
OTHERS' VIEWS
The last time I was approached by a television reporter to comment on the life and times of Chief Ayo Adebanjo, my initial response was that I could not think of any aspect of his public life that has not been adequately covered in the interlude between his earthly passage and the burial rites. Besides, the deceased himself had written an autobiography on the occasion of his 90th birthday.
On further reflection I recalled his unlikely rapport with President Olusegun Obasanjo in his latter years. The open secret was the lifelong mutual antipathy between the two. Following the 1979 presidential election and the alleged bias of the former President against the candidacy of Chief Obafemi Awolowo (to whom Adebanjo was fanatically committed) a prior article of faith among the followers of Awolowo was the capacity to hold Obasanjo in virulent disdain.
To nonplussed inquiries about this improbable camaraderie, Adebanjo responded with the explanation that he had nothing personal against Obasanjo. He said the latter had transcended his anti-federalist status quo ideology to embrace the policy platform of the restoration of federalism aka restructuring.
I have recalled this antecedence to illustrate the concept of ‘Politics As A Vocation’ as propounded by the German sociologist, Max Weber. He proposed that the ‘pursuit of power often requires compromises and strategic decisions that may conflict with one’s moral beliefs. He restated this conflict as amounting to the distinction between the “ethics of conviction” (principle-driven, idealistic motives) and the “ethics of responsibility” (pragmatic, outcome-oriented consideration).
Weber argued that effective politicians must balance both ethical approaches; they should adhere to their convictions while also being mindful of the consequences of their actions.
In his response to the first World War and how it impacted the distressed German society, Weber characterised the effective politician as one who is capable of striking a judicious balance between the two ethics . Such politicians are generally located in the midstream of the ideological spectrum and are spatio temporal specific. As such they are commonsensical and non- doctrinaire. I have identified three historical statesmen whose careers have met the bar that Weber has erected, namely Abraham Lincoln, Nelson Mandela and Obafemi Awolowo. The first two, Lincoln and Mandela, are world historical figures. Localized to Nigeria, the third is of a less grandiose pedestal.
On his embrace of Democratic socialism, Awolowo, for instance,once argued. ‘In a country like Nigeria, the adoption of socialism had to be gradual. My belief in socialism as an ideal has not been based on the writings of Marx or Lenin. The methods of attaining socialism can differ from place to place. The mistake many people make is that they take the methods for the ideal itself. In Russia they had to use violence because there was no other way of supplanting those in power. Dictatorship was all right in Russia, because they had not known any democracy in all their history. The same thing evolved in China. China had these war-lords who had their own dominions and past emperors were ruthless in dealing with the masses. Now you cannot say the same of Nigeria. There are no homeless people in Nigeria.
The London Spectator said of his second Inaugural address. “We cannot read it without a renewed conviction that it is the noblest political document known to history, and should have for the nation and the statesmen he left behind something of a sacred and almost prophetic character”.
In its historical applicability, it is difficult not to suspect that Weber had Abraham Lincoln in mind when he penned the essay.
Abraham Lincoln
In the Lincoln archetype, we found a near perfect congruence between theory and practice. In his unique charismatic pedagogy, he pondered . “At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a course to be pursued, seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, little that is new could be presented”.
“One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by war; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war, the magnitude, or the duration, which it has already attained”.
Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with, or even before, the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God’s assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men’s faces; but let us judge not that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered; that of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!”
“If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South, this terrible war, as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him?
Fondly do we hope–fervently do we pray–that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue, until all the wealth piled by the bond-man’s two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord, are true and righteous altogether”
Mandela
Of Nelson Mandela, Peter Pham of the New Atlanticist wrote :”It was the example he left with his broad vision and pragmatic approach that will perhaps be his lasting legacy to those who follow. In 1988, he secretly offered to open negotiations with the apartheid regime. In Mandela, the greatness of soul that dreamed large was matched by a wisdom of mind directed to political realism. That grandeur is a rare combination, one which those who would be his heirs in South Africa and elsewhere on the continent will need to aspire to if they are to ever realize the vision of Madiba.
On the extreme right, Mandela was widely labelled a terrorist by prominent political figures in the Western world for his embrace of political violence. According to Thatcher, for instance, the ANC was “a typical terrorist organisation”.The US government’s State and Defense departments officially designated the ANC as a terrorist organisation, resulting in Mandela remaining on their terrorism watch-list until 2008.
On the left, some voices in the ANC accused him of selling out for agreeing to enter negotiations with the apartheid government and for not implementing the reforms of the Freedom Charter during his presidency.
Obafemi Awolowo
On the occasion of the 50th birthday anniversary of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, his deputy, Chief Ladoke Akintola had this to say. “To Chief Awolowo, passivity is a bane and inaction an anathema. How could it be otherwise to a life which thrives on industry and to a man with fanatical faith in hard work? That was why he made himself a terror to the demagogues and Mountebanks who, with neither a chart nor a rudder believed that they could steer the Nigerian ship of state to its destination….No pilot has a clearer vision and none a keener sense of mission than Chief Awolowo…In the political changes which took place in Nigeria from 1947 onwards, Dr. Azikiwe has been spasmodic and casual; Sir Ahmadu Bello has been leisurely and care-free; but Awolowo has been constant and calculating…
“To know Chief Awolowo as a man is to respect him. It has been my pride and pleasure to know him. He is by every standard a genius. His unimpeachable character, his faith in God, his confidence in his fellowmen, his personal devotion to duty and his
loyalty…have conspired together to make him a great pillar of strength. He never lets a friend down…As a political leader, Chief Awolowo is miles ahead of his colleagues. His sincerity of purpose, his democratic leadership and inspiring example are yet to be equaled by any of the leaders of other major political parties in the country…Awolowo is the nearest approximation to Mahatma Gandhi. He is a good blend of Gandhi’s philosophy and Nehru’s dynamism and the only hope for democracy in Africa”.
Although this eulogy was a mocking backdrop to the scorched earth intensity of the fractional struggle that ensued three years later between the two leaders. After making sufficient provision for the flattery and permissible exaggeration, there is the element of honesty and extenuating validity in Akintola’s eulogy.
In Weberian tradition, it is the case that the conception of the professional politician almost always overlaps with charismatic leadership (based on personal qualities and the ability to inspire) and can be used as cause and effect explanations of cultural and social changes.
There were also Prophet Mohammed, Buddha, Alexander, Ho chi minh, Winston Churchill, Nnamdi Azikiwe, J.F Kennedy, Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther King, Oduduwa, Chairman Mao etc The greatest of them all is the Jesus archetype. who became man in order to partake of man’s imperfections and vulnerabilities. Who had to experience humanity in order to become a perfect vessel and bearer for the consequences of the fall of man.
But now you have been united with Christ Jesus. Once you were far away from God, but now you have been brought near to him through the blood of Christ. In Jesus Christ we found a perfect reconciliation of “the ethics of conviction with the ethics of responsibility”
Dr. Abdullahi Ganduje, the national chairman of APC, does not see anything wrong in a one-party state and from his body language he will not mind if all parties in this country collapse their structures and move over to the APC. Addressing State House correspondents last week Friday upon emerging from a meeting with President Bola Tinubu, he waved off concerns about the country’s political drift towards one-party state and of course, inexorably to dictatorship.
When a country moves in the direction of one-party state, it is the same story, the same hollow argument, the same old hat by its advocates: “One-party system reflected the basic consensus of African society”. (Mbah, 2007: 365). He goes on: “The one-party system was a drug which exacerbated the very disease it was taken to heal even though the ‘men’ behind it in Africa argued that the system was beneficial in order to control regional or ethnic divisions and curtail factionalism. The system became, in effect, another veritable tool in the hand of pushing back the advance of democracy and entrenching dictatorship.”
Dictatorship by its nature and practice brooks no opposition and is intolerant of alternative viewpoints. In no time opposition, though, may be cowed, begins to plan the fall of the regime. The dictator, not folding its arms, seeks to infiltrate the ranks of the opposition, some seduced and some murdered in the strongman’s bid to cling to power.
Former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, now of blessed memory, did say: “Power is an aphrodisiac, a sort of scintillating elixir, both to the person in power and his admirers.” Consequently, long-drawn instability in all its ramifications ensues. That has been the experience everywhere there is dictatorship.
Professor Jude Chibuzo Udenkwo of Nnamdi Azikiwe University, Awka, says: “The political tendency among executives or Heads of African States is to cling to power for a long time, even throughout their life-time.” He adds: “Modern dictators have survived by surrounding themselves with elite groups that are composed mainly of allies that were involved in the initial struggle for power. Insulating oneself with the cadre of ‘yes men’ is one part as the other is keeping up with their rents. These rents can present themselves mostly in the forms of ill-acquired wealth and influential government position. Comrades of a dictator have a lot to lose if their valued leader is overthrown. Consequently, they will go out of their way to ensure that the status quo remains.”
Tendency towards one-party state is never wanting in salesmen. We are already being told that the defections to APC does not pose any danger to the Nigerian polity and by extension to Nigerians and the presentation is smooth. Senate Leader Opeyemi Bamidele commenting on the defection by Kebbi Senators said by accommodating defectors, the Tinubu Administration is creating a government of national unity. He went on: “We will not close our doors to anyone intending to join the party and will not discriminate on the basis of religion, ethnicity or any other factor.”
Senator Adams Oshiomhole, one-time activist and for many years Labour leader before becoming a governor does not see the defection as dangerous to our democracy. He said on television that the defections do not diminish the role of debate or dissent within the National Assembly, as lawmakers typically vote on issues, not along party lines. “If you ‘ve been following debates in the Senate, sometimes you can’t even tell whether someone is from the PDP or APC based on their positions.” Oshiomhole’s response came on the heals of the increased numerical strength of APC in the Senate to 68, bringing it close to two-thirds majority. After citing examples of democratic systems in the Western world, he said, “If I see conflict between party interest and national interest, I will have no difficulty resolving it in favour of Nigeria.”
For Ganduje, he sees the switch by the senators in question as part of a democratic process. He said the defection is the result of extensive negotiations among stakeholders in the state “and it is part of APC’s broader strategy to strengthen its base. This is a good development in Nigeria today. Almost every week in the Senate and House of Representatives, you see members of other political parties decamping to our party.” He went on to say that his party’s strategy to expand both its members and the quality of its membership is in line with democratic principles. Referring to China as a successful one-party state, He said his party is not actively working to eliminate opposition. He said if one-party state is a wish of Nigeria, why not? He believes, come to think of it, one-party state could be a blessing to Nigeria after all. However, “if other political parties see the effect of the positive governance of our party and decide to come to our party willingly, I think there is nothing wrong with that. Too many political parties spoil governance.”
The question is: Why do we not encourage other parties to stand solidly on their feet to provide alternative platforms and sell your own party to the electors only on the superiority of programmes, rather than encouraging their collapse. The grundnorm expects a legislator to vacate his seat and report back to his constituents who may decide to keep him in the hallowed legislative chambers or elect someone else. But everywhere the provision in the constitution is disregarded and life goes on with the defector beating his chest. The party to apply the law is the beneficiary. The fixation is on 2027 and not on propriety and the sense of shame. Impunity does not gnaw at the recess of anyone’s heart.
Abuse of power is one of the results of a one-party state. Checks and balances could be in disarray. Even in a monolithic society, one-party state stifles freedom of thought and speech. Competition is not given free reign. The arbitrariness inherent in one-party state breeds revolt, parochialism and nepotism, plunging the society into chaos and confusion. And so does blurred vision.
Will a one-party state be healthy for a plural society such as Nigeria? Some City Fathers are already takimg a cue putting or imposing their children on emerging dynasties to go to legislative houses. Will a one-party state be good for Nigeria with her diverse cultures and different cognitive levels undergirded by inner maturity, the lack of which is the bane of mankind today. Everything is about power, influence and public acknowledgement.
Indeed, it is to hold the world together in peace and harmony as well as for what can make for development that viable options, even if they are tentative in the long run, are being considered. The world has been in disarray since the abuse of the age of the Divine Right of Kings. The right is observable in many cultures till this day.
The recorded claim to ecclesiastical right is said to be traceable to the coronation of Charlemagne performed by the Pope on Christmas Day 800AD. The thesis that the kings were regents of the Almighty Creator and derived their authority from Him and to Him alone they were accountable held sway until what was described as Glorious Revolution in England (1688-1689), American Revolution (1775-1783) and French Revolution (1789). The revolutions drained the contention and attendant absolutism of life and mankind then devised their own ways of governing themselves. King James 1 of England (ruled 1603-1625) was reputed to be the foremost exponent of the doctrine holding tight to the pronouncement by Apostle Paul: “Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. (Roman 13). God removes kings and sets them up. (Daniel 2:21). But what is the ordinance of the Almighty Creator for governance mechanism?
Were Paul and Daniel right? Is it conceivable that the Almighty, perfect as He has been and will be in all eternity, would send human spirits to this earth without providing them leaders who are to lead and guide them in their development, taking them from one step of development to the other?
According to revealed Creation Knowledge on earth today, leaders are born, not made, sent and not electable. We are now in the End-Time when the gale of purification will sweep all wrongs away, including the governmental systems devised by men. Today, the seeds of instability are being sown in the world in accordance with man’s severe limitedness, but the harvests cannot be prevented; they are certain in the future. Adamant, immutable are the Laws of His Holy Will.
THESE 84 YEARS AND THOSE TO FOLLOW
The original title of this address was THESE FIFTY YEARS AND THOSE TO FOLLOW. The address was given in 1991 by Adeyemi Lawson mostly to the large and extensive circles of his associates. I am reproducing it today in his honour on the occasion of his post-humus 101th birthday yesterday. It is, of course, in view of the relevance of the speech of a foremost industrialist and spiritual leader in the sinking of the world from the storms of purification sweeping through it.
On the 6th Day of December, we recall the passing away of the Bringer of the Grail Message—known by His Work as Abd-ru-shin. To many of us who have recognized His Voice, He is much more than ‘Abd-ru-shin.’ The immensity of the need of humanity for His Message is indescribable. The Love which permitted It to be mediated to us is unfathomable. How have we humanity received the Word? How do we as ones privileged to have some inkling of the significance of His Work reflect Its values? Fifty years hence, where shall we be? What are we doing with it? What would we be doing in consequence of the blessings of having come across His Word and being permitted to work with it? These are some of the questions which should stir within the inner recesses of our being, bringing forth answers candid and true; enabling us in humble and true recognition of our weaknesses, of our faults to propel ourselves into stronger efforts and prayerful longing for help and strength that we may truly fulfil as He would wish us do.
Our fellow mankind, as indeed of old, have not awakened by millions to stretch forth their arms in joyful recognition and acknowledgement of that which comes from the Light, raising their voices in gratitude and glorious praise of the ALMIGHTY FATHER, striving to see His Will also done here on earth as it is in Heaven. That, however, applies to us as well. During the past fifty years there have been a great number, both here on earth and in finer realms who joyfully work with this great Message to make it possible for us to be severally helped to the knowledge of the Truth. We joyfully came to the state of awareness which we claim to be recognition! Recognition? In absolute conviction? Do we not need even now to strive for that?
Be that as may, even that level of awareness of the value of the Message enkindled within us a longing to serve HIM who brought the Message and help further His Work on earth. Has that awakened longing remained as it was? There was a time when we felt like proclaiming His Message from hill tops. Today, many cross our paths without hearing of the Message. We put the blame on them. We convince ourselves, if not deceive ourselves, that they are not ready for the Message; that they have not asked for it, that they are too strongly engrossed in the material! We spell out all their failings which make it difficult for them to receive the Message. Let us remember the great distance which had to be traversed that He may bring us the Message. He did not remain in His Home and simply cry out into Creation hoping we would listen. Knowing that we have become too dense to hear and comprehend from that distance. He painfully traversed world upon worlds and came to us in Love and Holy Wisdom. He painfully spent a whole life learning to know more of us and our weaknesses that He may the better be able to help us. He spent yet another life struggling under painful earthly experience to give FORM to the LIVING Word for our comprehension. In selfless LOVE and with great patience has He brought us that far.
If only with a minute fraction of the effort and pain with which the Word was brought to us, we would also strive to pass it on to our fellow human beings! From now on, let us rather look for our own faults and weaknesses which make it so difficult to reach our fellow human beings and make them awaken to the knowledge of the Message being on earth. Let us drop all inhibitions which make it appear that we are anxious to conform with the norms of the society rather than speak of His Name and His Work.
Let us be counted amongst those who truly serve Him, even if at the beginning only a few will trickle in the mighty waves will later develop. Fifty years hence, wherever we may be at that time, how shall we react to the Rays which may touch us and demand: ‘What did you really do with the opportunity of being permitted to touch the Rays of Light bearing His Message?’’
Let us fervently remember this so that we may truly serve him aright. Today for us, a span of fifty years can lose its earthly perception of space and time and be like a flash of thought. Let us patiently and lovingly strive hard, and in all earnestness, to bring our fellow human beings to awareness of the existence of the Message on earth. It is not for us to judge but only to mediate and pass on courageously and in love that which we have received.
ADEYEMI LAWSON (DECEMBER 1991).
Burkinabe leader Ibrahim Traore is acting like a rock star. It’s not entirely his fault. He’s receiving a lot of help from dozens of social media users, especially TikTokers, who are desperate to anoint him as the best thing to come out of Burkina Faso since Thomas Sankara.
Traore must be enjoying it, because even though he is pretending, he knows he’s not Sankara. He is an opportunist, happy to capitalise on the current frustration in his country and the Sahel for his benefit.
A recent report by The Africa Report summarised Traore’s fictional character. “In dozens of viral TikTok edits, Traore leads imaginary armies, topples Western empires and is hailed as the ‘new Thomas Sankara.’ The captions, bold and uncompromising, include ‘Africa’s Messiah!’ ‘The People’s Captain!’ and ‘France Must Fall.’”
Traorephytes even invent videos of Rihanna and R Kelly (imprisoned since 2021) serenading the Burkinabe leader with hit songs!
Fairytale
If he were an elected president, Traore would have served three years of his first term. When he overthrew the government of President Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba in September 2022 due to the rise in Islamic insurgency, and announced himself as head of the new Patriotic Movement for Safeguard and Restoration (PMSR), he promised to hand over power back to civilians in two years – that was in 2024. He hasn’t said a word about any possible new date since, and if you have seen him recently, you would know why.
Apart from the adulation he has enjoyed as a social media fairytale, and dressing the part in stylish fatigues and matching neck scarves, berets, and boots, he has also talked the part.
He rallied support by giving speeches – not as many or as eloquently as he has been credited with – against Western imperialism and colonialism, vowing to create conditions at home to stem youth migration and tackle insurgency. Traore has portrayed himself as the new face of the African Renaissance. But talk is cheap.
Traore and the other delinquents
He has been in good company. The turmoil in West and Central Africa, which began in Chad, Mali, and Guinea, and later spread to Niger, has disrupted security and trade in the subregion, rupturing the 49-year-old Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS). Burkina Faso experienced two coups in a single year. After breaking out of ECOWAS, Traore and his fellow delinquents in the Sahel have pursued a singular mission of cutting off the noses of their Sahelian francophone ties to spite the faces of French business and political interests.
To be fair, it’s a moment of reckoning for decades of brazen French insensitivity, compounded by President Emmanuel Macron’s lack of charity when he described the relationship between France and Francophone West Africa as “part of a civilising obligation.” Which was self-interested nonsense.
Trouble speaking French
France has accumulated a notoriously poor record on the continent that it can hardly be proud of. In Niger, for example, Tom Burgis writes in his book, The Looting Machine, that French state-owned atomic energy group Areva’s profit from uranium is twice Niger’s GDP. The shameful French footprint is the same in Burkina Faso and throughout the region.
Fourteen Francophone countries, including the troubled ones – Burkina Faso, Guinea, Mali, Niger and Chad – hold 50 percent of their reserves in the French Treasury. This arrangement has been widely criticised, but if shame is in the French dictionary, it doesn’t exist in the Macron version.
It is this background of despair and frustration, especially among the continent’s youths, that has fostered fairytale messiahs like Traore, who have managed to replace French hegemony with a mix of fussy state control and Russian suzerainty, with the Chinese just around the corner.
If it’s not Sankara…
Traoré is not Sankara, a fact that may be lost on Burkina Faso’s predominantly young population, as well as millennials and Gen Zs across the continent, whose forlorn search for role models tempts them to canonise an impostor. Of course, both are soldiers, similar in age and rank and usurpers of constitutional rule. But that’s where the similarity ends.
Like the demagogues before him, Traore and significant sections of the military and political elite from Maurice Yameogo to Blaise Compaore have been complicit in the misery of their citizens, feeding them instead on a diet of pseudo-ideological jingoism and Western bashing, but offering no genuine alternative. Africa – anglophone, francophone, or lusophone – shares a similar heritage of exploitation; a few of its people, especially the political elite after independence, collaborated with the colonialists to compound the problem.
Hard to beat
Where Traore is trading French hegemony for Russian control, for example, Sankara offered something different. In Burkina Faso: A History of Power, Protest and Revolution, Ernest Harsch said of Sankara, “In a conscious effort at nation-building, the revolutionary government also promoted a new national identity…that revolutionary project succeeded in altering the contours of the state and social and political life.”
Whereas Sankara attempted to forge a proudly African identity, deepening regional integration among ECOWAS countries, Traoré and his cohorts have, by exiting, put at risk the estimated $596.42 billion in trade within the community, excluding informal trade among citizens, which constitutes 30 per cent of the transactions, not to mention the impact on regional collaboration on security.
Sankara pursued radical economic self-sufficiency, agrarian reform, and social justice by outlawing female genital mutilation and promoting women’s rights. He rejected foreign aid, regardless of its source, even if it came without strings attached, something that Traore would be happy to overlook if it came from Russia.
What matters
I get it. With jihadists controlling about 40 percent of the country’s territory (it’s the most terrorised country), and climate shocks compounding its misery, the challenges are as different as are the times. That is why what Traore needs now is not clout-chasing or AI propaganda by Russian-backed Wagner, but sober-minded commitment to turn around the fortunes of his country, one step at a time.
For three years, Traore’s stock has risen amid algorithmic populism expressed in languages he neither understands nor speaks, with minimal institutional reforms, if any, and no prospects or commitment to return the country to civilian rule.
“His rhetoric,” The Africa Report said, “still falls short of real, measurable improvements in security and civic freedoms. There’s a gap between his message and the reality on the ground, something that will ultimately test his legitimacy and legacy.”
That’s not what the netizens want to hear. But in the end, that’s what matters.
You must have read the news that philanthropist Bill Gates plans to give away his wealth within the next 20 years. His charity foundation, which has been making various interventions in global public health, now has till December 31, 2045, to spend down about $200bn to facilitate health and human development. Even more fascinating is that Bill Gates wants the money to offset some of the imbalances caused by the Donald Trump administration’s abrupt cutbacks to health and development agencies, such as USAID and PEPFAR. Many of us are familiar with the Biblical narrative of a rich young ruler who came up to Jesus to ask what he needed to do to secure eternal life. He was asked to give up his wealth and follow the Saviour. We were told that the young ruler “went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions”. Few things in the world can be as hard for the truly rich to give up as their wealth. It must be relatively easier to give from little than to shrink the vast reserves of riches by as much as an inch.
Bill Gates is not only giving money to the world sorely in need of capital to develop, but it is also impressive how much he has committed to learning about issues of health and development in the world. In the interview he gave to the New York Times, he came across as having studied the scale of the problem well enough. This is a man seeking to attain eternal life by helping the most vulnerable people in the world to live.
Ordinarily, I am ambivalent about philanthropy. While I am not against charity, it appals me how the enterprise of giving can reinforce what it seeks to displace. The problem is worse in Nigeria, where faux philanthropy overtakes governance. The leaders who should provide basic amenities, public infrastructure, and a well-coordinated social safety net for the vulnerable will abjure their responsibilities and flaunt charity. You will see Governor So-and-so “empowering” this and that community by dashing them cartons of noodles or Keke Marwa or wheelbarrows! There is perhaps no word in the Nigerian lexicon that has been serially abused by our visionless leaders more than “empowerment”. What Nigerian leaders call “empowerment” is often an exhibition of the poverty of the people they have socially disenfranchised.
In the end, I took a few things away from reading about Bill Gates’ motivations for setting a 20-year clock for human development. One is his optimism that the world we live in can be better. You can see that ethic of hope in his conviction that longstanding problems like malaria can be permanently eliminated in Africa; that maternal mortality can be significantly reduced; that childhood mortality can become a thing of the past; and that the world can live far more prosperous lives. Years ago, I learned the value of hope from reading Olufemi Taiwo’s Africa Must Be Modern. In the book, he argues that hope necessarily propels society towards modernity and development.
Until then, hope was just an abstract idea for me. But reading through that book, I started to understand hope differently. Hope is what galvanises people even when the odds are demonstrably against them. From the field of science where people immerse themselves in experiments that might fail hundreds of times before they succeed to the arena of politics where leaders fight to pull their people from the brink of disaster and set them on the path of prosperity, the hope that what we are doing ultimately matters is what makes all the difference. Without hope, we cannot muster the self-discipline necessary for success. I am of the firm belief that our leaders’ lack of optimism about the ability of their country to make it is one of the reasons they imagine their actions are not consequential. Corrupt African leaders are not just mere thieves bent on despoiling their people; their wantonness expresses their deep cynicism about people’s chances. In his interview, Bill Gates seemed to express more hope for the future of poorer countries to live healthier and prosperous lives than you are likely to hear from their own leaders. He can afford to be detached from reality, but if the world changes, it is also because someone was naïve enough to be optimistic.
The second thing that struck me about Bill Gates’s commitment to alleviating poverty is his understanding of the subject, and that is why I think our renowned prosperity preacher, Pastor David Ibiyeomie, can learn something from him. Recently, a clip from a sermon he preached went viral. In the sermon, he proclaimed “God hates poverty” and “God hates poor people”. His subsequent attempts to clarify his message only further unfolded his mindset as someone who is superstitious about poverty. He proof-texts the Bible by overlooking every divine promise of reprieve for those who have been beaten by the hardships of life to select a few verses that support his prejudices. In a country where about 90 per cent (or more) of people live in the extreme conditions of multi-generational poverty and multi-dimensional poverty, it takes a lack of self-awareness to declare that even God hates poor people. If God hates poverty and the materially poor, then he must hate Africans!
Bill Gates, on the other hand, approaches poverty like a scientist. He sees the condition as a mere physiological one that can be treated if one rightly diagnoses it and applies the correct principles. One side is pessimistic and chooses to mythologise what is essentially a treatable condition; the other is optimistic enough to want to facilitate a world where capital investment and the principles of science can produce flourishing for humankind. The difference between the two is not merely the distinctions between “science” and “religion,” but about their respective moral visions. Please note that both religion and science are knowledge means that can be applied to engineer ethical solutions in the world. In the hands of a person who despairs about the fate of humans, the technologies of religion and science will produce nothing but death. The person who is invigorated with hope for humankind will apply principles from either science or religion to produce more life.
Finally, it is also ironic that the same Bill Gates, against whom some churches prayed during the COVID-19 pandemic, is also the person looking out for the good of the majority. It was funny, but churches, where pastors give annual prophecies, were blindsided by the global pandemic, while Bill Gates, who relied on scientific principles, accurately predicted its possibility years before it happened. I guess some of the preachers got envious because they gathered their ignorant flock and asked them to pray against Bill Gates as the “anti-Christ” or the “globalist”. Today, it is the same Bill Gates who is looking out for the good of the world. If Jesus were called to judge between the preachers who say we will be locked out of eternal life because of tithes and Bill Gates, who is demonstrating the ethics of generosity, empathy, and humanity, who do you think he would say practices true religion?
When I was ushered into his office at about 5pm on Monday after what had been a long day for him, President Maada Bio was still treating files on his table. But I was curious to know more about something I had seen in the documentary of his life that had been aired during the ceremony to mark his 61st birthday earlier in the day. That is, his meeting with Foday Sankoh, the late Sierra Leonean commander of the Revolutionary United Front (RUF) rebel group who, together with Charles Taylor of Liberia, wreaked havoc on the subregion in the nineties. Bio’s recollections turned out to be another lesson in leadership, a continuation of the conversation begun at the colloquium.
But first the background. At age 27 in 1990, Bio and other Sierra Leonean military personnel, including then Captain Valentine Strasser and Lt Solomon Musa, were deployed to Liberia as part of the country’s contingent to the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG). At that period, most of the Liberians fleeing from war in their country were trooping to the neighbouring Sierra Leone in a manner that exerted economic pressure and a serious security challenge that was being mismanaged by the civilian administration of President Joseph Saidu Momoh. It therefore came as no surprise that the ECOMOG returnees formed the nucleus of the military that toppled Momoh’s government on 29 April 1992. Strasser, then 25, was named Chairman of the National Provisional Ruling Council (NPRC) and Head of State. Bio started with the Information portfolio before becoming Deputy Chairman of the NPRC and de facto second in command in Sierra Leone. On 16 January 1996, following disagreements over how to handle the Sankoh-led RUF and the process of proceeding with the multi-party election then scheduled for March 1996, Bio upstaged Strasser in a bloodless palace coup.
As Head of State, Bio stayed true to his three-month deadline for the transition from military to civil rule in Sierra Leone. But from what he shared with me on Monday, the story was not as straight-forward as it seemed. Intent on ending the civil war before leaving office, Bio decided to meet Sankoh. By his account, two leaders played critical roles in that regard: Then Nigerian Head of State, the late General Sani Abacha and then President JJ Rawlings in Ghana. “I got along very well with General Abacha and President Rawlings, and both provided guidance for me on the politics of the subregion at the time. I remember Rawlings telling me that the person who could help in the peace process was President Blaise Compaoré of Burkina Faso because he had access to Sankoh. But he also warned me to ‘prepare for disappointment because Compaoré is not a reliable person.’ And President Rawlings turned out to be right.”
Eventually, it was President Henri Konan Bedie of Cote D`Ivoire whose men brought Sankoh from the Sierra Leonean bush. A Red Cross helicopter lifted Sankoh to a chartered aircraft that flew him and his team through Guinea for the negotiations that preceded the one-on-one meeting with Bio in Yamoussoukro. By then, Bio had delivered on a credible multiparty election in Sierra Leone that produced a President-elect in Teejan Kabbah. But shortly before the duo were locked in for three hours, Sankoh questioned Bio’s commitment to ending the war in Sierra Leone in a rambling speech that lasted 16 minutes. “Why did you come in combat uniform?” Sankoh asked. “This was supposed to be a peace conference.”
Notwithstanding, Bio said he had a very candid session with the notorious rebel leader who warned him that the only way peace could be guaranteed in Sierra Leone was for him (Bio) to remain in power to execute the agreements. “I saw sense in many of the points Sankoh was making about the need to consolidate the agreements and I felt if we extended the transition programme, we could find lasting solutions to many of the issues. I recall my conversations with General Abacha who told me there was no point in any hasty arrangement to hand over power. But it was a delicate thing, as I didn’t want to be seen as wanting to hang on to power. That was not my intention. So, I decided to call a big conference of all stakeholders in Sierra Leone. I laid my cards on the table. I explained the dilemma of the moment and that I had no personal wish to stay in power beyond ensuring a lasting peace. The opposition was instant and vehement.”
Following the meeting, Bio decided to go with the consensus that he should hand over power and leave. But deep down, as he told me on Monday, he knew the peace he was leaving behind in Sierra Leone was that of the graveyard and that it would not endure. He felt that the political leaders at the time were too obsessed with the trappings of powers to see the dangers. Not surprisingly, the ‘Yamoussoukro Accord’ collapsed shortly after Bio left office and the country again descended into violence until the intervention of world powers in January 1999 which led to the ‘Lome Accord’ in Togo. That temporary truce resulted in Sankoh being offered the vice presidency and control of Sierra Leone’s diamond mines in return for a cessation of hostilities. But despite the deployment of a United Nations Mission in Sierra Leone (UNAMSIL) peacekeeping force to monitor the disarmament process, the brutal war erupted again and did not end until 2002.
Although Bio’s decision not to renege on handing over power in 1996 as promised may have helped him when seeking the votes to be Sierra Leonean President two decades later, he believes the country paid a heavy price for it. With an estimated 2.5 million people displaced in a country that was then about five million in population and no fewer than 50,000 people killed, the ‘Diamond War’ in Sierra Leone remains one of the biggest humanitarian disasters on the continent. My Pastor, Evaristus Azodoh, a consultant urologist and retired army colonel, was Commander of the ECOMOG Task Force Field Hospital in Freetown between April 1998 and August 1999 and he has on several occasions shared gory stories of that war in which many Nigerian soldiers also perished.
After handing over power and leaving Sierra Leone, Bio spent the first six months in Paris learning French (he shared the reasons with me) before heading to the United States where he was offered political asylum. He did not return to his country until 2005. Eventually, Bio joined the Sierra Leone Peoples Party (SLPP) and in 2012 contested the presidential election. He was defeated by then incumbent President Ernest Bai Koroma. In a second attempt in 2018, Bio was elected President and was in 2023, re-elected for his second and final term.
Meanwhile, I arrived Sierra Leone on Sunday on the same flight from Abuja with former Vice President Yemi Osinbajo, the Director General of the Shehu Musa Yar’Adua Centre, Amara Nwankpa and former Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) chairman, Abdulrasheed Bawa. Osinbajo was the keynote speaker at the ‘Julius Maada Bio Leadership Colloquium’ with the theme, ‘From Vision to Impact: The People-Centered Leadership Model.’ Incidentally, as we milled around the hall on Monday, waiting for the colloquium to commence, Bawa dragged me to meet someone. “This is Francis Kaifala, head of the Sierra Leonean anti-corruption agency, a very good friend and former colleague.” Smiling, Kaifala said to me, “Yes, he was my colleague until he left me.” To this, Bawa interjected, “I didn’t leave you, I was sacked,” and we all laughed.
Bawa and I were seated together and that provided another story of its own. During the programme, Bawa nudged me to read a message he had just received on his phone. It’s the link to a news report where a group, ‘Citizens Forum for Transparency and Integrity (CFTI)’ alleged “a coordinated and sinister plot” by Bawa and others to derail the 2027 re-election bid of President Bola Tinubu. “See me, see trouble! How do I respond to this now?” asked Bawa, who had earlier told me he was working on his PhD. and soon to release a book on the downstream sector of the petroleum industry in Nigeria titled, ‘The Shadow of Loot and Losses: Uncovering Nigeria’s Petroleum Subsidy Fraud’.
On a lighter note, when introducing Osinbajo, Vice President Mohammed Jalloh of Sierra Leone joked that our former vice president attended the University of Lagos and not a ‘great’ Nigerian university like his. Jalloh obtained his master’s in political science from the University of Ibadan before his doctorate at the University of Bordeaux in France. In his keynote speech, Osinbajo said elections alone do not constitute democracy. “True democracy delivers dignity—food on the table, education for children, safety in our streets, and hope for the future,” said Osinbajo who urged African leaders to adopt people-centred governance, “a development paradigm that places the needs and voices of the vast majority—particularly those at the bottom of the pyramid—at the heart of policymaking.” This, he said, “is a call to reimagine leadership—not as the power to rule, but as the duty to serve.
Citing a 2023 perception survey by the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) on the preferred option for governance on the continent, Osinbajo said about 89 percent opted for democracy. “So, the issue is not democracy, it is how the political practitioners of democracy can ensure that the government of the people by the people for the people does not forget the aches and pains of the people”, Osinbajo said. “To make people-centred governance work we must move decisively from top-down elite focused strategies to bottom-up, inclusive development.”
In his own address, Bio highlighted his primary goals in leadership to include improving human capital development, promoting gender equality, and strengthening democratic institutions. He also promised that the colloquium would be an annual event to provoke conversations on how to anchor leadership on good governance and the rule of law – not only in Sierra Leone but across the African continent. “As a young soldier answering the call to duty during one of the darkest chapters in our nation’s history, I learned that leadership might begin in crisis, but it must endure beyond it,” Bio said while drawing from his experiences both in the military as a ‘dictator’ and now as an elected civilian president. “Every negotiation with political and military leaders, and every conversation with concerned civilians, taught me one immutable truth: leadership is not conferred by rank or title, but by the bond of trust between those who lead and those they serve.”
Leadership that does not require a title or recognition is the one that counts the most, according to Bio. And they can be found in most places, especially on the continent: “In the midnight vigil of a nurse attending to sick people, in the steady hands of a miner delving into the earth’s depths, in the tireless journeys of a motorcyclist linking remote villages, in the patient guidance of a mother who gathers her children to read beneath a fading lamp light.” These men and women, Bio says, “are the silent heroes whose dedication sustains our daily lives.”
In his fireside chat with Kingsley Okeke, a brand and communication strategist, Bio shared insights as to why democracy remains the best option for governance. He also recounted what happened after he and other young soldiers toppled President Momoh on 29 April 1992. “We were young men, we didn’t know all the processes, we didn’t consider that when you remove a government, you had to replace it with something,” said Bio who admitted that their principal mission was to dismantle the one-party arrangement that had made democracy a joke in the country and remove from power a government they believed was not serving the interest of the people.
There are many lessons from my conversation with Bio that will serve us in Nigeria. But let me highlight just two. One, the contagious nature of crisis, as we saw in how the war in Liberia moved quickly to Sierra Leone—which is being replicated in the challenge of terrorism in the Sahel. This compels our leaders to adopt the motto of the Boys Scout by being always prepared. The inability of the political leadership in Sierra Leone to read the situation correctly in the early nineties led to the war that shattered their country. The second lesson is about Bio himself: The courage of conviction that led to the choices he made at the time, even when they were not necessarily cost-free.
That precisely happened to be the Kernel of my point to Bawa about the ill-fated 2022/2023 Naira confiscation policy of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), in which he played a principal role as EFCC chairman. That decision was neither justified by the moment nor vindicated by its outcomes. The hardship it imposed on millions of Nigerians remains fresh. And yet, just like Bio’s experience has shown, history has a way of reconsidering its judgments. Depending on what may yet transpire, even that decision by Bawa and confederates might one day be viewed through a more forgiving lens.
Overall, the conversations in Freetown were candid but it is on the story of the Sierra Leonean war that I have had to reflect. Could it have been averted? Bio believes it could have, and I tend to agree with him. And that’s where leadership comes in. For, as Anders Eklung, a Swiss leadership mentor and coach reminds us, when we look at ‘war zones’, whether on the battlefield or in an office, “we can see the painful consequences of leadership falling short, missed opportunities, and big egos placed above improvement, empathy, and compassion.”
At the end, my main takeaway from the engagements during the colloquium to my private audience with Bio and informal chats with other stakeholders—including Osinbajo and immediate past ECOWAS Parliament Speaker, Dr Mohamed Sidie Tunis—is that the attention of African leadership discourse must shift from mere elections to the concerns of the ordinary people. Until those issues are constructively addressed, our continent will continue to project to the rest of the world an image of poverty, disease, ignorance, disasters and wars.
In Biblical times, the “City of Refuge” was a sacred place, a safe haven designated for those who had unintentionally committed manslaughter. These cities amalgamated into one, and known as City of Refuge were not established to protect the guilty, but to preserve justice and prevent mob vengeance before due process.
For the sake of clarity, it is germane to explain that as recorded in the Old Testament that the six designated cities of refuge were Golan, Ramoth, Bezer, Kedesh, Shechem, and Hebron. As earlier elucidated, these cities served as places of asylum for someone who had unintentionally killed another, allowing them to escape the avenger of blood.
They were temporary shelters, pending fair trial, not permanent hideouts from consequences. To buttress this view, kindly read Numbers 35:10-11 (NIV) which says, “When you cross the Jordan into Canaan, select some towns to be your cities of refuge, to which a person who has killed someone accidentally may flee.”
In Nigeria’s modern political theatre, however, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is increasingly being viewed by the public as a contemporary version of such cities, not for the innocent, but for political heavyweights with tainted records or waning relevance in their original parties.
When a politician’s sins begin to stink, whether through corruption allegations, electoral fraud, abuse of office, or public backlash, many find their way to the APC. And, like clockwork, the ruling party offers not only refuge but rehabilitation, often handing these political transgressors a microphone and a ministerial portfolio.
Aptly put, it is like the transformation of politicians found wanton from sinners to saints by mere party switch. It is not surprising as the former governor of Edo State and former APC national chairman, Senator Adams Oshiomhole once famously said; “Once you join APC, your sins are forgiven.”Though uttered half-jokingly, this comment reflects the dangerous truth that switching to the APC has become an unofficial ritual of absolution in Nigerian politics. Politicians who were previously roasted in the court of public opinion, or even formally charged, suddenly reappear in the limelight, rebranded, and praised, their pasts washed away under the banner of the party in power.
Take the case of former Abia State Governor Orji Uzor Kalu, who was convicted of N7.65 billion fraud in 2019 and sentenced to 12 years in prison. Though his conviction was later nullified by the Supreme Court on technical grounds (not acquittal), Kalu not only retained his Senate seat but continues to enjoy prominence within the APC. Similarly, the list of political figures with EFCC or ICPC cases who defected to APC and saw those investigations slow down or vanish is lengthy and deeply troubling.
And now, former Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike, once a fiery opposition figure, is comfortably serving as Minister of the Federal Capital Territory under the APC-led government. The same Wike who vowed never to join the APC has become its most visible figure in Abuja. To crown it all, he recently praised his once-sworn political rival, Dr. Ifeanyi Okowa, the former PDP governor of Delta State, for allegedly “doing the needful” by aligning with APC interests.
The message this sends to the Nigerian public is stark: to escape judgment, switch jerseys. Integrity is negotiable; relevance is currency.
In fact, the unarguably retrogressive trend is nothing but politics without principles. This is as the wave of defections from opposition parties into the APC is not fueled by ideological realignment. Rather, it is driven by opportunism, survival instincts, and fear of retribution. Once a politician begins to lose grip on their political base, or when the EFCC knocks, they simply cross over to where power resides. In return, they are rewarded, not reprimanded.
Unfortunately, the APC leadership has embraced this trend. Instead of subjecting new members to a vetting process or insisting on internal reform, the party often celebrates these defectors with elaborate ceremonies, parading them as trophies. The moral implication of such open arms is damning as it puts Nigeria’s democracy at risk.
In fact, when political parties cease to function as vehicles for policy development and nation-building, and instead operate as shelters for the politically endangered, democracy loses its meaning. The electorate becomes confused. Young Nigerians, already disillusioned by the blatant hypocrisy in politics, withdraw further from civic engagement. Voter apathy grows. Trust in governance collapses.
Without a doubt, a political party should be a platform for service, not a safe house for the compromised. Ironically, the APC came to power on the promise of “change.” It accused the PDP of being corrupt and rudderless. But today, the very individuals it condemned have found a second home under its roof. In fact, many of those now leading the APC were once PDP stalwarts. The lines have blurred so completely that Nigerians no longer differentiate between the two parties, only between who is in power and who wants to be in power.
In fact, the concept of a “City of Refuge” was grounded in justice. But APC, as it stands, offers sanctuary without accountability. No repentance, no trial, no reform. Just a change of uniform. The result is a political culture where wrongdoing is recycled, not rejected.
Without any scintilla of hyperbole, this climate emboldens corruption. It demoralizes honest politicians. And it leaves Nigerians at the mercy of leaders whose only qualification is their willingness to serve the interests of the ruling class, not the people.
On the way forward, it is germane to opine that if the APC wants to salvage its image, it must begin to apply the same anti-corruption rhetoric it used to ride to power internally. Defection should not automatically confer political sainthood. The party must establish a mechanism for screening incoming members, particularly those with pending cases or a history of misconduct.
More broadly, Nigeria must reform its political structure to make defections less attractive. The National Assembly should revisit the laws around floor-crossing, party loyalty, and the role of ethics in public office. Political Education must also be prioritized, so that future leaders are guided by values, not vengeance.
Ultimately, the Nigerian people must become the ultimate “city of judgment.” Through civic activism, the ballot box, and constant public scrutiny, they must hold leaders accountable, no matter the party they belong to.
At this juncture, it is expedient to ask, “Is APC a City of Refuge for Nigerian politicians?” Right now, the answer seems to be yes, but not in the redemptive sense. Instead, it has become a shelter from justice, a comfort zone for the compromised, and a political hospice for those fleeing relevance and repercussions. Yet, no matter how long politicians hide behind party affiliations, the truth remains: “Be sure your sin will find you out.” Numbers 32:23 (KJV). And when that day of reckoning comes, no party flag will be strong enough to shield them from the judgment of history.
In what now seems like an absurd but strangely structured practice, attacking Peter Obi, the Labour Party’s 2023 presidential candidate, has morphed into more than political opposition. It has become a specialized, almost institutionalized field. Let us call it Obilogy, the systematic study and targeted deconstruction of Peter Obi’s every word, action, and silence.
Just like a university course, Obilogy appears to have its curriculum, its faculty of self-appointed professors, and areas of specialization. From his time as governor of Anambra to how he made his money and even how he talks, traducers now claim mastery in various modules of this unofficial discipline.
Just like any academic field, Obilogy has clearly defined branches: Governance Historians specialize in analyzing Obi’s tenure as Anambra governor. They downplay his achievements, question his savings records, and reframe his governance as mediocrity wrapped in hype. They claim to know what boreholes he did not drill and what potholes he ignored, even more than 10 years after his exit.
Data Discreditors exist solely to counter every figure he presents. When Obi says “33% unemployment,” they respond with “fake news.” When he says “Nigerians are getting poorer,” they ask for peer-reviewed citations, but never request the same from politicians in power. These traducers behave like glorified statisticians trained to poke holes in Obi’s data regardless of its source.
Academic & Economic Forensics Experts dig into his education and wealth like forensic auditors. They question the source of his wealth, his degrees, and his business dealings. Meanwhile, the opaque riches of others in Nigeria’s political space never receive such “rigorous” inquiry.
Speech and Behavior Analysts assess his mannerisms, word choice, and pauses. His now-famous phrase “Go and verify” is often mocked. His simplicity is misinterpreted as dullness. For a man who is among the few that actually speaks to issues in a country of theatrical politicians, his critics focus more on his tone than the truth in his message.
In every academic field, there are giants. In Obilogy, two names dominate the space; Charles Soludo and Reno Omokri.
Charles Soludo, the current Anambra State governor and former CBN boss, seems hell-bent on undoing the glowing reputation Obi earned in the same state. He has dismissed Obi’s famed savings, belittled his governance legacy, and written essays that seem more emotionally driven than data-based.
Rather than carve a legacy of his own, Soludo appears trapped in an unending comparison with his predecessor. But leadership is not about tearing down the last man; it is about doing better. If Obi’s records were exaggerated, Soludo has every opportunity to surpass him, not compete in bitterness.
In a similar vein, Reno Omokri has turned Obi criticism into a full-time gig. A former presidential aide who once championed good governance, he now obsessively attacks Obi, from religion to region to resume. His Twitter page reads like an anti-Obi digest, constantly updated with spin, sarcasm, and selective memory.
Ironically, Reno never subjects other politicians, especially those in his preferred camp, to the same level of scrutiny. His attacks raise questions about motive and consistency more than they undermine Obi’s credibility.
Given the backdrop of the foregoing viewpoints, it is expedient to ask, “Why the Obsession?” and “What exactly is Obi’s sin? It seems his crime is being too clean in a dirty game”. He flies economy while others charter jets. He governed with prudence, saved public funds, and resisted the temptation to loot. He inspired millions of Nigerians, especially youths, without handing out cash or wrappers. This makes him a threat to the political establishment. Obi is not just a man, he represents disruption, a rejection of politics-as-usual. He calls out waste. He demands accountability. He exposes the rot. And for this, the system must find ways to discredit him.
It is not about whether he is lying or not. It is about making him appear like a liar. It is not about whether his achievements are real, but whether people can be confused enough to doubt them.
Let us be clear: Obi, like any public figure, must be scrutinized. But what he faces is far beyond scrutiny, it is obsession. It is a sustained attempt to drain his relevance, discredit his message, and exhaust his supporters with endless rebuttals.
And herein lies the danger: while the “professors” of Obilogy keep teaching their bitter syllabus, Nigeria keeps bleeding, inflation surges, insecurity spreads, poverty deepens, and institutions collapse. While they fact-check Obi’s inflation figures, fuel prices jump beyond N700 per litre and food becomes a luxury for the average Nigerian.
In this climate, Obilogy is not just ridiculous, it is dangerous. It diverts attention from the real issues. It forces national discourse to orbit around one man while those truly in power escape scrutiny.
Instead of destructive criticism, Nigeria needs a breed of thinkers committed to constructive opposition, those who will engage Obi’s ideas with intellectual honesty, challenge his proposals with alternative facts, and build counter-narratives rooted in truth, not tribalism or envy.
If Obilogy continues unchecked, it will not only damage Obi, it will damage the culture of dissent itself. Because if a politician as transparent as Obi becomes the most scrutinized, then the message is clear: honesty is a liability in Nigerian politics.
Despite the noise, Obi’s message remains alive. His relevance continues to grow. His movement is more than a moment, it is a generational awakening. Millions now believe they can demand better. They are not waiting for handouts; they are organizing, registering to vote, and asking hard questions.
Obi may not have won in 2023, but he redefined what political engagement means in Nigeria. He reminded us that campaigns can be issue-driven. He proved that youth participation matters. He inspired people to care.
Let Soludo write, let Reno tweet, let others speak in their echo chambers. The real exam will not be marked by Obilogy professors, it will be set and graded by Nigerians at the ballot box.
In fact, it is high time the duo are reminded that Obilogy cannot kill an idea whose time has come.
Without a doubt, the obsession with Peter Obi reveals more about Nigeria’s political insecurity than about Obi himself. His traducers may continue their coordinated attack, but they forget one thing: ideas do not die easily. Peter Obi has become an idea. And no matter how many professors lecture in the department of Obilogy, that idea will outlive the noise.
Patrick Okedinachi Utomi, born in Kaduna but of Delta state extraction, is passionate about Nigeria. Perhaps the only other Nigerian whose passion for Nigeria rivals that of Utomi was another Kaduna-born Delta Nigerian nationalist, Chukwuma Nzeogwu, whose effort to rid Nigeria of “ten percenters and others that make us ashamed of being called Nigerians” was betrayed by some of his military colleagues including Ifeajuna, Ironsi and Ojukwu who sabotaged Nzeogwu’s revolution in Lagos, Enugu and Kano.
Prof. Pat Utomi, like Nzeogwu, has a vision of good society which became more elusive the closer they came towards it despite deploying all his talents and energy towards securing a better Nigeria for Nigerians since he started his crusade in the early eighties.
He first bewitched the Shehu Shagari administration with his in-depth newspaper analysis of the state of the economy, an endeavour that earned him a place in Shagari’s cabinet. Even after the collapse of the administration, he was given a chance to put into practice all his theoretical postulations at V/ Wagon Nigeria Limited which, under his control, suffered the same fate as other assembly plants of the period.
Utomi, a resourceful professor of political economy, is perhaps the face of Nigeria’s public intellectual home and abroad. He belongs to many professional bodies, including the Nigerian Institute of Public Relations, (NIPR), Institute of Directors (IOD), Nigeria Economic Summit Group and Nigeria Economic Society. He has served in various private-sector associations, including the Lagos Chamber of Commerce and Industry (LCCI), the National Council of the Manufacturers Association of Nigeria, and the Nigeria Employers Consultative Association (NECA).
He has carried the crusade for a better Nigeria through intellectual debate beyond the shores of Nigeria, especially at the Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, and Chatham House in the UK.
He has to his credit several books and journal articles on economic underdevelopment, including, ‘Nigeria as an Economic Power House,’ ‘Crafting the New Nigeria – Confronting the Challenges,’ Nigeria ‘Changes as Prospects,’ ‘Values and Economic Stagnation in Africa: A Paradox of Poverty in Nigeria,’ ‘Managing Uncertainty: Competition and Strategy in Emerging Economies,’ ‘Critical Perspectives in Political Economy and Management’ etc.
The labour of Utomi has not gone unacknowledged. For his pains, it has been honours without end. Numerous awards. He has been nominated and voted for by the public as one of Nigeria’s top ten Living Legends in the Vanguard/Silverbird Television Awards, Great Nigeria Lives of the 20th Century and Who is who in Africa.
Unfortunately, Utomi’s theories have not reflected positively on the state of our economy.
The record of his intervention in politics has, however, not been any less dismal. But this has not diminished his enthusiasm for a vision of a better society. Thus, he last week once again came up with his “Big Tent Coalition Shadow Government,” over which he declared himself ‘Leader of Opposition.’ The initiative, which is to serve as critique of the President Bola Tinubu’s administration, was, according to him, dictated by his desire to save Nigeria’s democracy following his inability to stop the gale of defections from Labour and PDP, where membership of his new coalition was selected.
The task before the group would be to regularly scrutinise government actions, identify policy failures, and propose alternative solutions in key areas- economy, education, healthcare, infrastructure, law and order, and constitutional reforms of the present government.
These are no doubt noble objectives except that the Information Minister, Mohammed Idris, has said, the idea of a so-called ‘shadow government’ is an aberration as “Nigeria is not a parliamentary system where such a system is practiced.” Many seem to agree with the minister that “Our bicameral legislature amply features members of the opposition, and it should be the right place to contest meaningful ideas for nation-building.”
Besides government opposition, Utomi’s current search for a vision of good society seems threatened by the choice of his crusading team drawn from opposition PDP democrats without democratic ethos and the ‘obidients,’ an unthinking mob Obi, as the falconer, cannot control.
For instance, Dele Farotimi, who will lead the Ombudsman and Good Governance portfolio, is a man many of his critics believe talks more than he thinks in order to prove his valour. Not too long ago, he was ready to publicly disrobe Chief Afe Babalola, an elder statesman, over unproven allegations, just as he, on account of some bad eggs, didn’t mind pulling down his own noble profession without which we all return to a state of nature where life is ’nasty, brutish, and short.’ And this was a self-confessed ‘obidient’ who, in search of ‘Obi’s imaginary ‘stolen mandate,’ recklessly declared without proof before his American audience, “in a few days’ time a convicted drug baron will be sworn in as the president of my country.”
Before Prof. Utomi’s latest gamble, most of his past efforts at building a coalition in pursuit of a new vision of good society failed. He contested the 2007 presidential election on the platform of the obscure African Democratic Party and failed. Following his initial setback, he formed another party, the Social Democratic Mega Party, on which platform he tried to contest the 2011 presidential elections before withdrawing at the last minute.
But in 2012, he joined the opposition Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) “because the progressive opposition in Nigeria has been unable to bring itself under one umbrella while the enemies of the progressive struggle are disciplined enough to coalesce under the conservative/retrogressive Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).”
Utomi is a rolling stone. His attempt at contesting a senatorial seat in Delta under PDP failed. I have heard him declare publicly that the APC manifesto was drafted on the dining table in his house. Indeed, Utomi was declared as the governorship candidate of the All Progressives Congress for the 2019 general election in Delta State by a faction of the party until it was overturned by the national working committee of the party.
In January 2018, Utomi floated the Nigeria Intervention Movement (NIM), with former Cross River State governor, Donald Duke, former governor of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Charles Soludo, Senior Advocate of Nigeria, Olisa Agbakoba, Tafawa Balewa, former Education minister, Oby Ezekwesili, former Information minister, Frank Nweke Jnr, Col. Abubakar Umar (retd), Ayo Obe, Rabiu Ishyaku Rabiu, former presidential adviser, Akin Osuntokun as members.
The group described itself as a pro-democracy movement and pressure group of like-minded Nigerians, “Concerned that left to their schemes and antics, a class of entrenched leaders will lead Nigeria into a state of indescribable human misery, characterised by death, hunger, disease, illiteracy and manipulation.” They decided to create a third political force, a platform to mobilise all citizens of goodwill and conscience towards engendering a new political system and culture in Nigeria. The intervention movement brought no relief to Nigerians.
Restless Utomi in 2020 and Naaba formed a group to lead mass action against corruption and insecurity in Nigeria. They wanted Nigerians to rise up and put an end to the situation where the president was being caged and his office being run by some unelected proxies and power
traders operating without any form of mandate from the Nigerian people. Chasing out that clique of ruinous political cartels ravaging our commonwealth enabled by their self- serving capture of our Government and State. The result was not different.
Then ahead of the 2023 general elections, Utomi was among prominent Nigerians that established a third force, Rescue Nigeria Project (RNP), ostensibly to give Nigerians an alternative platform, other than the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic
Party (PDP). Other founding members of RNP included former governor of Kwara State, Ahmed Abdulfatai, Prof. Tunde Adeniran, former Governor of Cross River State, Donald Duke, Senator Lee Maeba, Usman Bugaje, Prof. Attahiru Jega, Amb. Nkoyo Toyo, Yomi Awoniyi, Dr. Rose Idi Danladi, Dr. Sadiq Gombe, among others. They set out to fight “the high level of nepotism and lack of inclusiveness” which had given rise to agitations by different ethnic groups.
“We want to salvage this country and see how we can fix the mess. We want to set a template and key criteria leaders must have before they can attain any political position.” Abdulfatai had hardly finished delivering this keynote address when Utomi was discovered to be gunning for the presidential ticket of the Labour Party, which he later ceded to Peter Obi.
While the closer we came towards Utomi’s vision of a good society, the more elusive it became, it has not been all doom for Nigeria’s foremost professor of political economy and management at a personal level. He is the chairman of close to two dozen Nigerian companies and a shareholder in many others.
President Bola Tinubu has eight-point priority areas as enunciated in his 80-page Renewed Hope Agenda. They are reforming the economy for sustained inclusive growth; strengthening national security for peace and prosperity; boosting agriculture to achieve food security; unlocking energy and natural resources for sustainable development; and enhancing infrastructure and transportation as enablers of growth. Others include a focus on education, health, and social investment as essential pillars of development; accelerate diversification through industrialisation, digitisation, creative arts, manufacturing & innovation and improve governance for effective service delivery. From the aforementioned, it is obvious that the President has a bias for the economy. Little wonder he prioritised what he called economic restructuring in the last two years. I call that ‘Tinubunomics’.
From the day of his inauguration on May 29, 2023, Tinubu left no one in doubt about the direction his government would go when he said, “Petrol subsidy is gone!”. He later followed that up with the floating of the naira, our national currency. To the best of my knowledge, Nigeria never had a cabinet that is as large as that of the incumbent President with about 50 ministers and the establishment of new ministries, departments and agencies some of which include the Ministry of Marine and Blue Economy, Ministry of Livestock Development, Ministry of Art, Culture, Tourism and the Creative Economy and Ministry of Steel Development.
President Tinubu has recorded a lot of achievements in the area of the economy in the last two years. In terms of brick and mortar, there have been several completed roads and bridges, especially in the Federal Capital Territory and Lagos. Nairametrics, in its March 31, 2025, edition, reported that Tinubu’s administration had prioritised road infrastructure, accelerating existing projects and initiating new ones to enhance connectivity, trade, and regional development. Summary of 13 key road projects: Abuja-Kaduna-Zaria-Kano Road: Originally awarded in 2017, now revitalised with N740.79bn in funding. Completion set for 2026; Ninth Mile-Oturkpo-Makurdi Road; Sokoto-Badagry Highway: A 1,068km north-south link with a rail line in the median; construction began in October 2024; Abuja-Lokoja-Benin Road: Undergoing dualisation with concrete technology, re-awarded in 2024 with N305bn funding and Lagos-Calabar Coastal Highway (Phase 1): A 47.7km section started in March 2024, integrating rail transport; the full highway spans 700km.
Others include Enugu-Onitsha Expressway being reconstructed under MTN’s Tax Credit Scheme; 50-70 per cent complete, with a May 2026 deadline; Benin-Asaba Superhighway: A PPP-funded 125km highway with solar lighting, launched in March 2025, with a 30-month timeline; Oyo-Ogbomoso Road: Re-awarded in February 2025 to JRB Construction for N147.89bn to boost regional connectivity; Bode Saadu-Kaima-Kosubosu Road: A 130km project in Kwara, funded by BUA Group, designed for long-term durability; Enugu-Port Harcourt Expressway: Ongoing work on the 56.1km Umuahia-Aba section, with completion targeted for June 2025; Second Niger Bridge Access Road: A 17.55km road linking the bridge to key transport corridors, started in March 2025; Lagos-Ibadan Expressway nearing completion, with tolling planned after Phase 1 to ensure maintenance funding and Bodo-Bonny Road: Includes 13 bridges; cost revised to N280bn, now scheduled for completion.
Under this administration, all six geopolitical zones now have development commissions that are aimed at making development initiatives percolate to the grassroots through pro-people and pro-poor projects and programmes. Tinubu’s game changer is the four tax reform bills sent to the National Assembly in October 2024. They are the Nigeria Tax Bill, the Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Bill, the Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Bill and the Nigeria Tax Administration Bill. The Senate passed the bill last week, and a conference committee to harmonise the versions passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives has been set up. I am sure a clean copy may be sent to the President for assent before May 29. There are said to be a lot of benefits inherent in the new tax laws.
It is reported that the Federal Government of Nigeria, through the Federal Ministry of Industry, Trade, and Investment, has established three funds totalling N200bn to support businesses across Nigeria: The Presidential Conditional Grant Scheme, The FGN MSME Intervention Fund, and the FGN Manufacturing Sector Fund. The Bank of Industry has been appointed as the executing agency of the funds, vested with responsibility for its day-to-day administration. An online source said BoI has disbursed N22bn of the N200bn support fund to MSMEs. The restreaming of Port Harcourt and Warri refineries in December 2024, as well as the Presidential Initiative on Compressed Natural Gas, are some of Tinubu’s economic achievements in the last two years. It is noteworthy that the national minimum wage has increased from N30,000 to N70,000 since July 2024.
On the flip side, much as the economic handlers of the country will want the citizens to laud them for the purported economic growth, it is noteworthy that the lives of average Nigerians have worsened under this government. Nigerians are experiencing a higher cost of living rather than a higher standard of living.
Inflation, unemployment and poverty are on the increase. Headline inflation in March 2025 is 24.23 per cent, according to the National Bureau of Statistics.
This newspaper, in its May 4, 2025 (online edition), reported that the World Bank had disclosed that the poverty rate among Nigeria’s rural population had reached an alarming 75.5 per cent, highlighting deepening inequality and widespread economic hardship across the country. According to the World Bank’s latest April 2025 Poverty and Equity Brief for Nigeria, rural dwellers are overwhelmingly bearing the brunt of economic stagnation, inflation, and structural challenges that have characterised the country’s growth trajectory in recent years. The data, derived from Nigeria’s most recent nationally representative surveys, shows that while 41.3 per cent of the urban population lives below the poverty line, the figure for rural Nigeria is almost double.
According to a development economist, Prof. Dudley Seers, in any country where poverty, unemployment and inflation are on the increase, there is no development. Imagine the cost of living crisis many Nigerians now face. Many of us are heavily indebted and find it extremely difficult to pay our bills. Energy costs have hit the roof with petrol and electricity price hikes, as well as the recent increase in the telecommunications tariff. These price increases, coupled with over 40 per cent devaluation of the value of the naira, have made life unbearable for most Nigerians. This spike in the cost of living has made the new minimum wage of N70,00 worthless. It, therefore, behoves President Tinubu to find creative ways of ameliorating the suffering of the Nigerian masses.
The President of the African Development Bank, Dr Akinwunmi Adesina, recently compared Nigeria’s promising $1,857 gross domestic product per capita of 1960 to the dismal $824 in 2024! He contrasts the index with South Korea’s GDP, which rose from $158 in 1960 to an astronomical $36,157 in 2024.
Even though the little-known Independent Media and Policy Initiative, which is probably an apologist for President Bola Tinubu’s government, countered that Nigeria’s per capita GDP in 1960 was $93, not $1,857, as Adesina had claimed. Well, neither Akinwumi nor IMPIC have revealed the sources of their claims.
As President Tinubu rounds up his Presidency’s mid-term, the economic indices show little positives for the poor messes’ cost of living, suggesting that the liberal economic options of the Bretton Woods institutions are sorely needed for the Nigerian economy that was almost collapsing under the weight of subsidies to petrol, electricity and the naira.
Indeed, the rates of inflation, lending and conversion of the naira to the American dollar, the major currency for international trade, were adversely affecting the cost of essential items, like foodstuffs, medication, road and air transport and house rent. And many Nigerians went to the poorhouse with this horrible dispensation.
By the way, the Janus-faced World Bank and International Monetary Fund that prescribed the harrowing economic reform policies now criticise it. There is an inexplicable gap between the deft disclaimers of the economic policies by the Bretton Woods institutions and Nigerian liberal economic evangelists, who argued that the subsidies will burst the economy.
The wonder of it all is that the government that justified the reformist economic policies does not seem to have introduced appropriate policies to mitigate their effects—apart from short-term cash transfers and food palliatives that do not even reach enough numbers of the poor.
Indeed, the government seems to be experiencing some fatigue in implementing the more foundational remedial policies, like raising crude petroleum production, selling petroleum for naira and promoting the Compressed Natural Gas alternative to petrol.
It seems the 2027 general election has become a major distraction. And this calls for more urgent actions to implement some kind of grand Marshall Plan to put Nigeria on the road to economic redemption.
The following are some actions that the government should be taking to assist Nigerians in coping with the effects of its policies, which, by the way, other major presidential candidates of the 2023 general elections insisted they would implement if they were elected.
As the government invests in solar energy for the Presidential Villa, the gesture should be extended to its secretariats, tertiary institutions, medical schools, and other major facilities. State governments should do the same.
The current template that places electricity generation companies, the national grid and electricity distribution companies in silos should be replaced with integrated electricity companies in designated markets. Eko Electric should have its own transmission line and generation units added to its distribution facilities.
State government-owned enterprises, like Odua Investments, should take advantage of the transfer of electricity to the concurrent legislative list and invest in the electricity sector. Any excess production can be exported to East and West African countries.
Because water is necessary for domestic and industrial purposes, state governments must upgrade old waterworks and invest in new facilities to provide potable and clean water for the good health of citizens and use in manufacturing companies.
To complement the efforts of the Federal Government, state governments or a consortium of contiguous states must invest in railway lines to connect their urban centres to their industries and farm gates. Of course, these connections should be linked to other states and regions.
State governments should revive the old farm settlements established by the government of the likes of Obafemi Awolowo, to grow food for consumption and cash crops for export. Private investors should be encouraged to invest in agro-allied industries within or close to the farm settlements.
The Nigerian economy cannot survive with the import-substitution economic strategy, a booby trap that ties Nigeria’s so-called manufacturing capability to the continued importation of industrial manufacturing machinery, their spare parts and raw materials.
Therefore, the Federal and State Governments should use the auspices of the National Economic Council to form a harmonised industrial plan that will initiate privately-owned or publicly-owned manufacturing plants that can manufacture industrial manufacturing machines, spare parts and raw materials.
Also, the government should encourage investors to establish heavy industries, like automobile manufacturing plants, and provide realistic plans to revive the practically moribund textile industry, even though the garment industry seems to be thriving.
These heavy manufacturing industries will generate employment for youths who are looking for jobs that have not been created. Only deliberate government encouragement and interventions can help these industries grow. It is not enough to throw soft loans at the industries; the government should appoint competent hands to do the necessary follow-ups.
The Federal Government should be more serious in implementing its naira-for-petroleum policy. As this makes petroleum products more readily available and reduces the need to source foreign exchange to import the same, it reduces the pressure on the naira.
The Federal Government and the Nigerian National Petroleum Company Limited, which have repeatedly stated that they wanted to ramp up production of crude petroleum, should please make good their promise. This should provide more funds for the government’s development programmes.
And, yes, the terrorists and their enablers, within Nigeria, or from across the Sahel, must be taken head-on, either with kinetic or non-kinetic strategies. And enough of the sabotaging efforts of enemies within, the fifth columnists, who “fall the hands”, or compromise the efforts, of the patriotic military men who stake their lives for the safety of fellow Nigerians.
If indeed, terrorists or bandits, as some people in the government prefer to call them, are from the Sahel, the government must initiate a review of the Economic Community for West African States protocols on inter-border movements, though the long-unmanned borders and the cultural affinity of Nigerians with neighbouring countries cannot be easily ignored.
But there is a need to ask why Nigeria’s military, which provided most of the men, firepower and logistics for the ECOWAS Monitoring Group that maintained peace in the West African sub-region, woefully fails to contain the so-called terrorists from the Sahel.
Maybe, if all governments cooperate to implement these economic policies, it will be easy to drive the seven per cent annual GDP growth rate that the Minister of Finance and Coordinating Minister of the Economy, Wale Edun, is proposing, to achieve President Tinubu’s projected $1tn economy by 2030.
And for the sake of social justice, the government must allocate the resources of the country so that the extremely wide disparity between the rich, who flaunt their (usually ill-gotten) wealth, and the poor, is significantly narrowed.
State governors, who now receive higher remittances from the Federation Account as a result of the removal of subsidies, should significantly contribute to bringing this social injustice home. Apart from paying the new minimum workers’ salaries regularly, they must implement appropriate economic policies.
In short, Nigerian governments must consistently initiate policies to significantly improve the performance of the economy and equitably distribute the gains. And if all these seem didactic or pedagogical, there are no apologies for the audacity.
X:lekansote1, lekansote.com
More...
The goal of Governor Chukwuma Charles Soludo, CFR, is always to win with his solutions. Soludo wisely took advantage of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s state visit to Anambra State on May 8 to address the pressing issues of the south-east geopolitical zone’s marginalisation.
President Tinubu, who referred to Governor Soludo as a friend, made a solid commitment to resolve all of the marginalisation issues brought up by the governor.
Governor Soludo praised President Tinubu for his Pan-Nigerian disposition, which was demonstrated when he appointed Ben Akabueze, an Anambra son, as Commissioner for Budget and Planning while serving as Governor of Lagos. He also thanked Tinubu for appointing numerous Ndị Anambra to his administration, particularly the appointment of Ambassador Bianca Ojukwu as minister of state for foreign affairs and Mark Okoye, as MD, South-East Development Commission. In line with what Tinubu did in Lagos, Soludo said: “Similarly, here in Anambra, one of my new permanent secretaries is from Osun State – Bayo Ojeyinka.”
Mr Governor lauded Mr President thusly: “We are deeply grateful for several road projects currently being executed by your administration that benefit Anambra State, running into hundreds of billions of naira, especially the Enugu-Onitsha Road, rehabilitation of Onitsha-Owerri Road, Phase 2b access road to Second Niger Bridge, rehabilitation of Oba-Nnewi Road Section II in Anambra, etc. When completed, they will be important game-changers for our people.”
Governor Soludo put forward the following ask-list on the table of President Tinubu: “Anambra remains, possibly, the gully erosion capital of the world, with one-third of our land mass under persistent threat, and the resource requirements to deal with this are far beyond the capacity of a state government. We are already spending tens of billions of naira on this, but much more is urgently needed. The Southeast and Anambra in particular are bypassed by the national gas masterplan despite abundant reserves of natural gas. We are not part of the national rail system. The Onitsha River Port, commissioned by President Shehu Shagari in 1982, remains a proposal, ostensibly because the federal government has been unable to undertake the required dredging. Only Asiwaju, the man who tamed the Atlantic, can break this 43-year-old jinx so that badges from Onne and other seaports can easily discharge at Onitsha. There is an abandoned strategic federal road project that links Anambra with Kogi State. Upon completion, the journey between Anambra/Southeast and Abuja might be shortened to about three hours — down from the current nine hours! The list is long, and we are convinced that systematically, these issues will be addressed.”
President Tinubu, who was bestowed with the chieftaincy title of Dikesimba of Anambra by Ndi Igwe of 179 communities in the state after having commissioned two landmark projects – the Solution Fun City and the Government House Mini-City as part of the initial steps on the path towards your audacious vision of Anambra as African-Dubai-Taiwan-Silicon Valley (ADTS) – made the firm promise to include Anambra State and the South-East in the National Railway Masterplan, a bold step that promises to open new corridors of mobility, trade, and interconnectivity for the South-East, the South-South, and the rest of the federation.
To promote the budding manufacturing and technological sectors, the president also promised to include Anambra State and the South-East in the country’s Gas Pipeline Masterplan, which is a vital tool for industrialisation and energy access.
In order to promote trade, mobility, and national unity, President Tinubu approved the completion of the federal highway that connects Anambra and Kogi State. This groundbreaking project would cut the trip time from Anambra to Abuja by roughly four hours.
Under President Tinubu’s Renewed Hope Agenda, Governor Soludo also received assurances that reconstruction work will soon begin on the damaged sections of the Enugu–Onitsha Expressway, a long-standing infrastructure issue that is now at last to receive decisive federal attention.
President Tinubu added a fitting crown to his newly placed hat by promising federal support for ecological investments to address erosion in Anambra State. This is a very appropriate intervention, given that environmental issues of this kind continue to be the state’s top existential threat and are beyond any state’s means.
It is anticipated that Mr. President’s commitment to a sustained strategic cooperation with Anambra State and the South-East for complete security restoration will include Governor Soludo’s other crucial request, which is for the federal government to start operating the Onitsha River Port.
For Ndi Anambra and all Ndigbo, President Tinubu’s State Visit is a huge victory for justice, inclusivity, and visionary leadership. It also serves as a testament to the strength of the strategic partnership between Anambra and the federal government, constructive engagement, the Soludo administration’s purposeful governance, and the governor’s dedication to progressivism and welfarism.
A worthy display of friendship, one that goes beyond politics and is based on the common goal of a more united, progressive Nigeria and the unmistakable proof of progressives working together, is President Tinubu’s affirmative response to Governor Soludo’s ask-list to end the marginalisation of the South-East.
What is more noteworthy than President Tinubu jocularly requesting a piece of land in Anambra State to construct a retirement home after his term as Nigeria’s president?
With Asiwaju, a brand-new, prosperous, and united Nigeria is undoubtedly approaching, one in which justice and peace will rule.
Law Mefor, PhD, is the information commissioner, Anambra state. He can be contacted via drlawmefor@gmail.com and on X:@DrLaw_Mefor.
In promulgating decree 24 on May 5, 1999 as the 1999 Constitution, the then Head of State and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, General Abdusalam Alhaji Abubakar, GCFR, made an addendum to the decree. The addendum was not part of the decree it was just an explanation on the constitution. General Abdusalam declared in the addendum “WHEREAS the Federal Military Government of the Federal Republic of Nigeria in compliance with the Transition to Civil Rule (Political Programme) Decree 1998 has, through the Independent National Electoral Commission, conducted elections to the office of President and Vice-President, Governors and Deputy-Governors, Chairmen and Vice-Chairmen, the National Assembly, the Houses of Assembly and the local government councils;
AND WHEREAS the Federal Military Government In furtherance of its commitment to hand over to a democratically elected civilian administration on 29th May 1999. inaugurated on 11th November 1998, the Constitutional Debate Co-ordinating Committee charged with responsibility to, among other things, pilot the debate on the new Constitution for Nigeria, co-ordinate and collate views and recommendations canvassed by individuals and groups for a new Constitution for Nigeria;
AND WHEREAS the Constitutional Debate Co-ordinating Committee benefitted from the receipt of large volumes of memoranda from Nigerians at home and abroad and oral presentations at the public hearings at the debate centres throughout the country and the conclusions arrived thereat and also at various seminars, workshops and conferences organised and was convinced that the general consensus of opinion of Nigerians is the desire to retain the provisions of the 1979 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria with some amendments;
AND WHEREAS the Constitutional Debate Co-ordinating Committee has presented the report of its deliberations to the Provisional Ruling Council;
AND WHEREAS the Provisional Ruling Council has approved the report subject to such amendments as are deemed necessary in the public interest and for the purpose of promoting the security, welfare and good governance and fostering the unity and progress of the people of Nigeria with a view to achieving its objective of handing over an enduring Constitution to the people of Nigeria;
AND WHEREAS, it is necessary in accordance with the programme on transition to civil rule for the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1979 after necessary amendments and approval by the Provisional Ruling Council to be promulgated into a new Constitution for the Federal Republic of Nigeria in order to give the same force of law with effect” from 29th May 1999: NOW THEREFORE, THE FEDERAL MILITARY GOVERNMENT hereby decrees as follows:- (1) There shall be for Nigeria a Constitution which shall be as set out in the Schedule to this Decree. (2) The Constitution set out in the Schedule to this Decree shall come into force on 29th May 1999. (3) Whenever it may hereafter be necessary for the Constitution to be printed it shall be lawful for the Federal Government Printer to omit all parts of this Decree apart from the Schedule and the Constitution as so printed shall have the force of law notwithstanding the omission, 2. This Decree may be cited as the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (Promulgation) Decree 1999”.
You are free to form an opinion on the addendum. One thing is however clear, by the time we held the gubernatorial elections in the country on February 20, 1999 and the Presidential election on February 29, 1999, the new Constitution was not ready. By 1999, the 1979 Constitution suspended by Brigadier General Sani Abacha’s announcement on December 31, 1983, was still suspended. Likewise, the 1988 Constitution prepared by the Constituent Assembly headed by Justice Anthony Aniagolu(1922-2011) was not available. Also, the 1995 Constitution prepared by the Constituent Assembly headed by Justice Adolphus Karibi-Whyte (1932-2020) was also not ready. At the time the elections were held in February 1999, the 1999 Constitution being prepared by Justice Niki Tobi (July 14, 1940 – June 19, 2016) was also not ready. In his wisdom, General Abdusalam Abubakar did not constitute a Constituent Assembly to give the country a new Constitution; he only relied on the Constitutional Debate Co-ordinating Committee headed by Justice Niki Tobi.
Justice Niki Tobi was born in Esanma, Bomadi LGA, in what is now Delta State. Prior to his career at the bench, he was the dean of Faculty of Law and deputy vice-chancellor (academic services), University of Maiduguri. He was appointed to the Supreme Court in 2002.
He was known for his legal erudition and wide knowledge of legal principles.
Justice Tobi made attempts before and after the elections to have an audience with General Abubakar through the then Secretary to the Government of the Federation, Alhaji Gidado Idris, GCON. He succeeded in seeing him twice.
Only General Abdusalam Abubakar GCFR (82) can explain better why he jettisoned the idea of a Constituent Assembly to give the country a new constitution. My understanding is that General Abubakar wanted to leave power at a short notice. He must have been jolted by the death of Chief Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola, GCFR, (24 August 1937 – 7 July 1998), acclaimed winner of the 1993 Presidential Election and the sudden death of the man he succeeded, General Sani Abacha, GCFR (20 September 1943- 8 June 1998) on June 8, 1998.
In short, he wanted to retire to Minna in good health. Were he to be alive today, Justice Niki Tobi will be surprised that the 1999 constitution which his team prepared as draft is still in existence today although with some amendments. In my discussion with him at the International Conference Centre, Abuja, where I was posted from the office of the Secretary to the Government of the Federation as a member of the adhoc staff of the Constitutional Debate Co-ordinating Committee, he said several times that the draft will be subjected to many amendments by the Provisional Ruling Council.
Realising the numerous lapses in the Constitution, one of the first things President Olusegun Obasanjo GCFR did was to review the 1999 constitution by setting up a committee headed by Ambassador Yusuf Mamman. The Committee was inaugurated on 19th October, 1999 by the Attorney-General of the Federation and Minister of Justice, Mr. Kanu Agabi with the following terms of Reference: To co-ordinate and collate the views and recommendations from individuals and groups for a review of the Constitution, having regard to the need to maintain the corporate existence and unity of the nation; to identify and specify all anomalies, irregularities and defects inherent in the existing Constitution and make appropriate recommendations to correct such anomalies, irregularities; to make proposals for the review of the Constitution to ensure that it reflects the true experiences, wishes and aspirations of the people and suggest ways and means of making the Constitution an expression of the will of the people; and to address the lingering problems of power sharing between the Federal and State Governments and between States and Local Governments.
Other members of the committee were Chief Clement Ebri(Deputy Chairman), Alhaji Iro Abubakar Dan-Musa, Dr. Shettima Mustapha, Chief Yohanna Madaki, Chief Alani Bankole, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Barrister(Mrs) Iyabode Pam, Air C’dre Bernard Banfa (rtd), Mrs Ayoka Lawani, Hajiya Basirat A. Nahibi, Alhaji Isiaku Mohammed, Chief A.K. Horsfall, Chief Ayo Opadokun, Dr. J.C. Odunna, Barrister Mika Anache, Dr. Amos Adepoju, Dr, Silva Opusunju, Chief Barnabas Gemade, Alhaji Gambo Saleh, Dr. Arthur Nwankwo, Dr. Maxwell M. Gidado and Mrs M.V.I. Mbu. Shortly after inauguration, Chief Barnabas Gemade was replaced by Barrister Edward Ashiekaa.
Later, an adjustment to the Committee’s composition was made when Ambassador Yusuf Mamman, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Chief A.K. Horsfall, Mr. Ayo Opadokun, Mrs. Ayoka Lawani, Dr. Arthur Nwankwo and Chief Solomon Asemota, SAN were replaced by Dr. Stella O. Dorgu, Prince Valentine Ahams, Barrister Mohammed Babangida Umar, Alhaji Abdulhamid Hassan, Barrister Adeniyi Akintola, Barrister Sunday Kuku Iyakwo and Dr. Olu Agunloye.
Accordingly, the Committee undertook a 23-day nationwide visitation programme to hold public hearings on the Constitution Review Exercise in all State Capitals. In order to effectively but less strenuously cover the entire country within three weeks, the Committee broke into three (3) Tour Teams, with each team assigned to cover two geo-political zones, one in the North and one in the South. Team “A” was led by Ambassador Yusuf Mamman with other members as follows: Air Cdre (rtd) Bernand Banfa, Mr. Ayo Opadokun, Dr. Shettima Mustapha, Barrister (Mrs) Iyabode Pam, Dr. J.C. Odunna Dr. Silva Opusunju, Colonel (rtd) Yohanna Madaki, Dr. Maxwell Gidado (Secretary), Barrister Johnson Ebokpo (Rapporteur) and Barrister Sajo Dahiru Bobo (Legal Assistant). Team “B” was led by Chief Clement Ebri.
The other members being the following: Alhaji Iro Dan Musa, Chief Albert Horsfall, Dr. Arthur Nwankwo, Dr. Amos Adepoju, Barrister Mika Anache, Hajiya Basirat A. Nahibi, Alhaji Gambo Mohammed Saleh, Dr. Maxwell Nduaguibe (Rapporteur) and Mr. Abdulmumuni Umar (Legal Assistant). Team “C” the third of the three Teams was led by Chief Edwin Ume-Ezeoke and with him were the following members:Barrister Edward Ashiekaa, Chief Alani Bankole, Alhaji Umaru Ahmed, Alhaji Isiaku Mohammed, Barrister (Mrs) Ayoka Lawani, Barrister (Mrs.) M.V.I. Mbu, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, Barrister Samuel Dusu (Rapporteur) and Felix Olelewe (Legal Assistant).
The Tour commenced on Sunday 16th January, 2000 and ended on Wednesday 9th February, 2000 when the visitation programme for the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, was completed.
On completion of its nation-wide visitation programme, a delegation of the Committee travelled to the United States of America to attend a Seminar on the “Threat to Democracy in Nigeria” at Colin Powell Centre, New York, under the sponsorship of Ford Foundation. The lessons drawn at the seminar were revealing as they pointed out fresh approaches which would not only render the Committee’s work more thorough, but would also make the outcome of the Constitution Review Exercise more nationally and internationally acceptable. A new dimension therefore emerged with the offer of US$2 million technical/financial assistance from Ford Foundation to enable the Committee widen the scope and levels of consultations on its assignment thereby making it more participatory. Such an expansion in the Constitution Review process inevitably went far beyond the initial conception and financial projections of government when Mr. President constituted the Committee. The Ford Foundation support facility was therefore very timely.
As part of this financial assistance, the Ford Foundation also attached Consultant to the Committee at the Foundation’s expense but with the Committee providing him with only accommodation and local transportation. The Consultant, Professor Bereket Selassie, a Professor of Law and Politics at North Carolina University, USA, and one-time Chairman of the Eritrean Constitution Commission arrived soon after in Nigeria and assisted the Committee during some critical aspects of the Constitution Review Exercise.
I am happy that Chief Emeka Anyaoku’s committee of Patriots has resolved to give the country a better Constitution. They should be encouraged in all ways. We cannot deceive ourselves. This 1999 Constitution will lead us nowhere. Something must be done urgently. No matter how long we are implementing the provisions of the Constitution.
It was made in a hurry and it was made in error.
[OPINION] Democracy, Sub-Nationals and Unconstitutional Security Outfits - Onikepo Braithwaite
AdminObserving Nigeria’s Constitution in Its Breach
Observing the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended)(the Constitution) in its breach, is nothing new. Some have argued that the reason for its incessant breach, is that the Constitution is an imperfect document which has outlived its usefulness; that it’s time for a Referendum, Constituent Assembly and all the other necessary steps required to usher in a new, improved and acceptable Constitution and Fifth Republic. On the other hand, others have also argued that there’s not that much wrong with the Constitution, and that how ever perfect a Constitution Nigeria has, with the self-serving mindset of our Politicians and so-called leaders, the Constitution will always be observed in its breach, once its provisions are at variance with their personal agendas.
Nigeria’s Autocratic Democracy
Since the inception of the Fourth Republic in 1999, Nigeria’s so-called democracy appears to be quite different from the concept of ‘Democracy’ in the true sense of the word. In the past, on this page, I defined the democracy that exists in Nigeria today as, Government of Politicians, by Politicians for Politicians, while former Military Head of State and former President of Nigeria, Olusegun Obasanjo’s recent definition is, “Government of a small number of people, by a small number of people, over a large number of people”. Using either definition, and the fact that it is alleged that the Nigerian Military Generals who are still alive today, always have a strong say about who becomes President of Nigeria, we see that even the type of system we have been running in the Fourth Republic to date, is, from the get-go, a clear breach of Sections 1(2), 14(2)(a) & (c) of the Constitution, as it 1) allows the governance of Nigeria or the control of the Government of Nigeria to be in the hands of persons or groups of persons; 2) deprives the people of their sovereignty and 3) deprives Nigerians of the right to effectively participate in their government.
There’s also Electoral Authoritarianism (Electoral Autocracy), so that even though there is the veneer of democracy, that is, people appearing to exercise their franchise by voting when general elections are held every four years, the elections are sometimes manipulated/rigged at various levels to achieve the desired results. The number of election petitions filed at the Tribunals, keeps increasing with every passing election cycle, which means that, if anything, the electoral process may be deteriorating instead of improving. President Umaru Yar’Adua of blessed memory, was honest enough to admit that the 2007 election that brought him into office was flawed, and advocated for electoral reform before his death.
If we are to be truthful to ourselves, we will all agree that the Fourth Republic has predominantly been an Autocratic Democracy, in which the basic principles of democracy appear to have been undermined by dictatorial practices. Nigeria appears to have a Hybrid System, whereby, once government policies, initiatives, actions or whatsoever-called deviate from the tenets of democracy - rule of law, separation of powers, due process etc (see Sections 4, 5 & 6 of the Constitution), the arbitrary/autocratic actions of government take precedence or are followed, over and above the provisions of the Constitution even when such actions are unconstitutional, contrary to Section 1(1) & (3) of the Constitution. In short, Nigeria’s so-called democracy, is in some ways, run side by side with autocratic practices; and, that is why for example, in November 1999, during the Obasanjo administration, there was what is now sometimes referred to as the ’Odi Massacre’, where Odi, a town in Bayelsa State was razed to the ground, allegedly in retaliation for militant activities and the murder of several law enforcement officers. In October 2016, during the Buhari administration, following allegations of corruption which, for the most part, couldn’t be substantiated, in a ‘Gestapo’ style operation in the dead of night, there was a DSS raid on the residences of judicial officers, as if they were searching for violent criminals who had been declared wanted by law enforcement agencies. In these two scenarios, judicial remedies were readily available to bring any wrongdoers to justice, but, instead of following due process and upholding the rule of law, Government preferred to use military style tactics - maybe more so, because, at the time, the two leaders involved were former Army Generals, General Olusegun Obasanjo and Major General Muhammadu Buhari, who claimed to have shed the toga of military dictatorship and become ‘born-again’ Democrats! Obviously, their actions betrayed their claims.
Unfortunately, Nigeria appears to combine all the different forms of autocratic democracy rolled into one! Whether PDP or APC, we also have a somewhat Managed/Orchestrated Democracy, obviously not in the same category as a country like Russia which has been used as the prime example of same, but, all the same, one in which important democratic institutions are regularly manipulated by those in power.
The outcome of an autocratic democracy like we see in Nigeria today, is that the tools of democracy, including the Constitution and democratic institutions, are weakened.
Example of Constitutional Breach: Security and Welfare of Nigerians
By now, even non-Lawyers know Section 14(2)(b) of the Constitution by heart, that is, that the security and welfare of the people is the primary purpose of Government.
Section 214(1) of the Constitution provides for the establishment of only one Police Force in Nigeria, the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), while Items 45 & 60(a) on the Exclusive Legislative List are Police; Other Security Services established by law; and Agencies established to promote and enforce Chapter II of the Constitution, respectively. This means that anything security, be it Àmòtèkun in the Southwest, Ebubeagu in the Southeast, or Hisbah in the Northern Sharia States, since they do not form part of the NPF and are types of ‘security’ agencies established by their various State Laws, they appear to be unconstitutional agencies. Even though Section 4(7) of the Constitution empowers State Houses of Assembly (SHAs) to make laws for the order, peace and good government of their States, and this would certainly concern the security and welfare of people, the same Section 4(7)(a) thereof, clearly excludes items on the Exclusive Legislative List from matters which SHAs can legislate upon, and that obviously includes security. Is this one of the imperfections in the Constitution? That a State, which is in charge of the security of its people, and SHAs, are unable to deal directly on their State security? See the case of AG Kano State v AGF (2007) LPELR-618 (SC) per Mahmud Mohammed, JSC (later CJN) on interpretation of the words in the Constitution and statute in their ordinary and literal meaning.
Some States have nevertheless, established security outfits to fight insecurity in their areas, in order to fulfil their foremost constitutional mandate of protecting the lives and property of their people, seeing as the existing security apparatus appears to be inadequate. While the Executive and Legislature have wasted over 25 years debating on whether or not to amend the Constitution to establish State Police, a few years ago, some Southern Governors decided not to continue to fold their arms while their people are attacked, killed and maimed by violent criminals regularly. Today, however, the Northern Governors are now in the forefront of clamouring for State Police. Kindly, note that, Hisbah wasn’t established to play the same type of role as Àmòtèkun or Ebubeagu; it was established mainly to enforce Sharia Law.
I was discussing with my friend, and I commented that, in the meantime, while this never ending debate on the pros and cons of State Police continues, why doesn’t the NPF do the needful, by recruiting local personnel in each State of the Federation to do community policing? It is trite that, Nigeria is under-policed, and something needs to be done about this urgently.
Katsina State Hisbah
Interestingly, if unconstitutionality has levels, while Àmòtèkun and Ebubeagu are Level 1 unconstitutionality, Hisbah appears to be multiple levels of unconstitutionality. The Level 1 unconstitutionality of the former stems from the fact that, even if they cannot be said to be full fledged Police, only the National Assembly, and not any SHA is empowered to enact legislation to establish any security agency.
The first level of unconstitutionality in the case of Hisbah, is the fact that it was established to enforce Islamic moral standards, based upon the unlawful introduction of Sharia Law in 12 Northern States of Nigeria contrary to Section 10 of the Constitution, which provides that neither the Government of the Federation nor that of any State may adopt a State religion. It is surprising that this unconstitutional implementation of Sharia which was started by then Governor of Zamfara State, Ahmed Yerima in 1999, hasn’t been declared by the courts to be the unconstitutionality that it is. This wrongfulness has deepened with the way Hisbah enforces Sharia Law, wielding some powers of a security agency, when the Constitution restricts Sharia to Islamic Personal Law - marriage/inheritance, and not criminal law, and in so doing, meting out all sort of outdated corporal punishments that can only be described as torture, when the Constitution doesn’t endow the Sharia Courts that offenders would be brought before, with requisite criminal jurisdiction to deal with them.
On Sunday, May 4, on News Central, I watched a mini-documentary on the Katsina State Hisbah (KSH), where victims of KSH’s abuse were showcased. Asmau Abba Shuaib was slapped and beaten, possibly because of her dressing. Hauwa Muhammad, another female victim’s mother, said her daughter’s experience with KSH was barbaric; that her daughter was dragged like a dog by four men, after being accused of indecent dressing. Mrs Muhammad stated thus: “There’s no law on earth that says you can brutalise a fellow human being, let alone a woman”. I concur. See Section 34(1)(a) of the Constitution on the prohibition of torture and inhuman treatment. What the KSH did in these instances, not only amounts to the offence of causing hurt or grievous hurt against these ladies (see Sections 240-243, 246, 247, 248 and generally, Chapter XVIII (Offences Affecting the Human Body) of the Penal Code Act 1960), but discriminates against women contrary to Section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution, as women appear to be the most targeted by Hisbah. In a true democracy, such cruel practices wouldn’t be permitted, let alone be the norm in certain areas.
The KSH Commander, Dr Aminu Usman, who was featured in the same interview, was rather unapologetic about KSH’s activities. He stated that KSH punishing people, is following the Quran and Hadith. He said they are punished for gambling, wearing inappropriate clothing, playing music or going out late at night, as such is prohibited in Islam, and enforcement of compliance by beating is allowed in Islam. But, all these Islamic infractions, are not prohibited by the criminal law of the land. Furthermore, it is a false claim that the Quran and Hadith prescribe the punishment of beating for immodest dressing; nowhere in the Holy Book is such stated - see The Holy Quran 24:30-31; 33:59, and even if it did, the Constitution doesn’t provide for the implementation of the punitive part of Sharia Law in Nigeria.
On the contrary, Section 38 of the Constitution guarantees the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. Adhering to religious instruction is voluntary, so that, even a Muslim cannot be forced to submit to Sharia Law. If a Muslim chooses to listen to secular or Christian music, the KSH isn’t empowered to breach such an individual’s freedom of choice, by stopping them from listening to same.
Conclusion
Some of the golden rules of democracy are the supremacy of the Constitution and utmost regard for the rule of law, and in their absence, we cannot really be said to be practising true democracy.
While pursuing the security and welfare of Nigerians is constitutional, and the sentiment behind Àmòtèkun or Ebubeagu is good, that is, trying to secure the lives and property of Nigerians in those areas, in law, those agencies are standing on extremely slippery ground, and any serious Government would have regularised their status long ago, to make the fight against insecurity more efficient and effective.
On the other hand, the basis for Hisbah, the declaration of Sharia, is unconstitutional, while that of the establishment of Hisbah, like Àmòtèkun and Ebubeagu is questionable. The actions of Hisbah, like that of KSH, usually amounts to breaches of the fundamental rights of citizens. To be honest, an agency such as Hisbah, is actually antithetical to democracy, as several of the tenets of the religion it seeks to enforce, are guaranteed as fundamental rights and not prohibited by law. The fact that KSH even metes out punishments that are not prescribed by the Quran, is even more curious and troubling, since they profess to be followers of the Quran and Hadith. Even Sharia Courts hearing criminal cases and handing down death sentences is unconstitutional and unlawful, as the Constitution doesn’t endow the Sharia or Customary Courts with criminal jurisdiction.
It is time to decide whether Nigeria desires the development of her democracy, which necessarily demands upholding the supremacy of the Constitution and global best democratic practices, or if she wants to continue to regress, playing politics with religion and the like, while disregarding the rule of law. Whether an individual’s name is Munir or Martha, once they have reached the age of 18, it is their right to drink alcohol, indulge in amorous relationships if they so desire, and enjoy all the fundamental rights contained in Chapter IV of the Constitution. The first thing we were taught in Law is that, even though they sometimes intersect, Law and Morals are different. That what may be considered to be immoral, isn’t necessarily unlawful. The essence of a body like Hisbah, is to reject this. The framers of the Constitution knew what they were doing, when they included Section 10 in the Constitution, as forcing or enforcing religious doctrine doesn’t gel properly with the freedoms donated in a democracy. In a true democracy, particularly a multi-ethnic and multi-religious one like Nigeria's, the Constitution is supreme, not religion.
In the News Central mini-documentary, one of the Speakers concluded by stating that the people believe that the Government of Katsina is using the KSH to serve a political agenda. And, this is one of the reservations of those who do not support the establishment of State Police. That it will become a tool of abuse in the hands of Governors, against the people and their political opponents, particularly if they are equipped with weapons like the NPF.
Over the past month or so—particularly since Governor Sheriff Oborevwori and the entire political structure in Delta state defected to the ruling party —not a day has passed without a significant and consequential member or group of political actors from the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) defecting to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC).
Metaphorically, the PDP is hemorrhaging, with critical members fleeing the party.
The alarming rate at which PDP members are shedding the party’s identity—as though it were a bad habit—includes not only regular members but also bigwigs ranging from some ex-governors and the incumbent governor to senators and members of the House of Representatives as well as state house of assembly members including even Local Govt. Area, LGA chairmen, and councilors.
In addition to the high-profile defections, rank-and-file PDP members are also making their way en masse to the ruling APC nationwide. This political migration is akin to the seasonal movement of birds or animals from their native habitats to new environments—often in search of more favorable breeding conditions, better climates, or simply survival.
Just last week the three PDP senators from Kebbi state visited President Tinubu in Aso Rock Villa to announce their imminent defection to the APC.
Beyond those that have openly defected, there are lots whose bodies are in their current political platforms but their souls are in the APC and plan to step out of the shadows at the appropriate time.
Given this wave of defections from various opposition parties to the ruling APC, Nigerian politicians appear to be behaving like the migrating animals just described.
The APC, like a pride of lions on the prowl, seems to have stumbled upon a herd of confused gazelles—the PDP—unsure of their direction or destiny. Like the lions which are carnivores, the APC is devouring the gazelles-opposition parties particularly, the PDP, but not excluding the Labor Party, and the New Nigeria National Party, NNPP.
Apart from the Delta state arm of the PDP, which has dissolved into the ruling party, elected politicians from the LP and NNPP stables are also pivoting to the APC without fanfare.
Arising from the above developments, the former ruling party has been severely weakened and battle-weary, worn down by unending internecine wars since 2010, when sitting president Umar Yar’Adua passed away and then Vice President Goodluck Jonathan inherited the presidency.
Apparently, what is currently unfolding in Nigeria’s political landscape can be likened to a concept from the business world: a “flight to quality” or “flight to safety.”
This is a financial market phenomenon where investors sell off riskier assets and turn to safer ones, such as gold or government bonds, to protect their investments.
At the moment, President Tinubu is increasingly projecting the image of a politically savvy leader—perhaps even a political maverick.
This is underscored by his use of realpolitik to gain ground, as he continues to reach out to governors across the political divide, regardless of party affiliations.
He reminds me of Senator Barack Obama, who, in his 2004 address at the Democratic National Convention, famously declared: “There is no blue America or red America; there is only the United States of America.”
By adopting a bipartisan approach, Obama broadened his base of support.
As a result, the then-freshman senator was able to defeat Hillary Clinton—the Democratic establishment’s favorite—in the primaries and later overcame all odds to defeat Republican Senator John McCain in the 2008 presidential election, serving as the 44th U.S. president from 2009 to 2017.
Now, I’ve heard former President Joe Biden blame Kamala Harris’s gender for her loss to Donald Trump in the 2024 presidential election. Just as l do not buy the rhetoric by PDP members that Tinubu is responsible for their woes,
I do not share the sentiment of the leadership of the Democratic party in the US that Kamala Harris’s gender alone was her Achilles heels.
In my view, several factors played a role in her loss, including the short campaign window of just four months, the immigration crisis that had reached epidemic proportions and overwhelmed the administration, and key “kitchen table” issues like high inflation manifesting as high cost of living—all of which created unfavorable political headwinds for her candidacy.
A combination of all these factors frustrated the electorate—along with the superior campaign skill and style deployed by her opponent, then highly experienced President Donald Trump. Enriched by his previous experience in office, Trump executed a strategic and convincing campaign, winning more popular votes, securing more electoral college votes, and capturing all seven swing states.
Trump’s emphatic victory is evidence of the kind of superior strategy that wins elections—a playbook that President Bola Tinubu appears to be replicating in Nigeria, thereby expanding the fortunes of his party, the APC.
In the U.S., the reality is that like Vice President Harris, former President Barack Obama also faced significant barriers to the White House because of his skin color—an impediment that had derailed the ambitions of numerous Black presidential hopefuls from both major parties before him.
Notably, before Senator Hillary Clinton’s bid for the White House in 2016, Shirley Chisholm—a trailblazer—was the first African-American woman to run for the Democratic presidential nomination in 1972. Chisholm faced both racial and gender biases that proved to be formidable obstacles which Harris might have also contended with in 2024. But they were not insurmountable with the right strategy as underscored by how Obama prevailed when faced with similar barriers.
Following Chisolm, Jesse Jackson was one of the blacks who made two attempts at the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988. Alan Keyes ran for the Republican nomination in 1996, 2000, and 2008. Carol Moseley Braun and Rev. Al Sharpton contested on the Democratic platform in 2004. Herman Cain joined the Republican race in 2012, Ben Carson in 2016, and most recently, Tim Scott in 2024.
A simple trend analysis reveals a common thread among all these candidates: none succeeded in winning the White House. This failure cannot be attributed solely to racial bias but also to their inability to craft a political message with broad appeal beyond the African-American and Hispanic communities as Obama did.
Together, Black and Hispanic populations make up about 30% of the U.S. demographic—14% and 16% respectively. Without expanding their appeal to the larger Caucasian electorate, the chances of any Black candidate securing the presidency were slim. That is why, before Obama, no Black candidate had ever succeeded in turning their aspiration into reality.
It is particularly striking that Shirley Chisholm—the first Black woman to run for president—faced the double disadvantage of race and gender, much like Vice President Kamala Harris contended with in 2024.
As it may be recalled, Hillary Clinton, a white female was on track to win the party primaries until Obama, through superior strategy and political brinksmanship, outmaneuvered her.
Clinton would later face Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential election. Although pre-election polls projected her as the favorite and she won the popular vote by nearly three million, Trump ultimately triumphed through the Electoral College—again, a demonstration of strategic superiority.
The context above underscores a crucial truth: political brinksmanship matters. It is what enabled Obama—a Black minority candidate—to overcome the challenges that had historically thwarted other Black aspirants, making him the first African-American president of the United States.
A similar “business-unusual” approach is what President Tinubu is now employing in Nigeria. Through legitimate means, he is effectively destabilizing, weakening, and disorganizing the opposition parties ahead of the 2027 election, positioning himself for re-election.
For that, he deserves to be credited for his political dexterity. The two closest rival parties in the 2023 presidential election—the PDP and the LP—are currently in disarray and disorganized, largely due to the leaders of the parties being bereft of basic ethos in leadership and the strategic political maneuvers such as the charm offensive unleashed by Tinubu and APC.
The Unraveling of the Opposition and APC’s Strategic Triumph.
The current state of affairs within the PDP and LP reminds me of the coordinated actions taken by President Ronald Reagan of the United States and Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher of the United Kingdom in December 1991. Together, after they discovered the prevailing economic weakness of the country on the other side of the Iron Curtain, the USSR, they plotted to dismantle the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), which, like Humpty Dumpty in the famous nursery rhyme, had a great fall and could not be put back together again, and a remnant of which is Russia of today.
It is rather inconvenient but quite comfortable for the political class that halfway into Nigeria’s four-year electoral cycle, with general elections scheduled for 2027, both veteran and emerging politicians have begun jostling for tickets in anticipation of the next political season, a huge 24 months away.
In media statements, former President Goodluck Jonathan—who rose to the highest office under the PDP—raised the alarm that with President Tinubu’s conquests, or consolidation of his political influence, Nigeria may be drifting toward becoming a one-party state, a scenario he believes could be detrimental to the country’s fledgling democracy. He echoed concerns previously expressed by former Sokoto State Governor Attahiru Bafarawa, who alleged that the growing wave of defections is fueled by fear of the anti-corruption agency, EFCC, with opposition members joining the ruling party out of self-preservation.
Similarly, Dr. Umar Ardo, convener of the League of Northern Democrats, recently argued that politicians are abusing the constitutional provisions that prohibit elected officials from defecting while still occupying the positions they won on a different party platform. However, the same constitution permits defections if the politician can prove that it is a result of a serious crisis plaguing their party. In that context, Dr. Ardo’s assertion may not be entirely valid.
It appears instead that the hemorrhaging opposition parties have failed to effectively challenge these defections in court. When they do pursue legal recourse, their inability to prove that there are no internal party schisms as justification or insufficient evidence to establish that the party is in pristine condition and not wracked by crisis would prevent them from securing favorable judgments. This suggests that the parties themselves are bleeding membership due to self-inflicted wounds.
In my view, contrary to unsubstantiated claims that President Tinubu is using the EFCC to coerce defections, he appears to be employing a more subtle and strategic method—courting opposition figures as a groom woos a bride. A recent example is his state visit to Anambra, where Governor Charles Soludo warmly received him. In appreciation, President Tinubu was jointly honored with a chieftaincy title conferred by all the state’s traditional rulers—a symbolic endorsement of his outreach by ndi-Igbo.
In my assessment, Tinubu’s approach is part of a larger charm offensive aimed at winning hearts and minds across party lines, regardless of creed or political affiliation, as he positions himself for re-election in 2027. During his Anambra visit, he greeted the crowd in halting Igbo, calling them Ndi-Igbo—a term of endearment. He was also served popular local dishes like ukwa and abacha. Earlier, he was similarly welcomed in Enugu by Governor Peter Mbah where after commissioning remarkable projects executed by the PDP state governor, showers of encomiums were traded between the host and guest. During his visit to Katsina state, a praise song was composed by a popular local musician in his honor and performed at a banquet held by the state governor to welcome him.
That was after the president visited the war theatre and charged the commanders in the frontline to fish out the bandits and religious insurgents wreaking havoc on the lives of those living in the locations considered to be the ground zero for insecurity in Nigeria.
These engagements reflect personal efforts by President Tinubu to build goodwill while awaiting the tangible impact of his economic reforms. Though Nigeria’s macroeconomic fundamentals are reportedly improving, the effects have yet to trickle down to the average citizen, hence there still exists apathy. Therefore, claims that the EFCC is the tool behind the APC’s current political gains appear to ignore these broader, more nuanced efforts.
In truth, what afflicts the opposition parties is not fear of the EFCC—but leadership paralysis.
Let me illustrate this with a simple idiom from my native Ika dialect: “It is the grass that grows on a well-trodden path that invites being trampled.” Translated, this reflects the fate of the PDP and LP, which have exposed themselves to erosion by failing to address internal crises. As a result, they resemble vulnerable landscapes—barren and deteriorating under the weight of neglect and the pursuit of personal agendas by their leaders.
Disappointingly, the PDP, which ruled Nigeria from 1999 to 2015, now resembles a devastated terrain—akin to parts of Zamfara State scarred by illegal mining. The trenches and ditches left behind are symbolic of the reckless internal strife and lack of control within the party. While its leaders engage in endless legal battles, the APC continues to harvest its members—senators, governors, legislators, and local government officials.
The LP, which had a meteoric rise in 2023 with Peter Obi’s populist-driven campaign, is now facing a similar fate. After its surprising superlative performance in the 2023 presidential election and emerging as the second main opposition force, the party began to unravel almost immediately. Internal disputes, leadership disarray, and missed opportunities have weakened its structure significantly, such that it is no longer the winning machine that it used to be barely 24 months ago.
In an attempt to salvage the PDP, a meeting of its Governors’ Forum—hosted in Ibadan by Oyo State Governor Seyi Makinde—advised against any coalition with other opposition parties. Rather than heal wounds, the decision further alienated members, culminating in a massive defection in Delta State, where a wave of leaders and grassroots supporters switched allegiance to the APC. From governors and senators to local councilors, the exodus has been described as unprecedented and monumental.
In a last-ditch effort to stop the bleeding, Bauchi State Governor Bala Mohammed, who also chairs the PDP Governors’ Forum, convened a high-level meeting over the weekend. Attendees included acting National Chairman Iliya Damagun, former Senate President Bukola Saraki, and several former governors. Whether this effort can halt the party’s decline ahead of its upcoming National Working Committee meeting remains uncertain.
As I see it, the trials of the PDP and LP, and the triumphs of the APC, are not merely due to coercion or external manipulation as some PDP leaders are claiming. They are primarily the result of poor planning, shallow strategy, and leadership failure within the opposition. Conversely, it is the strategic and tactical brilliance of President Tinubu—marked by calculated outreach and political brinksmanship—that is driving the ruling party’s exponential growth.
While each party may have its version of the truth, one fact remains incontestable: the opposition parties are their own worst enemies. Their inability to maintain internal cohesion and vision has led them to the edge of political irrelevance.
Perhaps as a demonstration of political machismo and to bolster confidence amongst PDP members that have remained faithful, Sule Lamido, an ex-governor of Jigawa state and a PDP stalwart, has predicted that by accommodating politicians from multiple orientations and ideologies the APC will soon disintegrate with members returning to the APC. Something akin to the Big Bang theory in the political sphere.
That expectation appears to me as utopian because the APC after its founding in 2013 was deemed by skeptics as a Special Purpose Vehicle, SPV is expected to disintegrate after winning the presidency and more states in the 2015 general elections.
Perhaps due to some inbuilt mechanisms for coping with internal intrigues, APC has continued to wax stronger to the chagrin of the opposition parties that have been in the death throes like patients in Intensive Care Units, and ICU in hospitals.
Even worse is the fact that some aggrieved politicians who have quit or planning to quit the PDP and APC and are seeking to berth or migrate to the less visible parties such as the Social Democratic Party, SDP, are currently in limbo.
Unsurprisingly that crop of politicians is experiencing roadblocks with the hostile original owners of the party platform that they are eying.
That said, it is morning yet to decipher the possible outcome of the unfolding 2027 general elections that promises to be a showdown if the opposition parties get their acts right, or a no-show with the president cruising into his second term unchallenged in any significant shape or form.
Magnus Onyibe, is an entrepreneur, public policy analyst, author, democracy advocate, & development strategist