In an era marked by economic volatility, ethical lapses, and mounting mistrust in financial institutions, it is imperative for Nigerian bankers to revisit and strictly adhere to Hugh McCulloch’s timeless advice. McCulloch, an American banker and the first Comptroller of the Currency in the United States, introduced the Bankers’ Creed in 1863. This creed is not just a relic of history but a robust guide to ethical banking practices that resonate with the current realities of Nigeria’s financial sector. If Nigerian bankers adopt these principles, they can foster stability, rebuild trust, and contribute to sustainable economic growth.

The Nigerian banking sector is a microcosm of the nation’s economy. It wields immense power to shape financial inclusion, economic stability, and development. However, the industry has not been without its challenges. Cases of unethical practices, reckless lending, insider abuses, and corporate governance failures have often marred its reputation. Instances such as the 2009 banking crisis, which exposed massive non-performing loans (NPLs) and led to the dismissal of several bank executives, underscore the critical need for stringent adherence to ethical principles.

McCulloch’s advice offers a pragmatic solution. By aligning their operations with the creed’s principles, Nigerian banks can enhance their resilience and reaffirm their role as pillars of economic progress.

Revisiting McCulloch’s advice from the perspective of securing lending practices, it is germane to opine that his advice begins with a fundamental rule: “Let no loans be made that are not secured beyond a reasonable contingency.” This principle is especially pertinent in Nigeria, where non-performing loans have been a recurring problem. Banks must prioritize due diligence, ensuring that loans are extended only to creditworthy borrowers and secured with adequate collateral. Reckless lending fosters a culture of speculation and financial instability, as seen in the collapse of several banks in Nigeria’s history.

From the perspective of avoiding speculation, McCulloch’s warning against fostering speculation is critical in today’s context. Speculative activities, such as risky investments in volatile assets, have led to significant losses in the banking sector. Nigerian banks should focus on funding legitimate and productive ventures that contribute to economic growth, such as infrastructure, agriculture, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs). This approach not only ensures sustainable profitability but also aligns with national developmental goals.

On diversified lending, the creed’s emphasis on distributing loans rather than concentrating them in a few hands addresses a common pitfall in Nigerian banking, overexposure to large corporate borrowers. Such concentration poses systemic risks, as the default of a single entity can jeopardize a bank’s solvency. By diversifying their loan portfolios and extending credit to a broader customer base, banks can mitigate these risks and promote financial inclusivity.

From the perspective of customer-centric policies with firm control, McCulloch’s advice to treat customers liberally while retaining control over banking policies is a call for balanced customer relations. Nigerian banks must build trust with their customers by providing transparent services, fair lending rates, and innovative financial solutions. However, they should resist external pressures to compromise their policies for short-term gains. This balance is essential for long-term success.

From the side of integrity and accountability, the creed’s stance on integrity is unambiguous: “If you have reasons to dismiss the integrity of a customer, close his account.” In a nation where corruption is pervasive, this principle should be non-negotiable. Nigerian banks must establish stringent measures to detect and deter fraudulent activities. Dealing with dubious characters under the guise of profitability not only undermines a bank’s reputation but also exposes it to regulatory sanctions.

In a similar vein, from the perspective of fair compensation and ethical leadership, McCulloch’s advice to pay bank officers respectable salaries and ensure they live within their means is vital for maintaining ethical leadership. Nigerian banks must invest in robust human resource practices that prioritize merit, integrity, and accountability. Any signs of financial impropriety or extravagant lifestyles among staff should be addressed promptly to uphold public confidence.

Also, from the angle of capital authenticity and responsible banking, the creed’s insistence on real, not fictional, capital underscores the importance of financial transparency. Nigerian banks must maintain robust capital adequacy ratios and comply with regulatory requirements. Furthermore, they should avoid the allure of “splendid financing” schemes that promise high returns but entail significant risks. Legitimate banking should always take precedence over speculative ventures.

Against the foregoing backdrop, it is expedient to ask, “How can the Creed be implemented in Nigeria by bankers?” To adopt McCulloch’s principles effectively, Nigerian bankers and regulators must take deliberate steps that cut across enhanced regulatory oversight, capacity building, transparency, technological integration and stakeholder collaboration. 

To put the foregoing in an explanatory detail, it is germane to suggest in this context that the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) should strengthen its supervisory role by ensuring strict compliance with lending guidelines, capital adequacy requirements, and corporate governance standards.

Secondly, banks should invest in continuous training for their staff to instill a culture of ethical banking and sound risk management practices, even as financial institutions must prioritize transparency in their dealings, providing clear and timely information to stakeholders.

In a similar vein, there is the need for leveraging technology for credit risk assessment, fraud detection, and customer service can enhance operational efficiency and reduce human errors. Also, banks, regulators, and industry associations should collaborate to promote ethical practices and address systemic challenges collectively.

Without a doubt, Hugh McCulloch’s Bankers’ Creed is more than a historical artifact; it is a beacon of wisdom that can guide the Nigerian banking sector toward stability, integrity, and prosperity. By adhering to these principles, Nigerian bankers can navigate the complexities of modern finance while maintaining their ethical compass. In doing so, they will not only safeguard their institutions but also contribute to the broader goal of national economic development. It is high time for Nigerian banks to embrace this timeless advice and uphold their responsibility as custodians of the nation’s financial future.

President Bola Tinubu’s one-day visit to the Southeast, his first of 2025, was not just a routine event. It was laden with symbolisms, from the enthusiastic reception to the subsequent positive comments. The import of this visit, with its many remarkable aspects, was not lost on anyone. While many have spoken favourably and commended the visit, it equally throws up some questions.

Is President Tinubu’s January 4, 2025 visit to Enugu, the old capital of the Southeast region, during which he inaugurated Governor Peter Ndubuisi Mbah’s landmark projects and made important pronouncements a new level in his relationship with the Southeast geopolitical zone?

Is the President’s visit across the Niger a game changer and a subtle indicator of what lies ahead between him and the people of the South East? 

The Southeast’s posture towards President Tinubu has not been enthusiastic, just as it was with President Muhammadu Buhari. Of course, the results of the 2015, 2019, and 2023 elections reveal the political aloofness of the zone towards the two leaders. 

The Southeast was particularly lukewarm towards Tinubu’s presidential aspiration following developments in the build-up to the 2023 presidential election and the results that had arisen from it. In the run-up to the election, the Southeast put all its political eggs in the basket of homeboy Peter Obi, former Anambra State governor, who had broken ranks with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the opposition Peoples Democratic Party to emerge as the Labour Party’s Presidential Candidate.

The boisterousness of the Obidients –as Peter Obi’s supporters had christened themselves – had somewhat captured the imagination of the Southeast. Any Igbo who sang a different tune in the 2023 election was, more or less, seen as an outcast.

Peter Obi himself did not allow the kind of amity that should prevail. He campaigned based on his Igbo ethnicity and overtly promoted his Christian faith to reap electoral benefits. When the election came, the Igbo voted en masse for him, signposting a strong correlation between region, religion and elections in Nigeria.

As a geopolitical breakdown of the 2023 presidential election results shows, Obi and his LP polled 1,952, 998 votes from the five states of the Southeast, representing a massive 89.62% of the total votes in the region. President Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress polled 127,370 votes, a paltry 5.85% of the votes from the area while the Peoples Democratic Party candidate, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, got 90, 698 votes, amounting to a meagre 4.16%.

Although Obi recorded impressive results outside the Southeast, like winning Lagos, Nasarawa, Edo, Delta, Plateau, Cross River, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja, his 2023 presidential challenge was essentially a Southeast affair.

After the election, he and his ethnic supporters remained in their cocoons—or the alternate reality they had built. They acted like Obi had won the poll but denied victory. It seemed that the Obidients would rather not hear the name Asiwaju Tinubu, let alone President Tinubu. This trend continued even after Obi’s petition against President Tinubu’s victory in court failed. Any move of the President was criticised and condemned.

On assumption of office, President Tinubu made overtures to the zone in key appointments such as the appointment of Chief of Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Emmanuel Ikechukwu Ogalla, who hails from Enugu, and through key ministerial appointments like those of Minister of Works, Senator David Umahi from Ebonyi State, Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Hon. Uche Nnaji, and the first Minister of Trade and Investment, now Minister of State for Finance, Dr. Doris Uzoka-Anite, among others.

Remarkably, when the President reshuffled his cabinet in October last year, he brought in, among others, Ambassador Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, wife of the late Ikemba Nnewi, Chief Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu. She got the portfolio of Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. President Tinubu also established the Southeast Development Commission, a significant move to promote and accelerate the region’s development.

A top journalist who is a friend from the Southeast zone and a staunch Obidient who had never masked his dislike for Tinubu said those two appointments were sufficient to forgive President Tinubu’s perceived sins against the Igbo.

It was against that background that President Tinubu accepted Governor Mbah’s invitation to inaugurate some of his projects in the New Year.

At the inauguration of Governor Mbah’s projects and during an interactive session with Southeast leaders, President Tinubu made significant statements that gladdened the hearts of the Igbo.

At the inauguration of the Command and Control Center, the President emphasised the importance of cooperation and collaboration between the Federal Government and the sub-nationals to drive development.

“This (Command and Control Centre) is a profound demonstration of what we can do together. It reassures me that more revenue going to the sub nationals and local governments is not a waste; it is for development.

“We have committed leaders like Peter Mbah taking Enugu on the path of 21st-century development, taking Enugu to greater heights, and building our tomorrow today.

“I cannot forget the sight of those children I just met at the Smart Green School. I have seen the gadgets and vehicles with 21st-century technology. You are indeed working for today, tomorrow and the future.”

The President inaugurated the GTC Smart Green School, New Haven/Bisalla Road, the International Conference Center, the Command and Control Center, and 150 patrol vehicles with surveillance cameras. He also inaugurated other notable projects virtually at the Enugu State Government House.

Later, at an interactive session with Southeast leaders, President Tinubu promised that his administration would complete the Eastern Rail line connecting Port Harcourt to Maiduguri and support the development of the Anambra Basin as a significant energy reserve estimated to hold up to 1 billion barrels of oil and 30 billion cubic feet of gas. He made the commitment while responding to the requests made by former Minister of Power Professor Chinedu Nebo and an Enugu State indigene, Chris Ugoh, at the interactive session.

After commending the Tinubu administration for completing the Port Harcourt to Aba section of the Eastern rail line, Nebo had appealed to the President to prioritise the completion of the remaining portions of the rail link to facilitate exports of non-oil products and catalyse development in the region.

Dignitaries who attended the session included governors, traditional rulers, captains of industry, and serving and former presiding officers of the National Assembly from the zone, including former Senate President Ken Nnamani.

With the Enugu visit and the importance he attached to the invitation by PDP Governor Mbah, President Tinubu demonstrated political maturity and his commitment to supporting developmental strides from any part of the country and by any governor or stakeholder. The visit was a bold testament to his nonpartisan inclination and willingness to put the country first. He was full of commendation for Governor Mbah for demonstrating “an irrevocable commitment to human development.”

In the same vein, sighting Abia State Governor Alex Otti at the Enugu event, President Tinubu said: “I don’t care which party you come from; you are my friend. Alex Otti of Abia State is also doing very well. It is not about the differences in languages and place of birth.

“None of us has control of the mother tongue. God created us, and you can find yourself in Enugu, Onitsha or Lagos. We are all members of one huge family called Nigeria, but we live in different rooms in the same house. We must build this house to satisfy our immediate and future needs.”

Speaking before the inauguration of his projects, Governor Mbah had described President Tinubu as a true federalist committed to Nigeria’s development.

“Your Excellency, your credential as a true federalist stands out brightly, and the legacies thereof will long earn you resounding accolades.

“In signing the Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill, you liberalised electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. That singular act will consistently rank as an enduring legacy,” he said, adding: “It is noteworthy that Enugu State was the first sub-national to which the NERC ceded regulatory oversight of the local electricity market. That reflects how swiftly we are pursuing our goals.”

On the Southeast Development Commission, the governor said the commission would address infrastructure and ecological challenges in the region while complementing the many development strides unfolding across the state.

Development and governance may have been the overarching themes of the visit. Still, analysts reckon that given all that transpired during the visit, a new chapter in the relationship between President Tinubu and the Southeast geopolitical zone may have been unwittingly opened. This rapprochement, they observe, may signpost other important things to come for President Tinubu from the zone, particularly going into the next election in 2027.

President Bola Tinubu’s one-day visit to the Southeast, his first of 2025, was not just a routine event. It was laden with symbolisms, from the enthusiastic reception to the subsequent positive comments. The import of this visit, with its many remarkable aspects, was not lost on anyone. While many have spoken favourably and commended the visit, it equally throws up some questions.

Is President Tinubu’s January 4, 2025 visit to Enugu, the old capital of the Southeast region, during which he inaugurated Governor Peter Ndubuisi Mbah’s landmark projects and made important pronouncements a new level in his relationship with the Southeast geopolitical zone?

Is the President’s visit across the Niger a game changer and a subtle indicator of what lies ahead between him and the people of the South East? 

The Southeast’s posture towards President Tinubu has not been enthusiastic, just as it was with President Muhammadu Buhari. Of course, the results of the 2015, 2019, and 2023 elections reveal the political aloofness of the zone towards the two leaders. 

The Southeast was particularly lukewarm towards Tinubu’s presidential aspiration following developments in the build-up to the 2023 presidential election and the results that had arisen from it. In the run-up to the election, the Southeast put all its political eggs in the basket of homeboy Peter Obi, former Anambra State governor, who had broken ranks with former Vice President Atiku Abubakar and the opposition Peoples Democratic Party to emerge as the Labour Party’s Presidential Candidate.

The boisterousness of the Obidients –as Peter Obi’s supporters had christened themselves – had somewhat captured the imagination of the Southeast. Any Igbo who sang a different tune in the 2023 election was, more or less, seen as an outcast.

Peter Obi himself did not allow the kind of amity that should prevail. He campaigned based on his Igbo ethnicity and overtly promoted his Christian faith to reap electoral benefits. When the election came, the Igbo voted en masse for him, signposting a strong correlation between region, religion and elections in Nigeria.

As a geopolitical breakdown of the 2023 presidential election results shows, Obi and his LP polled 1,952, 998 votes from the five states of the Southeast, representing a massive 89.62% of the total votes in the region. President Tinubu and the All Progressives Congress polled 127,370 votes, a paltry 5.85% of the votes from the area while the Peoples Democratic Party candidate, former Vice President Atiku Abubakar, got 90, 698 votes, amounting to a meagre 4.16%.

Although Obi recorded impressive results outside the Southeast, like winning Lagos, Nasarawa, Edo, Delta, Plateau, Cross River, and the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Abuja, his 2023 presidential challenge was essentially a Southeast affair.

After the election, he and his ethnic supporters remained in their cocoons—or the alternate reality they had built. They acted like Obi had won the poll but denied victory. It seemed that the Obidients would rather not hear the name Asiwaju Tinubu, let alone President Tinubu. This trend continued even after Obi’s petition against President Tinubu’s victory in court failed. Any move of the President was criticised and condemned.

On assumption of office, President Tinubu made overtures to the zone in key appointments such as the appointment of Chief of Naval Staff, Rear Admiral Emmanuel Ikechukwu Ogalla, who hails from Enugu, and through key ministerial appointments like those of Minister of Works, Senator David Umahi from Ebonyi State, Minister of Innovation, Science and Technology, Hon. Uche Nnaji, and the first Minister of Trade and Investment, now Minister of State for Finance, Dr. Doris Uzoka-Anite, among others.

Remarkably, when the President reshuffled his cabinet in October last year, he brought in, among others, Ambassador Bianca Odumegwu-Ojukwu, wife of the late Ikemba Nnewi, Chief Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu. She got the portfolio of Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. President Tinubu also established the Southeast Development Commission, a significant move to promote and accelerate the region’s development.

A top journalist who is a friend from the Southeast zone and a staunch Obidient who had never masked his dislike for Tinubu said those two appointments were sufficient to forgive President Tinubu’s perceived sins against the Igbo.

It was against that background that President Tinubu accepted Governor Mbah’s invitation to inaugurate some of his projects in the New Year.

At the inauguration of Governor Mbah’s projects and during an interactive session with Southeast leaders, President Tinubu made significant statements that gladdened the hearts of the Igbo.

At the inauguration of the Command and Control Center, the President emphasised the importance of cooperation and collaboration between the Federal Government and the sub-nationals to drive development.

“This (Command and Control Centre) is a profound demonstration of what we can do together. It reassures me that more revenue going to the sub nationals and local governments is not a waste; it is for development.

“We have committed leaders like Peter Mbah taking Enugu on the path of 21st-century development, taking Enugu to greater heights, and building our tomorrow today.

“I cannot forget the sight of those children I just met at the Smart Green School. I have seen the gadgets and vehicles with 21st-century technology. You are indeed working for today, tomorrow and the future.”

The President inaugurated the GTC Smart Green School, New Haven/Bisalla Road, the International Conference Center, the Command and Control Center, and 150 patrol vehicles with surveillance cameras. He also inaugurated other notable projects virtually at the Enugu State Government House.

Later, at an interactive session with Southeast leaders, President Tinubu promised that his administration would complete the Eastern Rail line connecting Port Harcourt to Maiduguri and support the development of the Anambra Basin as a significant energy reserve estimated to hold up to 1 billion barrels of oil and 30 billion cubic feet of gas. He made the commitment while responding to the requests made by former Minister of Power Professor Chinedu Nebo and an Enugu State indigene, Chris Ugoh, at the interactive session.

After commending the Tinubu administration for completing the Port Harcourt to Aba section of the Eastern rail line, Nebo had appealed to the President to prioritise the completion of the remaining portions of the rail link to facilitate exports of non-oil products and catalyse development in the region.

Dignitaries who attended the session included governors, traditional rulers, captains of industry, and serving and former presiding officers of the National Assembly from the zone, including former Senate President Ken Nnamani.

With the Enugu visit and the importance he attached to the invitation by PDP Governor Mbah, President Tinubu demonstrated political maturity and his commitment to supporting developmental strides from any part of the country and by any governor or stakeholder. The visit was a bold testament to his nonpartisan inclination and willingness to put the country first. He was full of commendation for Governor Mbah for demonstrating “an irrevocable commitment to human development.”

In the same vein, sighting Abia State Governor Alex Otti at the Enugu event, President Tinubu said: “I don’t care which party you come from; you are my friend. Alex Otti of Abia State is also doing very well. It is not about the differences in languages and place of birth.

“None of us has control of the mother tongue. God created us, and you can find yourself in Enugu, Onitsha or Lagos. We are all members of one huge family called Nigeria, but we live in different rooms in the same house. We must build this house to satisfy our immediate and future needs.”

Speaking before the inauguration of his projects, Governor Mbah had described President Tinubu as a true federalist committed to Nigeria’s development.

“Your Excellency, your credential as a true federalist stands out brightly, and the legacies thereof will long earn you resounding accolades.

“In signing the Electricity Act (Amendment) Bill, you liberalised electricity generation, transmission, and distribution. That singular act will consistently rank as an enduring legacy,” he said, adding: “It is noteworthy that Enugu State was the first sub-national to which the NERC ceded regulatory oversight of the local electricity market. That reflects how swiftly we are pursuing our goals.”

On the Southeast Development Commission, the governor said the commission would address infrastructure and ecological challenges in the region while complementing the many development strides unfolding across the state.

Development and governance may have been the overarching themes of the visit. Still, analysts reckon that given all that transpired during the visit, a new chapter in the relationship between President Tinubu and the Southeast geopolitical zone may have been unwittingly opened. This rapprochement, they observe, may signpost other important things to come for President Tinubu from the zone, particularly going into the next election in 2027.

Rahman is a Senior Special Assistant to the President on Media Matters.

My December 21, 2024, column titled “Kemi Badenoch’s Yoruba Identity Meets Inconvenient Truths,” where I set out to show that contrary to Kemi Badenoch’s claim, the Yoruba and the “North” have had and still have a lot in common, hurt the ethnic susceptibilities of many Yoruba nationalists who misunderstood me as creating a hierarchy of historical and cultural dominance in which the Yoruba are inferior.

That was not what my column was about. If it comes across that way, it’s because people are gazing at the past with the lenses of the present. Historians call that presentism. Presentism animates the sort of defensive, ahistorical, knee-jerk, decontextualized, and emotive reactions that some people gave to my column.

Notions of collective identity with definite ethnographic boundaries are relatively new all over the world. I made this clear to Dr. Lasisi Olagunju who wrote a 3,526-word response to my column last Monday in which he cherry-picked evidence from the self-comforting presentist fantasies of certain Yoruba historians to countermine my arguments. Here’s my response to his response.

Dr. Olagunju took issue with my restating of a well-known, uncontested socio-historical fact: that “Yoruba,” the collective name for the people of western Nigeria, is an exonym that traces etymological provenance from what is now called northern Nigeria and that it originally referred only to people from Oyo and not other subgroups such as Ijebu, Ondo, Ijesa, Egba, etc.

It explains why  Oba Sikiru Adetona, the Awujale of Ijebuland, still says the Ijebu are not Yoruba and are not even descendants of Oduduwa. It also explains why, as I pointed out in my October 26, 2019 column titled “Fulani and Origin of the Names ‘Yoruba’ and ‘Yamuri’,” Nigeria’s first modern newspaper, called Iwe Irohin fun awon Egba ati Yoruba (Yoruba for “newspaper for the Egba and Yoruba people”) indicated from its name that the Egba and the Yoruba were different ethnic groups who nonetheless belonged to the same linguistic group.

In other words, as of 1859 when the newspaper was set up, the Egba didn’t call themselves “Yoruba.”

That the name Yoruba is an exonym from the North of Nigeria for the people of Oyo is so settled in the literature that I am befuddled that anyone would contest it with mere implausible conjectures and self-created oral histories.

For example, in his 1984 article titled “Yoruba Ethnic Groups or a Yoruba Ethnic Group? A Review of the Problem of Ethnic Identification” published in África: Revista do Centro de Estudos Africanos, Professor Biodun Adediran argued that the term Yoruba wasn’t native to Yoruba and was, in fact, a word first used for Oyo people by northerners.

He said, “the term first appeared in Arabic sources and in European accounts based on information from the Hausa country,” arguing “It was probably the Hausa who first gave the name ‘Yarribah’ to their Yoruba-speaking neighbours. Since the Oyo were the sub-group the Hausa came most frequently in contact with, the name easily became synonymous with ‘Oyo’” (p. 62).

Adeniran also argued that the term “Yoruba” initially remained confined to “the dictionary of those who invented it” (p. 63) and gained broader use only in the early 19th century due to increased interactions between the Yoruba and their northern neighbors. During this period, local wars fostered sub-group pride, leading many non-Oyo groups to reject “Yoruba” as a foreign name.

It was only toward the end of the century, when Europeans insisted on its use and referred to the Alaafin as the King of the Yoruba, that even the Oyo (to whom the name originally referred) began to embrace the term (p. 63).

In his 2019 book, Partitioned Borgu: State, Society and Politics in a West African Border Region, Dr. Hussaini Abdu investigated it further and found that the Hausa themselves borrowed the term Yariba (or versions of it) from the Baatonu people of Borgu, known to the Yoruba as Bariba, Baruba, or Ibariba, who are Oyo’s northwestern neighbors. The Baatonu, as I argued before, refer to the Oyo people as “Yoru” (singular) and “Yorubu” (plural), with “Yoruba” used in third-person references.

Abdu traces the name’s spread to Songhai-Borgu interactions, later reinforced by interviews with Baatonu slaves in Sierra Leone and popularized through European travelers and missionary records, such as Samuel Johnson’s 19th-century writings. This theory aligns with the historical and cultural links between Songhai, Borgu, and Oyo, including the spread of Islam to both Borgu and Yoruba land by Songhai-speaking Mande from ancient Mali, reflected in the Yoruba term for Islam, “imale.”

This is consistent with collective naming practices all over the world. Immediate neighbors typically name each other, which others then adopt. Olagunju cited the examples of “Hausa” (which came from the Songhai) and “Fulani,” which came from the Hausa.

The older Hausa name for Yoruba people was Ayagi (see my August 19, 2022, article titled “‘Ayagi’”: Earliest Nupe-Influenced Hausa Name for Yoruba People” based on my review of Professor Rasheed Olaniyi’s work), not Yariba, which strengthens Abdu’s research about the Borgu origins of the name Yoruba.

Of course, Katanga, the name of the old capital of the Oyo Empire was, according to Professor Stefan Reichmuth, the “Hausa name for Old Qyo,” adding “This term which might even be originally a stranger’s name of northern origin was in the late nineteenth century coming to be accepted as an overall ‘national’ name not only by the Oyo themselves but by other related groups as well.” (p.157).

However, in his 1934 book titled A Hausa-English Dictionary and English-Hausa Vocabulary, G.P. Bargery defined Katanga as the Hausa word for a “wall of a house or compound” (p. 583).

Well, in their 2015 article titled “‘Lucumi, ‘Terranova’, and The Origins of the Yoruba Nation,” published in The Journal of African History, Henry B. Lovejoy and  Olatunji Ojo point out that all the collective names by which the Yoruba people were known are exonyms. They also agree that “Yoruba” came from the North.

Most importantly, they found that the term “Yoruba” does not appear in European slave records, slave-owner documents, or early self-references by the Yoruba people themselves before the 19th century. So, Olagunju’s argument that the Baatonu people might have imitated the name from Oyo people whose Alaafin sought refuge in their land seems highly unlikely.

Yoruba isn’t the only exonym by which the “Yoruba” people were known. A common name in slave records that historians have found is “Lucumi” (or Lukumi). Lovejoy and Ojo found that while the term could mean “my friend” in Yoruba, or “female lover” or “concubine” in the Owo dialect, it was the name Bini people called people in eastern Yorubaland.

They said it originated as a pejorative Edo term for foreigners, likely slaves, who spoke unintelligible languages, including Yoruba. In Edo, they pointed out, oluku means “young animal,” while mi or mie translates as “that” or “to have.” The term’s dual meanings in Yoruba and Edo, they said, suggest an ironic basis for its later identity formation.

“Nagô,” a self-appellation of the Anago subgroup of Yoruba, became the dominant term in Brazil for enslaved Yoruba speakers. Fon-speaking Dahomeans adapted this term as “Anagonu” to refer broadly to Yoruba-speaking groups (p. 355)​

“Aku,” derived from the Yoruba greeting “eku,” was also used to identify Yoruba-speaking recaptives in Sierra Leone following British anti-slavery efforts in the early 19th century.

Nonetheless, as I pointed out in my 2019 column, which Lovejoy and Ojo supported with more scholarly evidence, the people of Western Nigeria aren’t called “Yoruba” today because the Borgu people called them so, or because they were identified by a version of that name by Songhai, Hausa, and Fulani people. They self-identify as “Yoruba” precisely because returnee slaves of Yoruba descent chose the name, popularized it, and encouraged people in the region to embrace it. More significantly, though, it was because colonialists insisted on it even when other subgroups protested its imposition.

To put it cheekily for Kemi Badenoch, the same Europeans who stitched the North and South together to form Nigeria were the ones who insisted on calling her Ondo and Ijebu kin “Yoruba,” a northern label originally meant for the Oyo, a group her people weren’t even part of. Oh, the irony!

Dr. Olagunju reproduced passages from his favorite Yoruba nationalist historians to dispute specific claims about Borgu’s immersion in Oyo’s history but dismissed the claims of the well-regarded Akinwumi Ogundiran’s well-received book, The Yoruba: A New History, which supported some of my claims, as suspect because he “did not cite any authority to back this claim.”

Never mind Dr. Olagunju’s unsupported claim that I. A. Akinjogbin said Borgu was under Oyo “until 1783.” Well, he made no such statement. What he actually wrote was that Oyo’s “tributaries included at least parts of the Nupe and the Bariba countries” (p. 450). How “parts of” a territory paying tribute translates to the entire country being under Oyo’s rule is beyond me.

Nonetheless, later Yoruba historians have challenged the exaggerated narratives of Oyo’s rule and reach and undermined claims such as Akinjogbi’s and the predecessors that inspired him. For example, Professor Olayemi Duro Akinwumi, in a 1992 article titled “The Oyo-Borgu Military Alliance of 1835: A Case Study in the Pre-Colonial Military History published in Transafrican Journal of History wrote:

“The extent of the Old Oyo Kingdom had been a subject of debate among the professional and non-professional historians. Crowder, for example, had given the impression that Oyo at its peak of glory extended far and wide to cover north, south, west and east of the kingdom…. Among the states incorporated into the Kingdom was Benin on the east, and Dahomey on the west. Samuel Johnson (1960:179) went further by including a portion of Nupe, Borgu and Dahomey. It is now certain that the Kingdom did not embrace all the Yoruba and the non-Yoruba states as claimed by many authors” (p. 160).

Dr. Olagunju doubted that the Bashoruns of the Oyo empire were of Borgu origins even when Professor Ogundiran pointed it out in his book. Well, they were more than bashoruns. According to Professor Babatunded Agiri, whom Dr. Olagunju quoted in his response to me, “This process, by which the earliest Yoruba dynasties lost their political power to an invading Borgawa group, is also found in the Save area (now in Dahomey). Here the invasion probably took place sometime in the seventeenth century or slightly earlier. That the ruling dynasty in Old Oyo was non-Yoruba is also supported by the existence of a relic of an extinct (and probably Yoruba) dynasty in the lineage of the Basorun” (see “Early Oyo History Reconsidered” by Babatunde Agiri (1975) History in Africa, 1975, p.7).

Agiri also pointed out that, “The Oranyan dynasty was from Borgu and the traditions of its origin in Old Oyo emphasize this link. The conquest of Old Oyo by the Borgawa dynasty must have occurred well before the fifteenth century” and that Borgu “established satellite dynasties in the Yoruba towns in the area, including Oyo, replacing the former Nupe influence there” (p. 10).

He said Alaafin Abipa owed his success in reestablishing his dynasty at Old Oyo to the large following of warriors from Borgu who accompanied him and that some of these warriors were rewarded for their services by being permitted to replace the rulers of some former Yoruba settlements such as Kishi, Igboho, and Igbetti.

The Independent National Electoral Commission, INEC, has rejected N40b earmarked for it as 2025 budget estimates.

It tacitly got approval for the N126b it proposed to the National Assembly through its joint committee on INEC and Electoral Matters.

Rejection of the N40b yearly budget envelope for the electoral body was made by its Chairman, Professor Mahmood Yakubu to the joint committee during budget defence session.

The INEC boss in his presentation before the joint committee chaired by Senator Sarafadeen Alli (APC Oyo South) said elections in Nigeria have become huge burden requiring adequate funding.

“Our proposal for the 2025 budget, the provision requires the sum of over N126 billion.

“We have the document that has provided details line by line on how we intended to spend the 126 billion.

“We would like the support of the National Assembly to enable us to achieve our responsibilities in the first line charge and most of these responsibilities are constitutional.

“In a nutshell, the N40billion budget envelope given us for 2025 will not cover 1/3 of projected expenses which totally amounts to over N126billion.

“Aside the off-cycle elections for 21 constituencies to be filled through bye-elections and the Anambra Governorship election this year, personnel cost alone on account of the new minimum wage will eat up the N40billion budgetary envelope”, he said.

He added that the inadequacy of the N40billion budget envelope made the electoral body to get intervention funds of N10.5billion for Edo and Ondo elections in 2024 and another N500million for bye-elections on affected constituencies in 2024.

Apparently convinced by the proposal of INEC, members of the joint committee one after the other assured the electoral body that the proposed sum shall be appropriated for in the 2025 budget.

Specifically, Senator Ireti Kingibe (LP FCT) said “the situation at hand is not about looking for the N126billion for INEC in 2025 fiscal year but providing it”.

The joint committee thereafter went into closed door session with the INEC Chairman and the Federal Commissioners on how to source for the fund and appropriate it in the 2025 budget.

[DailyPost]