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.

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.