a number of reforms to election management. His tenure is synonymous with the Open Ballot System, popularly referred to as Option A4 in which voters queued up behind the symbol of the party of their choice to vote and to be physically counted.

“Professor Nwosu did his best, which was not always appreciated by many, including those who appointed him under an infinite transition from military rule to democracy, which ended in the annulment of the presidential election held in 1993, resulting in the dissolution of the electoral commission and the emergence of an interim government.

“However, with the passage of time, the outcome of his effort is now widely appreciated. The election is now celebrated as one of the best in Nigeria. Even those who annulled it have expressed regret.”

 “A quarter of a century (25 years) later in June 2018, the presumed winner of the 1993 Presidential election, Chief M. K. O. Abiola, received the highest national honour, the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic, posthumously. His running mate, Ambassador Baba Gana Kingibe, was conferred with the second highest national honour, the Grand Commander of the Order of the Niger. The date of the election (June 12th, 1993) has been gazetted as a national holiday and appropriately named Democracy Day.

“Sadly, the electoral commission that conducted the election which was personified by Professor Nwosu received only a muffled commendation as if no one conducted the election. Surely, the election did not conduct itself. It was organised by a Commission made up of Commissioners and a Chairman. If it was an oversight that Professor Nwosu was not honoured in his lifetime, it is never late for the appropriate authority to do so posthumously.

“For us in INEC, we will continue to appreciate Professor Nwosu and the dedicated service he rendered to the nation.”

Yakubu’s call is representative of those who like to take a wholistic view of the June 12 phenomenon with all its contradictions. 

Nwosu’s name should not be missing in the June 12  roll of honour. That is the summary of the calls from diverse quarters.

After all, in several months preceeding the election there was hardly any  day that the name Humphrey Nwosu  would not be mentioned in the print and electronic media. There was no social media in that period!  By the way, the professor was one of those public figures often identified with their two names pronounced together  unlike others better known with their first or last name. Any reference to him must be pronounced  as  Humphrey Nwosu!

In the mixed responses to the recent  launch of Bababngida’s memoirs entitled “Journey in Service: An Autobiography,”   some readers of  the book have said  that the former president has only confirmed  in his account the position stated by  Nwosu in his own book, “Laying the Foundation for Democracy in Nigeria: My Account of the June 12, 1993 Presidential Election and its Annulment.”

In the  book which should be read by those seeking a deeper understanding of the June 12 story, Nwosu puts the matter clearly as follows:  “…the result of the June 12, 1993 presidential election would have conferred on  President Babangida’s administration the greatest reservoir of legitimacy no regime had ever enjoyed in Nigeria. Undoubtedly, its annulment on June 23, 1993 created the greatest legitimacy problem toward the end of  his admistration and the problem so created still lingers till date. The critical questios to answer include the following: why was the presidential election which Alhaji MKO Abiola won decisively and which the two political parties affirmed at each level of collation annulled? Was the election flawed in any way? Was it rigged in any manner?  Was it free and fair? Were the peparations put in place by NEC for its condct shoddy?”

In telling his own June 12 story, Nwosu applies a lot of rigour as a scholar and provides immense  insights.

Take a sample from the book: “… some civilian and senior military colleagues of the President that were present at the critical meeting  of NDSC (National Defence and Security Council) on June 11, 1993 opposed the conduct of June 12 election. The President and Vice President and us were on one side of the divide.  Some of his colleagues were on the other side of the divide. The most visible and outspoken military officer who was on the side of the President and actualisation of the June 12 election throughout was Col. Abubakar Umar, but unfortunately he was not a member of the NDSC.”

Now, compare Nwosu’s version with Babangida’s on the visible polarisation within  the regime in those critical days. For instance, Nwosu confirms in his own book that both President Babangida and Vice President Augustus Aikhomu were on the opposite side  of the forces of annulment. Ironically, some members  of  the military and civilian forces of annulment have been beneficiaries of conclusive executive and legislative elections in the  26 years of the Fourth Republic.

However, it will remain  part of  the history of June 12  that Nwosu struggled (albeit in vain) against  the annulment.

Just imagine this:  if Nwosu had succumbed to the bullying  of the infamous  anti-June 12 powerful men to say that Abiola didn’t win the election  the story might have been different today. Such a moral collapse could have provided another justification for the grievous act of those who invariably  put the Nigerian polity in a suspended animation for five years after the momentous election.

If for nothing else,  Humphrey Nwosu’s memory deserves to be honoured because of  the professor’s courage of conviction.

For instance, some advocates of honour for Nwosu have suggested for the consideration of the federal government  naming the headquarters of INEC as Humphrey Nwosu House (HNH).

Page 5 of 211