It would appear that a record discharge of toxic sludge from our notorious smut factory is currently clogging the streets and sewers of the Republic of Liars.  It goes to prove the point that provoked the avalanche EXACTLY!  The seeds of incipient fascism in the political arena have evidently matured. A climate of fear is being generated. The refusal to entertain corrective criticism, even differing perspectives  of the same position has become a badge of honour and certificate of commitment. What is at stake, ultimately is – Truth, and at a most elementary level of social regulation: when you are party to a conflict, you do not attempt to intimidate the arbiter, attempt to dictate the outcome, or impugn, without credible cause, his or her neutrality even before hearing has commenced. That is a ground rule of just proceeding. Short of this, Truth remains permanently elusive.

            The ensuing cacophony has been truly bewildering. It strikes me as a possible ploy to smother recent provocations by other, far more trenchant issues, such as revelations of declarations of a religious war. If so, let it be known that I have long declared war against religious fundamentalism, the nature of which justifies the butchery, kidnapping and enslavement of students in the name of religion. That aspirant’s alleged gaffe cuts no ice with me. Far more alarming was the grotesque fantasy of the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court disguised as a wheelchair, zooming off in space to a secret meeting with other parties of the conflict. On its own, that is sufficiently scary. Swiftly followed thereafter by a television tirade of intimidation, it strikes one as more than the mere antics by the mentally deranged. The tactics are familiar:  ridicule, incriminate, then intimidate. Objective: undermine the structure of justice .Just as a reminder: this writer was not being rhetorical when he declared, on exiting prison detention: Justice is the first condition of humanity.

            The instigating  contest – Nigerian Democracy 2023 -  has witnessed much that is innovative – largely in the retrogressive vein. Violence and ethnic profiling. “Spiritual” warfare in the shape of sacrificial rams to keep “disloyal” communities under restraint – in short, intimidation yet again!  Easily overlooked however are those missives of violence directed against dissenting voices, real or suspect. Such, for instance, were the virulent attacks and threats to the musician Seun Kuti, his family and iconic music Shrine. His crime consisted of nothing more than declaring the name “Obidient” derogatory to his sense of civic dignity and activist history. Such beginnings – and instances are numerous - have culminated in the open intimidation of the Court of Last Resort, even before proceedings have begun. By the way, I do agree with Seun Kuti; ‘Obidients’ is one of the most repulsive, off-putting concoctions I ever encountered in any political arena. Some love it however, and this is what freedom is about. Choice. Taste. Free emotions. By contrast, I have no quarrel with “Yes Daddy”. Roman Catholics are used to saying “Yes, Father”. Secularists say “Enh, Baba”. The context and content are what matters, and lies – where established - raise bothersome issues such as Integrity Deficiency.

            Let us remind ourselves of the following: in any adjudication, society finds it unacceptable that a party to the dispute resort to influencing tactics by extra-judicial means – such as bribery.  Intimidation and threats are merely the obverse complements of material inducement. Those who fail to appreciate this are entirely free to their existence in an illusory world.

We shall add the following pointer for this particular electoral tussle - the news may be unpleasant, but here it comes. Quite a few pundits have set out in some impressive – not necessarily persuasive - detail the- possibility that the complainants in this presidential election are not as strongly planted on the victory podium as they presume – see, for instance – Ambassador Haastrup’s fascinating analysis in Newspeak etc. April 6.  Right or wrong?  That is not the issue. What the nations needs to know right now is if  you are planning to send assassins after such negative analysts.! Coming to terms with an unpalatable projected eventuality – sorry – possible eventuality, counsels deep reflection, not demonization of the bearer of sour news. For the seriously committed, it requires pulling back the horns a little in order to regroup, rethink and resurge. Democracy is sometimes a long haul. Some of us have been at it for quite a while

            I am well aware that the foregoing is further invitation for more nauseous bilge from the besotted. Please, be my guest. It is, after all, one of those special seasons of convergence of two seasons of self-flagellation. Fasting makes bearers of constricted minds even more light-headed. Delusions fill the vacuum.

            Oh yes, could these rabid parochial minds of easy excitation also kindly stop flattering themselves that one’s energies are consecrated solely to the nation space known as `Nigeria? The whines of “silence” are relative to the reading scope and world knowledge of idle complainants as well as their grasp of the chain of continuity. I choose my methods of intervention without the permission of social media border patrols, so where you find a gap, just pick up the baton where last deposited and stop whining and belly-aching – “he stopped talking all this while, why now?”  etc etc ad nauseum . Flat, easy disposable lies that gain traction by repetition. However, even more importantly, they remain irrelevant to the  rights and wrongs of ongoing material issue. Sadly, these virtue vigilantes succeed with the ignorant and susceptible – especially among the younger, confused generation.  The consequence is that the nation is plagued by fake CVs compiled by all kinds of amateur commentators, still wet behind the ears, who have too few truths to build on before they are corralled into positions of No-Retreat. Nowhere has this been more evident than in the effrontery of attempts to place the present contention on the same podium as the twenty-year old anti-Abacha struggle! This gross abuse of historic licence actually provides smug satisfaction for rookie activists.  I advise them to seek out the school of survivors where pertinent lessons still exist for those with sufficient humility to LEARN before MOUTHING! Otherwise their world of false mythologies will collapse under their feet, and leave them dangling in the void.

            May I cease this opportunity, by the way, to condemn the sanctions imposed on CHANNELS Television which anchored the performance of the LP candidate. As stated, I watched the programme keenly – saw the valiant efforts of the interviewer to ensure fair hearing. I fail to understand just where the station could be faulted, except from a disposition for injustice. To sustain that penalty is to give joy to others who turn Internet into a soakaway for their rancid emissions, yet feel that others should be silenced. If CHANNELS feels up to it, I offer myself willing to engage Mr. Datti – or any nominee of his - on its platform on this very bone of contention – one-on-one – without the malodorous intervention of media trolls, and with the same interviewer as mediator. That should be taken as a serious offer.

            Project NIGERIA, I must confess, has become near terminally soul-searing. Do I still believe in it? I am no longer certain but - first, we must rid ourselves of the tyranny of the ignorant and the opportunism of time-servers. In any case, there is not much else to engage one on a foundation of ownership stakes.  There is of course, always the possibility of a Revolution, with a clarity of purpose and acceptance of all attendant risks, including costly errors.  Revolutions are not however based on the impetus of speculative power entitlement. No matter, until that moment, the structures that ensure just and equitable cohabitation must be protected from partisan appropriation - be it from material inducement, fake news, or verbal terrorism – the last being the contribution of one who is positioned to assume co-leadership of the nation, no less.  Revolution is not about lining up behind the nearest available symbol. When a symbol does emerge however, we are still obliged to examine every aspect of what is fortuitously on offer, and continue to guard our freedoms every inch of the way.

Before I take myself off for – well, next port of call – the final word goes to a favourite maverick, propagated even as he matched his words by action. I suspect that in this instance we find ourselves on opposite sides of the strategic fence – that is democracy. This now coopted watchword of his formulation remains apt, applicable to all who strive for authentic social transformation: Your mumu don do!  

            Ramadan Kareem. Happy Easter!

Wole SOYINKA

The media has been under intense searchlight since the last general election. In particular, there has been a lot of conversation around the performance of journalists pre and post elections. The latest is the reaction of Nobel Laureate, Prof Wole Soyinka, during the one and half hour interview he granted Channels Television.

Soyinka accused the media of engaging in selective editing and dissemination. He also accused them of taking part of his interview out of context and some parts sliced into new ones. 

Soyinka, in a statement titled “Media Responsibility,” on Tuesday, spoke about the critical responsibility of the media in transmitting the spoken, even recorded word to the public, saying this was especially crucial in a time of civic uncertainty. According to him, when remarks are taken out of context, distortions become stamped on public receptivity, and the central intent of one’s remarks becomes completely unrecognisable. I agree. 

Situations like these bring to fore afresh the need for training and retraining of the custodians of what some prefer to describe as either the fourth estate or the fourth branch of government. While the fourth estate connotes independence from government, the fourth branch refers to media’s control by the government. But generally speaking,  people love to describe the media as the fourth estate of the realm. I guess the conclusion on where the Nigerian media stands today will depend on which medium is being scrutinized and who is doing the scrutiny. 

Suffice to say that media houses have been randomly accused of taking sides with political parties with journalists openly rooting for candidates on social media platforms in the last general election. I recall reading a comment on the wall of one of such journalists. The commenter had asked the journalist how he could provide fair reportage for all the presidential candidates since he was openly canvassing for one of them. His response was that when he gets to the newsroom, he would be objective but outside, he has a right to publicly express himself. How I wish it is that simple, especially in a country where journalists are not only poorly remunerated but hardly get the little pittance that is officially theirs in terms of salaries, thus making many depend on handouts from questionable sources. 

How many Nigerian journalists, for example, can confront their leaders as Fox News’ Host Neil Cavuto did to ex -President Trump? Cavuto told Trump to his face that journalists don’t work to please either him or anybody in power. His words: “Well first of all Mr President, we don’t work for you, I don’t work for you. My job is to cover you, not fawn over you or rip you, just report on you – to call balls and strikes on you, my job, Mr President – our job here is to keep the score, it’s not to settle scores. Now in my case to report the economic numbers when they are good and when they are bad, when the markets are soaring and when they are tumbling, when trade talks look like they are coming together and when they look like they are falling apart. It is called being fair and balanced, Mr President. Yet, it is fair to say you are not a fan when that balance includes stuff you don’t like to hear or fact you don’t like to have questioned.” Some could argue that Cavuto’s statement was probably a product of his personal disposition towards Trump.  It is possible. Nevertheless, it is daring.  

The ideal thing in journalism practice is for journalists to be objective and present the facts as they are whether or not they like or agree with those facts. This notwithstanding, there are scholars that think total objectivity is a mirage even among journalists with the best intentions, so they settle for subjective objectivity. The reason is very simple. Human beings are naturally ruled by their biases. Fortunately, news reports have definite ingredients. They must be fact-based, accurate, balanced, measurable and observable, which means a journalist should ordinarily not be found fabricating stories or news reports. But is this always the case?

As an observer, I have seen journalists turn the engine of political mischief- some do this unknowingly because some of the so-called misinformation and fake news originate from trusted official sources. While the situation on social media is understandably pathetic due to lack of control, gatekeepers in some mainstream media have been compromised so they are no longer keeping the gate well. So, Neil Cavuto’s notion of journalists keeping the score and not settling the scores is still a tall order for many Nigerian journalists. These days, many journo-political analysts are just settling scores as they like. Objectivity has taken a moral flight.

In fairness to some of these journalists, things are beyond their control. They work for media owners running for political positions. And it has been long established that media contents are more often than not determined by those in control of economic and political power in any society. 

According to the United Nations, journalism is one of the most dangerous professions in the world. It is also one of the toughest. Some say it is hungry work. Apart from the job hazards, its demands are tough. No wonder journalism students these days don’t want to practice. The other time, I was invited to mentor some undergrads in journalism school, but none of them was interested in journalism as a career. 

This is likely to grow worse unless deliberate attempts are made to place appropriate value on journalism and journalists. One of the ways of doing this is by encouraging and putting emphasis on training and retraining. A laudable example in this regard is MTN’s Media Innovation Programme (MIP) specifically packaged for journalists across the entire spectrum of print, electronic and social media. The MIP, launched in 2022, is designed to help journalists build capacity at both professional and business levels. It is a six-month certificate course run by the School of Media and Communication, Pan-Atlantic University.  Fellows also go to the University of Witwatersrand, South Africa for a study trip as part of the programme. 

The course, I learnt, is aimed at giving participants a greater understanding of Nigeria’s technology sector and the nexus between media and technology. It is expected to help them to adapt to changing realities. With access to shared resources such as technology and expertise, participants would be able to experiment with new formats, technologies, and storytelling techniques, thus pushing the boundaries of what is possible in journalism. Fellows will also have access to professional resources and mentorship from the SMC faculty.

The telecoms firm recognised a skill gap between young Nigerian journalists and their global counterparts on the professional and ethical use of advanced digital tools and resources and it moved to close the gaps. Twenty journalists benefitted from the scheme last year. And this year, it is training another 20 journalists. The focus is on the need for journalists to understand the technical know-how of cutting-edge digital tools and systems that can engender skilled reportage and professional career advancement.

Participants are expected to gain a full understanding of the 5G technology and its importance in the areas of content creation, distribution, and consumption. The 5G technology has been projected to deliver $13.2 trillion in global economic value by 2035 while generating over 22 million jobs in the 5G global value chain alone. If properly harnessed, 5G technology is expected to transform the way journalists work and deliver news to their audiences. According to MTN, it is critical to encourage the adoption of new technology to push journalistic excellence in Africa as it strives to further improve network infrastructure required for media practitioners and organisations to expand their reach. 

What particularly impresses me about the MIP is its capacity to expose journalists to real-life case studies that can birth innovative ideas. Aside from helping with the quality of reportage, I see it as an empowerment scheme that can equip these journalists with the required knowledge and skills they need to thrive financially as individuals in a rapidly changing media environment. Schemes like this can help journalists grow their own businesses and boost their economic growth. 

I know that this kind of initiative will be quite expensive, but we surely need more of it in transforming media practice in Nigeria. For instance, journalists need to be trained on how to use social media and how they should conduct themselves in this arena. A lot of media organisations in Nigeria don’t yet have a social media policy. If they did, some of the things that happened during the elections wouldn’t have happened. 

Society should be much more involved in helping the media carry out its social responsibility functions. The Poynter Institute in Florida, United States brings journalists from across the world to the United States every year to train them on how to do their work to serve society better. I am a proud fellow of this institute. We need to do more of this for Nigerian journalists. Invariably, the quality of media practitioners will have a direct impact on the quality of governance and development in Nigeria. The country needs credible media for the good of everyone.

Last year, some leaders of thought advocated for military rule in Nigeria, apparently due to a sense of frustration with the seeming collapse of civilian authority. Nigerians flatly rejected that call without apology. We have gone too far in the journey of democracy to even think of any other option. Any form of military governance in Nigeria is gone and gone for good. And this is why commendation must go to our gallant officers in the military and all our security personnel who are daily sacrificing their lives to defend the territorial integrity of Nigeria in the lawful discharge of their constitutional roles. It would seem that those who muted the suggestion of military takeover saw ahead of the 2023 general elections, notwithstanding the fact that their poisoned option would have led us to greater doom. From the reports of election observers, over 100 persons died in connection with the 2023 elections, some others were brutalized, intimidated, harassed and browbeaten into hiding and denied their right of choice. The Independent National Electoral Commission, (INEC) witnessed an uncommon upsurge in litigation arising from election disputes such that it has now budgeted about N3B as legal fees for this purpose. This probably must have led to the emergence of the new apostles of dictatorship who are now canvassing for an interim government.

These advocates are campaigning for fascism in simple terms. Their reason may be due to the deep-seated frustrations occasioned by the seeming cluelessness of civilian leadership since 1999, when we returned to democratic rule. Some of the people rooting for interim government are well advanced, knowledgeable and indeed well-grounded in democratic ethos that it challenges one’s sense of rationality to determine how they got to this point. When the practitioners of law and advocates of due process, sit down to preach anarchy and disorder, when those who have profited from the rule of law and democracy disown the very process that made them, when those who have suffered the brunt of dictatorship most now transform themselves into its mouthpiece, then we should get scared as a nation, knowing that something serious is evidently and ominously amiss. I had prayed that a time like this would never come to pass in Nigeria, but here we are, faced with the campaigners of interim government, who do so with all sense of conviction, desecrating the hallowed altar of the rule of law and constitutional democracy. As stated earlier, this call may have been birthed by some of the ugly events that characterized the 2023 elections. Should this be a reason to canvas anarchy and dictatorship? I think not.

Those calling for an interim government want all lawfully-elected representatives of the people to abdicate power in order to allow unelected people take over the reins of government. I then began to ask some questions. Are the interim government advocates not aware of section 1 (2) of the Constitution that says thus: “the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution.” So, where did they get this idea of Nigeria under unelected leaders? What do we do with the Constitution? Suspend it and destroy the entity called Nigeria? What will be the foundation for the legitimacy of the selective contraption that they want to impose upon us? Are they not aware that section 3 (1) of the same Constitution states that “there shall be thirty-six States in Nigeria”? How did we get here really? Have the proponents of interim government not read section 2 (2) of the Constitution that: “Nigeria shall be a Federation consisting of States and a Federal Capital Territory”? For this idea to have sprang up at all, then surely our civilian leaders must have messed up the political atmosphere so badly that they don’t deserve to be trusted with power again. We must blame the politicians, as they have had close to three decades to put their houses in order since the military was chased out of power in 1999. Things have gotten worse since then, as we are more divided now than we ever were, we are more concerned about our ethnic loyalties than ever before and we have more religious tendencies than it used to be. We can’t even talk about how corruption has eaten so deep into our national life, such that nowadays, snakes do swallow cash and septic tanks have become storage places for dollars. The rate of youth unemployment is higher than before, inflation is climbing at an alarming rate and basic infrastructure practically does not exist, in confirmation of any form of leadership.

Our collective experiences with the various military regimes of the past have been very bitter, comprising inconsistent policies, wanton illegality, monumental corruption, arbitrary legislations, unbridled nepotism and sectional allegiances. They should serve as warnings to us on the futility of any undemocratic arrangement. Perhaps the most dangerous feature of interim government is the imposition of a unitary government, which in itself will halt the progress of Nigeria beyond comprehension. We will also most likely contend with the abrogation of the rights of citizens, arbitrary arrests and detentions, mysterious assassinations here and there and uncertainty in governance. We surely cannot return to that inglorious era, as we all firmly believe now that the worst civilian rule is better off than the best interim contraption.

The call for interim government has however led us to think very deeply, as to the collective value of civilian government to the people of Nigeria since 1999. We have only raised petty bourgeoises, jet owners, electoral bandits and political godfathers who have all found retirement in politics and are very unwilling to let go. They live a lifestyle that they can only sustain with public funds. This is the present tragedy of our nation; namely that we love democracy and its system of governance but we have not gained much from it, because our leaders have bluntly refused to play the game according to the rules. It is unfortunate that we will keep lamenting in this manner and sooner than later, another election cycle will come and go and we will still be singing the old songs in Babylon. But we must keep enduring it, until it gets better to give us the dividends that we truly deserve. As for interim government in Nigeria, let us perish the thought! That era has ended for good.

No Legal Opinion of Peter Obi as Labour Party Candidate

In July 2022, I wrote three different opinions on the candidates of the Labour Party, All Progressives Congress and the Peoples’ Democratic Party. This was long before the 2023 general election. After the election however, I have not discussed the fate or chances of any particular politician. This is due partly to the fact that a process was instituted, concluded and there are different cases in the various Election Petition Tribunals challenging the process. I have however been inundated with a scripted WhatsApp post, wherein it was alleged that I stated that His Excellency Mr. Peter Obi does not qualify to claim membership of the Labour Party. That is not my opinion and I am not the author of that post. It is what we all call it: FAKE NEWS. I humbly urge you all to please disregard it.

I am not a member of any political party, I am not involved in the prosecution or defence of any election petition and I have no interest in partisan politics, at least for now. Thus, it is not in my place to determine or pronounce on who can be or cannot be a member of any political party. Like other Nigerians, I am bound by and will accept the outcome of any and all lawful engagements by all concerned for the ventilation of grievances. I cannot fathom what those who circulated this false narrative seek to profit from it but it is ungodly to sit down and concoct a legal opinion and then ascribe it to someone else. I am a lover of peace and I believe in due process of law. To the extent that elections have been conducted and results declared from which winners have emerged, the next process for all who are aggrieved is to follow the procedure stipulated by law for challenging the process. I join other well-meaning Nigerians to appeal for peace, I encourage those who are in court to challenge the results of elections to be steadfast and committed to the process already activated and I urge the judiciary to dispense justice without ill-will or affection to all those who seek electoral justice.

It is to our credit as a nation that we have had an unbroken process of leadership change since 1999 and that process cannot be discarded at this stage of our national development. Having said that, it must be emphasised that those who are entrusted with the responsibility of midwifing the transition process must do so in strict compliance with the enabling laws and also provide equal opportunities for all persons who are engaged in the transition process. We must continue to operate and correct the system until we attain perfection. Interim government? Perish thought!

Adegboruwa, a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN), writes from Lagos

QUOTE

Are the interim government advocates not aware of Section 1 (2) of the Constitution that says thus: the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the Government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this Constitution. So, where did they get this idea of Nigeria under unelected leaders? What do we do with the Constitution? Suspend it and destroy the entity called Nigeria? What will be the foundation for the legitimacy of the selective contraption that they want to impose upon us?

The recently leaked audio, alleged to be a pre-election conversation between the presidential candidate of the Labour Party, Peter Obi, and Bishop David Oyedepo, and the reaction it has generated shows Nigeria’s elite hypocrisy.

As arguments go on about its authenticity, it is hard not to wonder what the fuzz is all about. It is correct to say that anyone who wants to lead Nigeria must shun the divisiveness that Obi exhibited in this alleged audio. The ideal leaders for Nigeria post-May 2023 should seek to unite the country and not hold such extreme, albeit patently hypocritical, positions. Nigeria needs a leader for all.

Second, the level of genuflecting in the alleged tape, if it turns out to be true, is uncomplimentary at this man’s status. Although Oyedepo is in his late 60s, Obi himself is already 61. How an eight-year difference in age makes someone your “daddy” one million times within five minutes is a mystery that appears like hypocrisy and deceit. We will return to this matter.

Oyedepo, if he was indeed the one speaking on the audio, said nothing that should warrant criticism. Not only did he not condemn any religion, but he also showed that Nigeria belongs to everyone and that no group could try to take ownership. He talked about good governance and the need to elect honest people and encourage his audience to trust in God. He promised to release “a clip,” which might appear as campaign alright, but what is wrong with that?

Oyedepo is a Nigerian who has every right to hold an opinion. That he leads a congregation does not stop him from holding or sharing opinions. What is clear, as I know it in reality, and as these elections have proven, is that congregations have people with different party affiliations and persuasions. It is therefore not automatic that a pastor’s sermon would make every Christian vote for their pastor’s candidate, no matter what they say. It is like people go to churches and mosques every day; they hear about the need to flee sin but still commit many atrocities against God and human beings!

I agree some congregants follow pastors’ charges dogmatically, but the preponderance of the people will follow their convictions. These convictions are, however, influenced by anything from party loyalty to religion, ethnicity, or even monetary inducement. Many Nigerians just go to these worship places with no impact, otherwise this country would be a more pleasant place to live in. But that is a matter of another day.

And that takes us back to the question of how Obi’s conduct and his alleged utterance. I consider it grand hypocrisy that some Nigerians take his “respect” for Oyedepo as a song of ridicule.

Do we forget that most of us revere intermediaries between the supernatural and the natural? If a herbalist were 20 years old, he would still be called “Baba” by his faithful and patrons in deference to his perceived supernatural endowments. People have only transferred this to their pastors and imams or whoever represents the god they worship. In the case under discussion, the clergy is older than the politician, but much older people usually bow and tremble before their younger religious leaders. So how is this a surprise?

Then, these two men were having a private conversation. In such conversations, people should be free to say whatever they want, behave however they want, and even deceive each other if they like, with the confidence that no one would know! How confidential conversations in Nigeria are gradually becoming public resources is what should worry us all more than how salacious the gist is. We should be wary of brutal politics where private conversation goes viral without the consent and authorisation of the parties in the discussion. Nations could go into conflagrations by such conducts, and centripetal and centrifugal forces must avoid this house falling on our heads.

But more than that, why do we pretend like elections are not war in Nigeria? Given the high stakes attached to politics, politicians and their allies deploy and employ whatever they can lay hands on to win elections. Regardless of how crooked or absurd all is fair in the war of elections in Nigeria. It doesn’t matter whether it is identity politics, (which manifests in religion and ethnicity), brigandage, incumbency, and so on, winning at all costs is all that matters to politicians.

And if we were to consider how many politicians relied on primordial sentiments in the 2023 elections, we would have enough blame to go around.

One idea that is said to be behind the Muslim-Muslim ticket of the All Progressive Congress (APC) is the belief that northern Muslims do not regard the faithful from the South as genuine.

As a result, the APC decided that having a “real” Muslim from the north would buoy their chances. It is the same party Nigerians caught pants down in the reported invitation of fake bishops to one of its events in Abuja. That invitation was to show that some Christian leaders supported the party.

The People’s Democratic Party (PDP) wasn’t much different. Hinging its campaign on APC’s insensitivity to the country’s religious polarity was a veiled tickle of people’s religious sentiment. The party then picked a Christian running mate as a differentiation from the APC.

People labelled the Labour Party labelled as playing on religious sentiments from the outset. Each time Daniel Bwala and Festus Keyamo, spokespersons for the campaigns of the PDP and the APC, respectively, got on the air, they impugned Obi’s campaign as holding onto ethnic and religious sentiments without the prospect of going anywhere. This is the reason Obi’s alleged suggestion that the election was “religious warfare” in contradiction to his public denial of the same may corroborate his opponents’ allegations.

But the elections were indeed a war of sorts. In the months and weeks leading up to the elections, the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) left no one in doubt as to its opposition to the APC ticket. It denounced the ticket and encouraged its members to vote against it. Anyone who pretends that CAN and other Christian bodies did not take this election as a war deceives himself.

Nigerians can also not forget the shenanigans of the Muslim Rights Concern (MURIC). It missed no opportunity to issue statements about the rights of Muslims in politics, condemning and vilifying at will. It only went quiet when the APC decided on its Muslim-Muslim ticket. On Monday, the group issued a statement advising President Joe Biden to disregard Nigerians’ protests against the outcome of the elections. There are no pretences about how much the major religions in Nigeria scramble to attain political office by all means.

So, there is nothing Obi said that has not manifested in the conduct of all political leaders and some Nigerian citizens. However, promoting divisiveness is unhelpful for the country’s future. The continuous campaign after the election and excavation of all dirts after the emergence of a winner by weaponising our differences spells trouble for the country’s stability.

Rather than dissipate energy on the condemnation of Mr Obi, who has already lost this election, Nigerians should address our incoming leaders on the need to give everyone a sense of hope. They must treat everyone fairly and give them their due, regardless of their spiritual affiliations.

In addition, the next government must work very hard to free the people from the pangs of poverty. Nigerians truly love to serve God, but a lot of the extremism in the air stems from the tentative sense of hope that the spiritual excursions in religion provide.

Finally, the government must reduce the size of government and be deliberate about reducing the stakes in public office in Nigeria. The current desperation would make anyone do anything in their bid to get into office. The government must make participation in government less attractive so that only the best of the country will occupy these positions.

When King Charles, the head of the Church of England, is crowned on May 6, there would be two very unusual non-Protestant special guests at the ceremony, among others: British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak who is Hindu; and the Leader of the Scottish National Party (SNP) and next First Minister of Scotland, Humza Haroon Yousaf, a Muslim.

Not two unusual guests. Three, actually. The third, Ireland’s Prime Minister and son of a Hindu Indian doctor, Leo Varadkar, is openly gay; one of the only five openly gay world political leaders.

It gets even more interesting. Before King Charles’ arrival at Westminster Abbey, the Muslim Mayor of London, Sadiq Khan, would be waiting. Buddhist Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, would be in charge of security; Foreign Secretary, James Cleverly, whose mother is a Sierra Leonean, would be on hand to welcome dignitaries; and the cashier for this extraordinary event and Chancellor of the Exchequer, Jeremy Hunt, would also be there with his Chinese wife.

King Charles who himself is the father-in-law of African American Duchess of Sussex, Meghan Markle, appears to have embraced this new multicultural face of modern Britain. 

Three weeks and two days after King Charles’ coronation and about 3,900 miles away, another crowning would be happening in Nigeria – the inauguration of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who won the recently concluded election on the ticket of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). 

The names and faces speculated for Tinubu’s cabinet are nothing remotely resembling the Westminster mosaic.  The inauguration, in fact, comes on the heels of one of the fiercest, most fractious waves of ethnic tension in the country following a general election. 

Politicians stoked the old, dangerous religious and ethnic fault lines leaving the country more divided than it was before the polls. The fiction that tribe and tongue were dead and that the last general election would be the burial ceremony appears to be well and truly over.

Even though Nigeria’s highlife music legend, Oliver De Coque, famously said, “Ana enwe obodo enwe” (literally meaning a town is owned), before Nigeria’s civil war ethnic tensions were not as salient. Politicians made home wherever they found themselves. 

That was why for many years the Nnamdi Azikiwe-led National Council of Nigeria and the Cameroons (NCNC) dominated politics in the West, especially in Lagos, even though Azikiwe was from the country’s South-East. Some of the closest confidantes of the Premier of the Northern region and leader of the Northern People’s Congress (NPC) Sardauna of Sokoto Ahmadu Bello were from outside the core Northern region.

Businessmen and women from the South-East, concerned mainly about creating wealth and prosperity invested in Lagos and in other parts of the country without qualms, while Nigeria’s civil service reflected not quota or ethnicity, but competence and merit. 

And then the war happened. In spite of Nigeria’s efforts to heal and reconcile after the three-year civil war the genie of tribe, religion and ethnicity was released, first by the military, and then by politicians, turn by turn. The country has now spent the last five decades struggling with the worst demons of identity crises. We are still trying to answer the question, who are we?

The presidential candidate of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP), Atiku Abubakar, for example, campaigned in the South East that he deserved their vote because he has an Igbo wife. And then, to the embarrassment of his Igbo wife, he went to the North to say, “Only a Northern president can best serve the interest of Northerners.” Others are on their own.

When one of Nigeria’s leading entrepreneurs, Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, said Igbos in Lagos who were attacked during the recent elections should rest assured that the “Yoruba rascals” responsible for it won’t go scot-free, he didn’t mean to further stoke ethnic tensions. 

In an election in which victims of violence were not only Igbos, but even some who looked like Igbos, however, Iwuanyanwu obviously forgot that it was not only his kinsmen that deserved protection from “rascals”, but indeed every voter or citizen in harm’s way.

The kindred spirit in Iwuanyanwu long silent in the face of the horrific violence in the South-East that has claimed the lives of scores of innocent people in the last few years, mostly Igbos, found expression hundreds of miles down South when, as a red cap chief, he felt obliged to stand up for kith and kin. 

Yet, such awkward moments in Nigeria are not only the lived experiences of red cap chiefs, politicians, or indeed ordinary citizens. Some years ago, I experienced it firsthand. My son, then in his early 20s, refused to fill out the part of a form that required his “state of origin”, on the grounds that the only state he knew was Lagos, his state of residence.

How did Britain which appeared to be one of Europe’s racial and multicultural backwaters before 9/11 manage to reinvent itself in two decades while the bright hope of one Nigeria appears to have fallen off the wagon?

What has Britain done differently? It has not arrived yet, especially with lingering concerns about its policing and the virtually white-top echelons of FTSE 100 firms. Yet the British parliament has grown from 2001 when there were only two Muslim MPs to 19 four years ago.  After the 2019 election, 66 or 10 percent of Members of the House of Commons were from ethnic minority backgrounds.

The changing face of British politics was not an accident. It was not entirely unforeseeable a decade ago that Sunak, Varadkar and Yousaf would rise to the top. Once Asians, who make up one-tenth of the British population, grew from their corner shops, became prominent in the economy and deepened integration while recognising their minority status, their rise to political prominence was only a matter of time. 

Even though more political parties would be represented in Nigeria’s 10th National Assembly than at any other time in the last 24 years, tribe, religion and ethnicity are still heavily in play. The evidence re-echoed in the recently leaked audio of Labour Party candidate, Peter Obi, allegedly telling a Pentecostal pastor that the 2023 election was a “religious war.”

The younger population, less attached to ethnicity and religion, tend to have a more liberal attitude. My son, for example, like many of his generation, was prepared to forfeit a business opportunity if filling out his “state of origin” was a precondition for eligibility.

In the rat race for nativism, not many appear to be concerned about the rapidly dwindling resources from commodity rent, combined with an even more rapidly growing population. Or that squabbles over spoils not only divide citizens from different states but also those from the same states but from different local governments and communities.

On top of this, our institutions are still very weak. Not much gets done except you know someone or know someone that knows someone. Not that ethnic diversity is a bad thing in and of itself. The US, perhaps one of the world’s most successful stories of a melting pot, is proof of the power of the rainbow. 

Nigeria’s story has been one of how not to play ethnic or identity politics. It has been a story of how to weaponise identity to serve a small political elite that hardly remembers or cares where the next man is from when they gather to share the booty. 

The way to keep the “rascals” at bay is to recognise that it’s not only street thugs that should be called out. Thugs across party lines in the corridors of power dressed in fine, flowing garbs or stiff collars are just as guilty. 

If we’re serious enough, it shouldn’t be hard to produce the sort of mosaic inner circle expected at Prince Charles’ coronation at the inauguration of a Nigerian president. Britain offers a usable example.

I deployed creative threads in imaginary Facebook conversations to drive home my point about how Nigerians tear one another to shreds on the internet in my column, ‘Hate in the Age of Charlatans’ on 31^st August 2017. Unfortunately, with such recurring madness, the Nigerian social media landscape has become renowned for unbridled toxicity. In fact, the situation has worsened following the conclusion of the 2023 general election. The current war of words centres around a (purported) conversation between Bishop David Oyedepo, founder of Living Faith Church Worldwide, and Mr Peter Obi, the presidential candidate of the Labour Party in the last election. Incidentally, I was not even aware of the brouhaha until I returned from church Sunday afternoon to receive a WhatsApp message from Valentine Obienyen titled, ‘Obi Versus Oyedepo: Too bad!’ 

I have known Valentine, Obi’s spokesman, for almost two decades and consider him a friend. In the short (two paragraph) message, Valentine explained what he described as the context to a conversation between his principal and Oyedepo. He also alluded to “our prodigal brother from Nnewi” as the source of the leak. As a regular recipient of messages from Valentine (he writes almost every day), I can easily guess whom he is referring to. Valentine alleged that a committee had been established (he didn’t state by who) to review all calls made by Obi in the last three years for the purpose of charging him for treason. He concluded: “Till now, they are yet to see any. The badly doctored conversation with Bishop Oyedepo released by our Nnewi prodigal brother is the much they have discovered so far. They edited out the Muslim-Muslim ticket that led to the discussion, where Obi said that in a society like ours, religious balancing was a necessary consideration and that their recklessness had made Christians to assume it was a religious war.” 

By the time I went online to access the tape, I realized that a ‘civil war’ had already broken out on Twitter. It is the only social media channel where I maintain a semblance of presence, (apart from WhatsApp, the global headquarters of rumour-mongering). I also noticed statements by other actors who distance Obi from the video which they dismissed as “deep fake”. As an aside, I find it amusing that people who only knew Peter Obi yesterday and have no clue about the several battles he and Valentine had fought together were ‘sacking’ his long-time spokesman on their Twitter handle! Besides, the number of people who now issue ‘directives’ on Twitter either in the name of Obi or that of the Labour Party is beyond ridiculous.

Ordinarily, the content and context of the viral audio, even if true, touched on basic rights in a democracy. Adherents and followers of different faiths are first and foremost citizens and are therefore legitimate segments of our electorate. Nothing in the constitution or the electoral law forbids politicians from going to an Imam, Bishop, or Rabi to seek support for their aspirations. The only issue is that appeals for such endorsements must respect the separation between faith and blatant partisanship and not be divisive. That perhaps explains why the controversy around the audio conversation should not be left for spokespersons who in any case are busy contradicting one another. I believe that Obi and Oyedepo may need to address the issue directly to clear all doubts.

I am aware of the danger of mixing politics with religion. But since there are discordant tunes about the authenticity of the audio, I want to err on the side of caution until we have clarity. What I find interesting is that those who easily jump to believing negative stories about other people from the same media outfit are now up in arms because this doesn’t align with their own agenda. That should teach them a lesson in fair hearing. But there is another issue here which I have also dealt with in the past and which we cannot afford to gloss over in our own interest. The grievous violation of citizens’ private telephone conversation opens more fundamental questions about our defective democracy than the meaningless chatter over “Yes, daddy”. Section 37 of the 1999 Constitution states very clearly: “The privacy of citizens, their homes, correspondence, telephone conversations and telegraphic communications is hereby guaranteed and protected.”

When you pick up your phone to communicate with a friend, family member, or even casual acquittance, according to Pronoma Debnath, an American Cybersecurity Fellow with the Strauss Center for International Security and Law who has done extensive work on surveillance, artificial intelligence, and digital rights, you do so on the assumption that your conversation will remain confidential. “The ability to communicate securely and privately is extremely important for individuals’ peace of mind, confidence, relationships, and livelihoods,” wrote Debnath. That unfortunately is no longer the situation in Nigeria. 

Breach of confidentiality is an issue we must confront because it touches on the rule of law—the cornerstone of a functional democracy. Even the ‘Lawful Interception of Communications Regulations, 2019’, prescribes stringent conditions under which citizens can be wiretapped by relevant security authorities to forestall abuse. Such action can only be in the interest of national security, for the purpose of investigating or preventing a crime or giving effect to international mutual assistance agreements to which Nigeria is a signatory. And it requires written application before a Judge supported by sworn affidavits by either the National Security Adviser (NSA) or the Director General of the State Security Service (SSS) or their designees not below the rank of an Assistant Commissioner of Police. 

Let’s be clear here. In this age of technology, surveillance can be done in several ways and by actors that do not necessarily work for the state. Many of the gadgets we use can also be deployed by unscrupulous people with money to procure hacking software for their sinister agenda. To that extent, we cannot always jump to conclusions about sources of information. What we should not tolerate is an environment where phone hacking and dissemination of confidential conversations become a regular feature of our national life. That bodes ill for everyone.

The ultimate responsibility lies with media practitioners who must learn from what happened in the United Kingdom with the ‘News of the World’, a weekly newspaper published every Sunday for 168 years, from 1843 to 2011. One of the numerous publications in the stable of the legendary Rupert Murdock, ‘News of the World’ was at one time the highest-selling English-language newspaper in the world. But on 7^th July 2011, it was forced to write its own obituary over allegations of phone hacking, with a ‘Thank You & Goodbye’ edition that happened to be its last. The painful lesson from the events that led to that tragic end for the newspaper, as I wrote in my column afterwards, is that journalism and journalists cannot live by a code of ethics different from those we demand of others. And the profession is not, and should never be, a licence to break the law. 

My intervention was based on the April 2007 gubernatorial election tribunal case between Rauf Aregbesola, then of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and Olagunsoye Oyinlola of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The latter had released phone logs containing conversations allegedly held between Aregbesola’s lawyer and a judge. In the case between Segun Oni of PDP and Kayode Fayemi of ACN, also on the 2007 election fiasco, the former also presented phone logs of alleged conversation between then ACN leader (now president-elect), Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu and then Court of Appeal President, Justice Ayo Salami.  

Questions I raised in my intervention included: “If we assume (and this is just an assumption) that the logs were indeed genuine, how did the petitioners come about them when in law phone companies can only release such to security agencies and only in exceptional circumstances? Could we then assume that in the two instances, the mobile lines of the affected persons were hacked into? Or did someone simply pay some corrupt staff of the affected mobile networks to get those logs? Whatever happened, if phone logs could be easily secured (or more appropriately, procured) by any unscrupulous politician, what kind of security system are we then operating in our country? I feel more worried to learn during the week that our mobile networks are so unprofessional that even governors now demand call logs, and perhaps also voice and text data, apparently of their political opponents!”

In that piece I also wrote: “Whatever the political motivation for the nonsense going on, there is a bigger issue of national security which is being obscured here: the moment we open ourselves to a situation in which phone logs and other data which should ordinarily be confidential could easily fall into wrong hands, then we are no better than a banana republic. It also means that serious potential investors will be wary of operating on our shores. The sense of outrage that we have seen in the United Kingdom in the last one week shows quite clearly how serious issues of intrusion into privacy of this nature are. 

“Without prejudice to whatever investigation the National Judicial Council (NJC) may be conducting into the allegations against Justice Salami, I believe it is much more important for us to get to the root of how politicians now have access to the call logs of their opponents. In a nation where virtually all citizens, from the president to the neighbourhood vulcanizer, now depend on mobile telephone operators (mostly foreign owned), this is not an issue we can afford to take lightly. The office of the NSA should investigate not only whether some call logs are genuine but also how they were obtained. And culprits should be made to face criminal prosecution if only to serve as deterrence to others that such infraction is not an acceptable behaviour in our country.” 

Overall, we know that two things can be wrong at the same time. A conversation that imputes an election to be a ‘religious war’, if confirmed, is dangerous to the health of our society. But we should also not condone hacking. Nobody can feel safe when they are being snooped upon by political/business opponents or rogue state agents who may then sell their private conversations to the media. We should not wait until we become victims of such breach before we act. 

Meanwhile, it is remarkable that Christians will celebrate Easter this year at a period Muslims are undertaking the Ramadan fast. I therefore wish adherents of both faiths the compliments of this glorious season. Let us hope the enduring lessons will serve us in Nigeria.

Congrats, Kofar-Mata

For professionals in the army, foreign service, civil service etc., career progression is based on hierarchical order. And getting to the top depends on several factors, including vacancy. It’s even more difficult for diplomats and civil servants in Nigeria where the requirement of federal character makes it imperative that filling such vacancies be based on states of origin. That’s why I was delighted last week when I saw the name of my friend, Yakubu Adam Kofar-Mata (from Kano) among the list of six persons elevated to the position of Permanent Secretary by President Muhammadu Buhari. I congratulate Kofar-Mata and wish him success in his new assignment.

Of ‘Awalokan and Emilokan’

BY M T. Uman

Dear Segun, your column, ‘Between Ndigbo Awalokan and Yoruba Emilokan’, was quite insightful as usual. Unfortunately, there is no line within the reach of the Nigerian political elites that they have not already crossed. This has been evident since 1993 when members of the resurgent Pentecostal led the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) to oppose Moshood Abiola’s same-faith ticket. That was how religion became another factor in the calculations of politicians across the country.

The entry of Major General Muhammadu Buhari (rtd) into politics in 2003 gradually drew Muslim leaders into national politics, as they were hitherto more interested in consolidating Sharia in their home states. This support reached a crescendo in 2015 when he eventually won the presidential election. They were less involved in 2019 when Buhari was already in office, but they picked up the gauntlet in 2023 when CAN orchestrated a vigorous campaign against the choice of a Muslim running mate by the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

Personally, I haven’t seen how the religious affiliation of any Nigerian leader has helped the generality of his co-religionists and denied others. Any benefits are personal to individuals on account of their closeness to the leader. Muslims still go to Hajj as usual and Christian pilgrimage has become an established event. The dictum of Shehu Usman Dan Fodio to the effect that “a community can endure with unbelief but cannot endure with injustice” should be guide enough to leaders of whatever faith.

One thing I have noticed is that people do forget that zoning and rotation are convenient arrangements politicians brought into being to share power “on behalf of their people.” Each party has its own “zoning cycle”. I have always believed that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), going by its past, should zone its presidential candidate to the North after Goodluck Jonathan’s turn as president on the platform of the party. By the same logic, the ruling APC was duty bound to present a presidential candidate from the South after Buhari. Even though the party almost didn’t, but for the doggedness of Tinubu, the winner of its primaries – and the presidential election.

Meanwhile, ethnic profiling has been with us for a long time. But its current strength is a great worry, especially with propagation by social media. Leading political figures have a duty not to see profiling as a vote-winning strategy and must do all within their powers to temper the enthusiasm of their supporters in their ready recourse to it.

Usman, a former Director, National Universities Commission (NUC) wrote from Kaduna

Once again, the Nigerian Broadcasting Commission imposed a heavy-handed fine on Channels TV, following a petition by an aide of Bola Tinubu. Ironically, the petition was based on some comment by the Labour Party vice presidential candidate Datti Baba-Ahmed who, during a live interview, said something to the effect that swearing Tinubu into office in May would “end” democracy in Nigeria. This not-so-subtle manipulation of a state agency by the aides of an incoming president signals a pattern of power abuse that will only worsen.

Baba-Ahmed was wrong to the extent he assumed that swearing in the beneficiary of a flawed election would be the death of Nigeria’s democracy. No, that is not how the end will come. Democracy will be squelched to death in the hands of executioners claiming statesmanship; its end will be from the chokehold of maniac politicians whose bid to make the polity conducive for their characteristic lawlessness will drive them to use the instruments of democracy to undermine democracy.

If their obsessive focus with the Labour Party presidential candidate and his followers in the aftermath of the election process proves anything, it is that these declared winners are bothered. The resolute existence of the Obi-dients delays—and therefore denies—the legitimacy of the APC. That is why, though they won an election, they can hardly settle to enjoy their victory. They remain stuck on their opponent’s popularity. So acutely are these supposed winners unsettled by the Obi-dients, an army of self-motivated political contenders with a narrative capacity that substantially upends the Tinubu propaganda machine, that they are not even discussing the future under their government. Their mad preoccupation with making the Obi-dients go away will drive them to break many things, chief of which will be democracy itself.

Unfortunately, they will be indulged by agencies like the NBC who, like most Nigerian public institutions, lack autonomy. The NBC’s media arbitrating activities tend towards a studious calculation of partisanship politics that favour them personally rather than any well-considered principles of how media houses in a democratic society should run. Previously, I have pointed out the anachronism of agencies like the NBC in the age of liberalised media and global media technology. Their duties were meaningful in bygone eras when the government controlled the media and when the military ran the country.

The NBC code made sense at the time because you could rightly claim that since most people were exposed to a narrow range of media options, it was possible to manipulate society.

Now we live in an era where people’s media options are not only endless, but audience-ship itself has become quite fragmented. Hardly any media can claim primary influence over public opinion. The agenda-setting feature of the media is easily contested now, and the traditional ways we imagine media influence have changed forever. Communication is no longer between the media houses and the people sitting inside their homes watching TV or listening to the radio. The world we live in now is overrun with infinite sources of information, a chaotic field of endless chatter where people are more energised to talk than even listen.

Despite all these massive shifts happening in the media, the NBC insists on micromanaging media content (and even for private enterprises). To an extent, the high-handed manner they hand out fines to media houses based on some nebulous idea of what threatens the polity suggests they struggle with re-imagining their relevance in the 21st century. When you hear some NBC officials speak on their expectations of media “objectivity,” you know these guys are still stuck on old ideas. They are still regurgitating textbooks written by dead white guys (whose scions have long revisited those old ideas in the light of new realities!).

They seem incapable of rethinking and revising their roles to make themselves more relevant in the contemporary era, and that is why a serial petitioner like Bayo Onanuga could use them to run partisan errands. He knows he can send an agency like the NBC the message of a slave, and they will not summon enough wit to deliver it with the nobility of a freeborn. Their frigidity and the abject lack of moral reflexivity will end democracy faster than any comment by a single politician on a live television show.

Let nobody be fooled, our modern world is complex; it will take much more than Datti-Ahmed’s comments about ending democracy in Nigeria to incite people to the insurrection that will truly end democracy. Nigerian politicians base their media regulation antics on the conviction that the impulses of the people they insistently impoverish can only be stimulated into violent action by the media. They insist media regulation is equal to social tranquillity. Nothing can be more delusional.

Does the media tell the people what and how to think, or it is those who already harbour certain thoughts and grievances who are drawn to specific media channels to affirm their ideas? If the media exercises so much power over people’s will, how come the NTA that dedicates its contents to pacifying impulses has not succeeded in whipping us in line? Hardly anybody—not even the most virulent APC supporter—watches NTA. The version of Nigeria the NTA sells resonates with almost no one, not even government officials. The fact that those who complain loudest about a broadcast station like Arise TV and its unruly anchor are still stuck on the channel is more telling about the nature of news viewership.

As for the media houses who will be the target of these power drunks in the coming months, I hope they know better than grovel. Despite all the claims the media makes about informing and enlightening the populace, they are still—at the end of the day—a business. They ought to be free to exercise initiatives that help their enterprise without worrying that clueless civil servants will frustrate them with stupid fines. So, next time, before interviewing a guest likely to say controversial things, they should first write the NBC a cheque equivalent to the annual salary of their DG and send it ahead. Then go ahead and interview the person. If the NBC’s nostrum is issuing an invoice each time your initiatives run counter to their small-minded partisanship, then meet them halfway by buying off their nuisance.

Another option is to go to court and challenge the NBC code altogether. The open-ended nature of the code makes the media vulnerable to bad-faith actors who will continue to (mis)interpret its recommendations either to shrink public discourse or to deflect from their incapabilities. Any attempt to pacify vandalisers of civic freedoms will only make the media culpable in their own abuse. Do not let them diminish you; do not yield your freedom to these myrmidons of darkness whose actions do far more to infuse darkness into Nigeria’s democracy. Evil is implacable. You can only triumph when you beam the light.

Finally, is it not interesting that Onanuga, who earned his professional credibility for standing up to the military government’s clampdown on press freedom, is manifesting the same tendency under a democratic government? He could have asked Channels TV for an opportunity to refute Datti-Ahmed’s arguments, but no, he had to play the tyrant. It makes you wonder, did those activists of yesteryear stand up to those abusers of humanity because they once believed in human freedom or simply because they wanted to usurp their power? Did the military government pursue these one-time activists because they saw them as a threat to their dictatorial rule or because they saw through their pretences? On days like this, I imagine that from the interior of a hilltop mansion somewhere in Minna an old dictator watches these democratic tyrants adorn their little feet with his old jackboots. Observing them traipse the creaky floorboards of history, he roars with laughter at the uncanniness of a history repeating itself as tragedy and farce simultaneously.

The dust is yet to settle on Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu’s “political rascal” statement. Today, we present, with slight editing, the views of respected Professor Olabode Lucas on the burning issue; titled “The verbal sparks from Awka”; enjoy it:

“Penultimate Saturday, Professor Charles Chukwuma Soludo, the brilliant economist turned politician, rolled out the drums to celebrate his one year in office as the governor of Anambra State and, in doing so, tried to showcase the achievements of his administration during the one year. The occasion was attended by eminent personalities in and outside the state and they included Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, the former president who Governor Soludo affectionately referred to as ‘my Baba.’ There was no doubt that Soludo wanted as much publicity as he could get for the event. Yes, eventually the event got more publicity than what the governor had bargained for because the speech by the chairman of the occasion, Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, generated a lot of controversy. In his speech, Iwuanyanwu referred to the Yoruba people, who are in conflict with his Igbo people in Lagos, as ‘political rascals.’ This speech has caused a lot of political sparks and deepened the current seemingly unbridgeable animosity and suspicion between the Igbo and the Yoruba people which, unfortunately, has been festering since the colonial era.

“Chief Iwuanyanwu, who is the chairman, Council of Elders Ohaneze Ndigbo Worldwide, used these derogatory words against the Yoruba people in front of a mainly Igbo audience who cheered him enthusiastically. Obasanjo was in this audience and many people expected him to berate Iwuanyanwu for his undiplomatic language but, instead, he praised the chief for his role in helping him to form his first cabinet in 1999. In addition, in his speech Obasanjo threw his own verbal salvo when he alluded that the Igbo people were being subjected to Igbophobia.

"Chief Iwuanyanwu’s effusion at Awka was a continuation of unending suspicion that has characterized the relationship between the Igbo and the Yoruba ever since the British brought the two ethnic groups together in a country. Although the two ethnic groups were in the forefront of the struggle for the independence of the country, this was not sufficient to prevent them from being at each other’s throat on some contentious issues. All efforts to bring the two groups together politically as we saw in the recent move to initiate a ‘handshake across the Niger’ have always ended in failure because of the deep-seated suspicion between the two ethnic groups.

“During the colonial era, the theatre for the antagonism between the two groups was in Lagos, the then capital of the country where most of the political activities in the country took place. The Igbo people met the Yoruba people in Lagos as a highly sophisticated, enlightened group who were well educated. The Yoruba people were dominant in virtually all the sectors such as education, commerce and the civil service. This, no doubt, bred resentment and the Igbo with determination decided to catch up. The late Chinua Achebe, the literary guru of Igbo descent, in his book ‘There Was a Country’ had this to say on how the Igbo bridged the gap between them and the Yoruba: ‘The Yoruba had a huge historical and geographical head-start; but the Igbo wiped their handicap in one fantastic burst of energy in the twenty years between 1930 and 1950’. This touted achievement of the Igbo people by Achebe made the then Ibo State Union in one of its conferences to refer to the Yoruba ‘as a decadent race’

“Where did the rain start to beat the two ethnic groups? Contentious issues that divided the two groups during the colonial era probably had their beginning with the inability of Dr. Nnamdi Azikiwe, an Igbo man, to become in 1952 the Leader of Government Business/Premier of Western Nigeria, which was a region populated mainly by the Yoruba people. The Igbo people felt that Azikiwe, who was their idol, and his party, the NCNC, were deprived of victory by the Yoruba-dominated Action Group party. Since that time, an average Igbo person had not forgiven what they erroneously termed ‘the betrayal of 1952’. Many independent commentators had faulted the assertion that Azikiwe won the election of 1952 and even Azikiwe himself in his book titled ‘My Odyssey’ did not claim to have won the election. However, the defunct West African Pilot continued to propagate this falsehood for many years.

“The status of Lagos was another issue that also divided the Igbo and the Yoruba during the colonial era. At the 1953 constitutional conference, delegates from the then Eastern Region who were mainly Igbo made it clear at the conference that they regarded Lagos, the country’s capital, as ‘no man’s land’ despite the fact that a prominent Igbo political scientist, Kalu Ezera, had, in his book, previously referred to Lagos as a ‘Yoruba town’. The Igbo people and the NCNC, which they supported massively, succeeded at that conference to get Lagos, a Yoruba town, as the Federal Capital Territory. This arrangement, which continued until 1967 when Lagos State was created by Gowon’s administration, was resented by the majority of Yoruba people with their slogan ‘Lagos belongs to the West’.

“The antagonism between the Igbo and the Yoruba during the colonial era was fuelled by the newspapers owned by the two groups. The West African Pilot owned and edited by Nnamdi Azikiwe defended the Igbo cause and aspirations while the Daily Service edited by H.O Davies and later by S. L. Akintola was the Yoruba’s mouth-piece. The West African Pilot at every opportunity denigrated Yoruba leaders like Kofo Abayomi, Adeyemo Alakija, Akinola Maja, H.O. Davies, Akintola, and F. R. A. Williams. The West African Pilot through its editorials and news items built up the Igbo as a master race and projected Nnamdi Azikiwe as the only leader worthy of emulation in the nationalistic struggle. The Daily Service, while projecting the Yoruba cause, was less vitriolic.

"The suspicion and antagonism between the two groups was probably responsible for the refusal of Nnamdi Azikiwe to form a pre-Independence coalition government with Chief Obafemi Awolowo that could have ushered in independence for the country despite the intervention of President Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana. The arrangement could have made Azikiwe the first prime minister of independent Nigeria; instead, he opted to be a ceremonial president in an NPC/NCNC coalition government.

“The political antagonism between the Igbo and the Yoruba continued after independence. The main political tendency in Yoruba land was kept out of government for a considerable length of time from 1954 to 1964 at the time when the NCNC formed the coalition government with the NPC at the federal level. During this period, the Igbo dominated the federal government and cornered juicy contracts, appointments and scholarships to themselves. The same scenario was enacted in 1979 when the NPP, a party dominated by the Igbo people, had a working arrangement with the NPN.

"The Igbo came back from the civil war with a lot of resentment and bitterness for the Yoruba people because of the role they perceived was played by the Yoruba and their leader, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. The Igbo people believed that the policies initiated by Chief Awolowo as Commissioner of Finance during the war brought about the collapse of Biafra. Many Igbo also felt that the Yoruba should have joined them in bringing an end to Nigeria. The Igbo showed their resentment to Awolowo by giving him less than one percent of the votes cast in their region during the 1979 presidential election. All in all, for most of the political events since independence, the Igbo and the Yoruba have always been at opposite sides to each other.

“In all these disputations between the Igbo and the Yoruba, the Igbo have always presented themselves as victims and that is why some of their leaders throw occasional verbal salvos like the one thrown by Chief Iwuanyanwu at Awka to denigrate the Yoruba people and their leaders. That is why Nnamdi Kanu could call on EndSARS protesters from his cell to destroy properties of Yoruba people in Lagos. The Yoruba, though not perfect and have faults of their own, have been very accommodating to the Igbo people with the opportunity given to them to prosper immensely in Yoruba land. The Yoruba people claim with justification that there is no reciprocity for their good gestures from the Igbo people.

“Whatever is the situation between the two groups, they have to accommodate each other as long as they belong to this geographical entity called Nigeria, which is yet to become a nation in the true sense of the word. For now, I cannot see an end to these disputes as more destructive verbal salvos like the recent one from Chief Iwuanyanwu would still come from the leaders of the two ethnic groups to denigrate one another”.

The above is from Professor Lucas, who writes from Old Bodija, Ibadan. Other views on this contentious issue are welcome!