On New Year’s Eve, December 31, 2019, Pope Francis slapped a woman’s hand as she clung to him, and grabbed him while he was making the rounds greeting pilgrims at the Vatican. The following morning, the Pope apologized for what he called “yesterday’s bad example”. The footage of the Pope, freeing himself from the woman, with a scowl on his face, has since gone viral, but I am pleased that there are more people in support of the Pope than against him. Significantly, there has been no outrage.  The Pope’s apology came swiftly in less than 24 hours but he actually didn’t need to apologize because he did no wrong. 

What is established is that the Pope, often decorated with the toga of spotlessness, perfection and sainthood is human after all. He is like us. He is one of us. Like everyone else, if he feels threatened or unsafe, he will try to protect himself. The Pope was reacting to an invasion of his space. It is fine to shake hands but some people don’t know when a handshake sends a different signal. They grab. They linger. Women probably understand this better. The moment a handshake becomes an unwanted and unwelcome gesture; the other party is bound to recoil in horror or anger. That is precisely what the Pope did. He slapped the woman’s hand twice and freed himself. 

 I do not agree with those who argue that this is an indication of lack of clarity about Church teaching or that it is a case of “violence against women.”  In any case, the Pope’s hand swat was just a mere tap. This wasn’t a case of an Anthony Joshua slapping an over-eager Asian woman at St. Peter’s square. Where was Vatican Security by the way? In his Angelus remarks on January 1, the Pope delivered a message of hope and preached about “violence against women.” He has been accused of hypocrisy for that but his critics are again unfair to him because the equivalence that they seek to establish with the event of the night before is false. 

For me, by offering an apology, the Pope sets a good example and tone for the new year and decade. He reminds us of a value that is increasingly missing in social relations between the powerful and the ordinary in our world. The Pope is leader of over 2.1 billion Catholics in the world. He controls minds and imaginations. To see the head of such a large congregation getting angry in public, and even getting “physical”, is a reminder of the commonality of human emotions, but his apology in an age when many, especially the powerful and the privileged have lost the capacity to say “I am sorry, I didn’t mean to do that” is the most ennobling aspect of the incident. When last have you as a person, tried to say: “I am sorry”? In today’s world, we rarely apologise for the gaps between acts and intentions. We don’t care enough about the feelings of others. People are just intentionally offensive, be they leaders or followers - and that is why the world is such a troubled place today from Ukraine to Crimea, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Israel, Afghanistan, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, North Korea and the United States. Even when some people try to be contrite and they offer apologies, they sound more like Prince Andrew of the United Kingdom making empty noise about obvious wrongs, or like Jeremy Corbyn’s hollowness on anti-Semitism. 

In this matter, we have focused more on the Pope, perhaps understandably. But let the point be made: that the woman who grabbed him is an archetype for followers who do not know their boundaries. Ordinary people tend to cling to leaders, particularly religious leaders. In the Bible, Luke 8: 40-49, the people crowded and pressed against the Lord Jesus Christ and a woman touched Him prompting Him to ask: “Who touched me?” Someone touched me, I know that power has gone out from me”. These days, the people overdo it, because they believe that their salvation lies with that touch, that encounter with the man of power or the symbol of divine authority   Many Christians worship Man rather than God. But it is perfectly normal for the Pope to act like a human being and good for all of us to see that he is just like “us”. 

One of the major indications of the dysfunctional nature of the Nigerian social and political ecosystem is what can be best summarized in pidgin English as the “Na my brother dey there” syndrome. It is the politics of proximity by another name, the thinking by an average Nigerian that he or she is much safer, better off psychologically and in a better position to gain access to opportunities, and even exercise power and influence, only when in the company of a kinsman, or surrounded by kinsmen or when someone of the same ethnic group or who speaks the same language or dialect is in charge of a public office, or any department at all at any level in society. While persons of the same ethnic group or identity may quarrel or disagree among themselves, their relationship in the public arena, especially when other persons of other ethnic extraction are involved is governed by this code of identification and association. The idea of “brotherhood or sisterhood” may even be stretched beyond ethnicity to cover sect or religion, membership of the same association, including alumni associations, geography and filial relations. Relationships in Nigeria are mostly determined by the same fault-lines of the country’s national question. These fault-lines have destroyed the walls of trust among the people. They make normal conversations difficult. Everything, if you pay attention enough, is always reduced to your ethnicity or religion, gender,  geography and hence, we have in 2019, a country of divided people who through symbols, gestures and actions are locked in a primordial capsule. 

This is most evident in the political arena or the public service with regard to appointments, promotions and the leadership recruitment process. When a man from a particular part of the country is in office, let us assume as President of Nigeria, persons who share the same identity with him, or are close to him, simply slide into the “na my brother dey there” mode. They celebrate the emergence of a kinsman as if it is their personal achievement. They raise the level of their expectations. They see the person in office and power as their own person, just because his name sounds familiar, or he speaks the same language or attended the same school or church. There may be no direct personal relationship, but the fact of identity alone is more than enough. In 20 years of return to democratic rule, we have seen this on display at all levels and it is worse when the privileged person in power tolerates or even actively encourages this tendency to the detriment of others who are subtly treated as outsiders and advised to wait until it is their “own turn”. It is the politics of “divide and rule” by other means. The leadership crisis involved is traceable to the failure of Nigerian leaders to discourage this return to the age of inter-tribal wars in African politics. 

The fight against military rule in Nigeria was principled and ideological, the military had overstayed their welcome, the rising wave of democratization in Africa and elsewhere, and the end of the Cold War had made autocratic regimes unfashionable.  But at the root of that fight in Nigeria was also the people’s resistance against the Northernization of Nigeria through the military control of the levers of power. The annulment of the June 12, 1993 election won by Chief MKO Abiola of the Social Democratic Party was the needed turning point and catalyst. Everything was thrown into the mix, in a battle fought along ideological and cultural lines, across the nation with stakeholders united by the need to stop the military from further violating Nigeria. Sadly, the June 12 struggle would be defined along the lines of identity politics, whereas it was a pan-Nigerian struggle. The military left. It was felt that the best way to resolve the matter was to zone the Presidency to Abiola’s constituency, and even to his home-town. In 1999, former Nigerian Head of State, Olusegun Obasanjo emerged as Nigeria’s civilian President. 

Obasanjo is one good example of an African leader who refused to play the politics of identity or ethnicity, or turn it into an instrument of power. He saw himself as a statesman, not on the Nigerian stage, but on the world stage and he conducted himself with great confidence and as a man who from the very first day had his eyes on the legacy of history. Instructively, he received more votes from other parts of Nigeria than from his own ethnic base. He was Nigeria’s President across all boundaries, a strong unifying factor whose understanding of the dynamics of Nigeria’s politics stood in good stead. Obasanjo’s staunchest promoters and supporters were non-Yorubas. His main critics were his own kinsmen. His Yoruba brothers who flocked to Abuja, because “their brother” was there were free to feed their own fantasies but those who tried to abuse the privilege were brutally cut down to size. Obasanjo promoted merit and talent. He hired one of the best teams ever put together by a Nigerian Head of Government. If there was any cabal during the Obasanjo era, it was the cabal of one man: Obasanjo himself. When his Vice President, Atiku Abubakar tried to carve out a space of his own without Obasanjo’s approval or knowledge, Obasanjo asserted his authority and engaged his own deputy in a battle of attrition.   

The Yar’Adua Presidency, as its official spokesperson, Olusegun Adeniyi, has pointed out was coloured by the politics of power and death;  but still, no one could accuse President Yar’Adua of actively promoting the politics of ethnicity and identity. He was the architect of the amnesty programme for Niger Delta militants; he did the groundwork for ensuring lasting peace in that troubled part of the country. It was however, under Yar’Adua that the word “cabal” crept fully into Nigeria’s political lexicon and that was due to the circumstances of his ill-health and eventual death. “Cabal” in Nigerian Presidential politics does not require much explanation, it is not “a kitchen cabinet”, it is understood as a group of persons who try to hijack power, acting either as alter ego or as power brokers who exercise power and authority on behalf of the President as proxies, or at best persons who simply take advantage of a perceived weakness or vacuum at the highest level. The cabal of the Yar’Adua days almost tore the country apart. They knew that the President was incapacitated, but they did not want the then Vice President to either act on his behalf or assume power and office. They soon gained the support of others outside the Villa who insisted that President Yar’Adua was using the slot of the North and as “their brother”, even if he died in office, a Vice President from the South would not be allowed to assume office. It became a case of “my brother” against “your brother”, with the former saying “to hell with the Constitution”.  But the Constitution prevailed and the then Vice President became President. He would later win the Presidential election of 2011. But apparently, those who thought he used part of “their brother’s tenure” never forgave him. 

President Jonathan (2010 -2015) did not use the Presidential office to play identity or ethnic politics. He built more schools in Northern Nigeria than in any other part of the country. He set up Federal universities in the North. In due course, his own kinsmen who thought their brother as President should use the office to their advantage began to grumble about him. It was natural for the Ijaws and other groups in the Niger Delta to believe that it was now “their turn” with “their brother” in office. Since 1956, Nigerian minorities have been asking for the attention of other Nigerians, and for equity and justice. The emergence of President Jonathan was meant to bring them into the mainstream. But Dr. Jonathan tried to please the same people who did not want him in power. He bent backwards for them. He talked about not abusing power, liberalism, and being God-fearing and respecting democratic principles. There were persons who warned him not to be too nice to people who wanted to subvert due process and prevent him from coming to power. Many of his “brothers” from the South South relocated to Abuja. The lobby of Transcorp Hilton Hotel and other major hotels in Abuja were taken over by walking-stick-wielding and fedora-hat-wearing power brokers from the Niger Delta. “Na our brother dey there!” They walked with majestic swagger.  Today, the hotel lobbies have been taken over by different costumes, different language and a completely different kind of swag.     

The danger with this kind of politics is that Nigerians all live in silos. The only place they feel safe is in the ethnic silo, and the hope that they will in the process find someone who will lift them up, on solely that account. Due process is sacrificed. Our institutions are sabotaged. I may have focused so far on Presidential power and politics and the effect on the ethnic imagination and identity politics, but it is the same with other institutions. When a particular Nigerian is given the reins of power in a particular office, his or her first instinct is to fill the establishment with people from the family, the village, the clan, the state, the church or her mosque. Education is not a barrier to this primitive conduct. Otherwise highly educated persons, with international exposure at the highest levels have proven to be ethnic gladiators in the corridors of power.  They often conduct themselves as if they are not aware that Nigeria is multi-ethnic. I will not name anybody. 

What happens is that the victims, those at the receiving end of this problem, end up with pain in their hearts. They feel hurt. They nurse grudges. They feel short-changed. There is a large population of Nigerians out there who believe that they could have done much better, if they did not belong to the margnialized sections of Nigeria, or if they had not been sabotaged by the politics of identity. For the purpose of this narrative, let me cite the example of Matthew Seiyefa. He was in the newspapers yesterday. Seiyefa is a former Director General of the State Security Services. He was appointed to that position on August 7, 2018 by Vice President Yemi Osinbajo. President Muhammadu Buhari was then on medical vacation in the United Kingdom. Osinbajo was Acting President. Seiyefa assumed office under rather dramatic circumstances. In August 2018, the DSS, led by Lawal Daura, sent its officers to take over the premises of the National Assembly. DSS operatives sealed off the place and chased away lawmakers. Osinbajo, in response to the outrage that this act of impunity generated, asserted the authority of his office and fired Lawal Daura and appointed Matthew Seiyefa as Acting Director-General of the DSS. Everyone hailed Osinbajo for protecting the legislature, the integrity of the constitutional order, and for saving the face of the government. There are many who insist this was the beginning of Osinbajo’s travails – a subject for another day: He sacked “a brother” of the President and appointed a Southerner, “his own brother” as DG. 

Meanwhile, according to Seiyefa, the day he was named DG of the DSS, there was dancing in the streets of Bayelsa. It was the first time a man from Bayelsa, “their own brother” would be appointed DG, DSS. In his own words, he reports: “…When August 7 last year happened, I was told of the jubilation in Bayelsa state. That they heard that one of their own is the head of a federal agency, people went to beer parlours; they bought drinks and they were happy and that moment of stakeholding in the Nigerian nation is very important.” But the people’s joy was short-lived. A month later, immediately President Buhari returned to the country, he removed Seiyefa and appointed Yusuf Bichi as DG DSS. The interpretation was that he replaced “their brother” with “his own brother.” 

Seiyefa, more than a year later was speaking at the launch of the Bayelsa State Tertiary Education Loan Scheme in his capacity as Pro-Chancellor of the Niger Delta University. He further disclosed that he had a hard time earning promotions while in the civil service, because identity politics matters more in Nigeria and you have to know either a traditional ruler or a religious leader to put in a word for you. He sounded like a man in deep pains. It is most unusual for a former Head of the Secret Police to take on the Nigerian State but Seiyefa spoke his mind and he should not be sanctioned for that – he has a right to speak and spark under the Nigerian Constitution! He said he was saved by education, and the fact that he had good education. Hear him again: “...because you are from here, (that is from the Niger Delta) you are already disadvantaged. But if you are poorly educated, then that is double jeopardy and you will be doubly endangered.” 

Seiyefa is right when he says good education helps, but not always, my brother. Has Seiyefa not seen well-educated persons in Nigeria serving as messengers to mediocre agents who flourish because their “brothers” are in charge? Has he not seen geniuses from other parts of the country kept out of school in the name of Federal Character? Does he not know that Nigeria is not fair, just or truthful to all concerned?  When will Nigeria ever rise above the politics of association? When will an educated man in Nigeria become as important as the cattle herder from Niger regardless of ethnic identity?  This is part of the burden we bear as Nigeria enters a new year under the clouds of fear, uncertainty and the politics of difference.   

ON December 20, the United States government issued a statement, speaking through the US Department of State and US Secretary of State, Michael R. Pompeo, designating Nigeria “a country of particular concern” with regard to religious freedom and the freedom of thought and conscience. The statement opens with the patronizing declaration that “the protection of religious freedom is a top Trump Administration foreign policy priority.” It adds that: “The United States continues to work diligently to promote religious freedom and combat abuses. These recent designations continue that important work.” We are further told: “…The Department renewed the placement of Comoros, Russia, and Uzbekistan on a Special Watch List (SWL) for governments that have engaged in or tolerated “severe violations of religious freedom” and added Cuba, Nicaragua, Nigeria, and Sudan to this list. Sudan was moved to the SWL due to significant steps taken by the civilian-led transitional government to address the previous “systematic, ongoing and egregious violations of religious freedom…”  

The statement goes further: “…These designations underscore the United States’ commitment to protect those who seek to exercise their freedom of religion or belief…Our actions have been and will continue to be, consistent with our position on religious freedom. No country, entity, or individual should be able to persecute people of faith without accountability. We have acted, and we will continue to do so.” 

The enabling reference for the American government’s position is the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. Our interest is the inclusion of Nigeria in the Special Watch List and the response that this has generated over the weekend, and whether this has been useful or not.  There has been a variety of responses. 

One: the Minister of Information, Alhaji Lai Mohammed says Nigerians enjoy unfettered freedom of  thought, conscience and religion, and in his view, the United States Government is wrong because Nigeria does not deserve to be on any watch list for religious persecution or the violation of the right to the freedom of thought. He adds that failed politicians and disgruntled elements are the ones latching on to the tag and narrative of religious persecution in Nigeria as a “trump card”. Let’s unpack the Minister’s claims.  Yes, constitutionally, the Nigerian Constitution, 1999 as amended, upholds in Section 38 that every citizen shall enjoy the freedom of thought, conscience and religion. The only caveat that is inserted here is Section 38 (4) which says no public official is allowed to be a member of a secret society or take part in its activity. But the problem with this provision is that it is ambiguous as to what constitutes a secret society or its membership. In addition, Section 10 of the Nigerian Constitution is of interest. It says: “the Government of the Federation or of a State shall not adopt any religion as state religion.” So, in responding to the US State Department, on the question of religious freedom in Nigeria, the Minister of Information may have had at the back of his mind, Nigeria’s constitutional provisions which can be tendered as textbook evidence. But the question that has been asked is: does Nigeria respect these constitutional provisions or the rule of law generally? Is there religious freedom in Nigeria or the freedom of thought and conscience? 

Alhaji Lai Mohammed avoids this question in attempting to respond to it. The truth is that religion remains a complex issue in Nigeria, and when the state supports, tolerates, condones or promotes one religion against a particular religion, it sows the seeds for organized intolerance, religious conflict, violence and discord. The US Department of State specifically cited Boko Haram as “an entity of particular concern” because its ideology is rooted in the politics of religion and hate. The Nigerian Government in its own National Security Strategy (2019), a 60-page document, only recently disclosed that the Boko Haram is linked to the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) and that it poses a fresh risk with its plans to deploy Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear and Explosive (CBRNE) weapons. Boko Haram is opposed to Western education and seeks to hoist an Islamic Sharia flag in every part of Nigeria. To the best of everyone’s knowledge, the Nigerian government has not been able to stop the Boko Haram menace. 

Another problem that we tend to have is that depending on who is in power, Nigerian governments have been known to violate Section 10 of the Constitution by adopting either Christianity or Islam as “de facto State religion.” Nobody may ever say so publicly or admit any bias, but it is often the case that there is mistrust in parts of the country on the basis of nothing else but religion. This is currently the position of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN), for example, in response to a situation whereby most prominent positions in the country, at the Federal level are occupied by Muslims from a particular part of the country. The conflict between herders and pastoralists in the country that has resulted in the killing of thousands and the destruction of properties, may in reality be a conflict over land and economic power, but it has also been interpreted from a religious dimension with particular accent on the failure of the government to sanction the guilty. However, religious conflict may not always be inter-religious. It could be intra—religious and sectarian. For example, the continued detention of the leader of the Shiitte Islamic sect in Nigeria, Ibrahim el-Zakzaky and his wife, has also been seen as the victimization of a rival sectarian group by a Sunni-dominated Nigerian ruling elite. The Nigerian Government says the problem of the Shiitte movement in Nigeria is of a criminal nature but the predominant narrative is that this is a case of religious persecution. 

Beyond these recent and topical examples, over the years, Nigeria has had to deal with issues of religious persecution dating back to the Maitasine riots between 1980 and 1992, and the repeated religious riots in Bauchi, Plateau and Southern Kaduna, characterized by Muslim-Christian conflict, the destruction of lives and properties, worsened by the politics of ethnicity. Christians claim to be the worse victims. Muslims also insist that they have suffered losses over the years and that Nigerian Christians cannot claim to be innocent. The key issue is: how well do our leaders deal with the problem? Is the ruling elite neutral? Nigeria is a country of very religious people. People pray as if their entire life depends on it. They worship clerics and pastors. The best business in Nigeria is the business of religion. But does religion unite us or divide us? Has it helped us? 

The Minister of Information’s additional riposte that “failed politicians and disgruntled elements” from Nigeria are the ones instigating an iniquitous narrative against Nigeria sounds rather easy and familiar. Is he suggesting that the US Government is acting as an agent for some Nigerian politicians? And disgruntled elements?  Earlier in the year a group called Nigerian Christian Elders’ Forum petitioned the UK Parliament urging its members to compel the UK to take action against the Nigerian Government for tolerating religious persecution. That protest which was signed by General Theophilus Danjuma (rtd)  - (when is he going to carry out his threat to talk by the way?) - and General Zamani Lekwot (rtd) was supported by the Middle Belt Forum and other concerned Nigerians. Incidentally, a year earlier in 2018, the UK House of Lords had discussed the issue of violence and religious persecution in Nigeria. 

It is also instructive that just as the US Department of State placed Nigeria on a Special Watch List on December 20, the Christian Broadcasting Network and a UK-based Group – the Humanitarian Aid Relief Trust (HART) issued a report accusing Nigeria of tolerating religious persecution. Are these the disgruntled persons and groups the Minister has in mind? Rather than dismiss feedbacks on religious freedom in Nigeria as untrue, the Nigerian Government should pay attention. Could there be something that we are overlooking?      

Two: in addition to the reaction by the Minister of Information, the Presidency also reacted through the President’s Senior Special Assistant on Media and Publicity, Garba Shehu who equally dismissed the US position, noting that it carries “no immediate implication” for Nigeria. On the contrary, it does. It is a subtle threat to Nigeria and a cautionary note of warning. Other Western countries may be tempted to toe the US line and place Nigeria on similar watch lists thus branding the country negatively within the international community. The US position on Nigeria has also further strengthened the hands of the Christian community in Nigeria, which through the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) has already welcomed the US position as a correct characterization of a planned Islamization of Nigeria.  CAN insists that the US Government has more facts than the Nigerian Government. Human Rights Groups in Nigeria are echoing the same narrative. The Muslim community represented by the JNI has accused the United States of bias and discrimination against Muslims. Meanwhile, Garba Shehu says Nigeria would meet with the United States to discuss ‘areas of concern” early next year. 

Three: while the suggestion by Garba Shehu that the Nigerian Government will discuss its position with the United States may seem like a subtle back-track, his colleague, Femi Adesina, the Special Adviser to the President on Media and Publicity had something entirely different to say. Adesina has been reported has having told the United States Government to stop interfering in Nigeria’s activities because nobody has appointed the US as “the policeman of the world”.  He added, we are told, that the US has its own issues and should face those issues.  Femi Adesina said precisely the same thing when, less than a month ago, the US, UK and EU expressed concern about Nigeria’s respect for human rights and the rule of law and the continued detention of activist, Omoyele Sowore. Adesina claimed that Nigeria is protected by its own sovereignty. He forgets however, each time he says this, that Nigeria is a member of the international community, bound by rules of international conduct and rules and conventions to which Nigeria is signatory. No country may cherry-pick as to which standards are most convenient for it, particularly with regard to the rule of law, due process and human rights. 

No one may have appointed the United States “the policeman of the world”, but the US as a global superior power (note that I have not said super-power but superior power – there is a difference) operates a rewards and sanctions foreign policy process that is beyond the counter-poise of other nations including China, Russia and Japan. Is Nigeria in a position to tell the US, EU and the UK to shut up? Femi Adesina would probably have been better off pointing out the hypocrisy at the heart of the Trump administration’s foreign policy process. Can that administration legitimately accuse Nigeria of condoning religious persecution when under Trump, Muslims from six Muslim-majority countries were blacklisted from entering the United States were it not for the intervention of the courts? Or is the  Trump administration waxing lyrical about religious freedom  in order to appeal to the Republican, pro-Trump, conservative, Christian base for election purposes? 

By now, it should be obvious that the Nigerian Government responded through three different persons in three different directions to a single statement by the US Department of State, all within 24 hours. This has become standard practice on recent issues, be it the rule of law, or the DSS and Sowore, the Punch Editorial on President Buhari or allegations of religious persecution in Nigeria and we wonder why key government spokespersons blow hot and cold at the same time in an un-coordinated manner. There should be greater harmony in the Presidency’s public communication process. With three different reactions on the US position on religious freedom in Nigeria, what exactly is the US expected to react to? And is there still a Ministry of Foreign Affairs? If there is, does it have any say in this matter?  

Allegations by the American Government that there is indeed evidence of religious persecution in Nigeria are too serious to be treated so perfunctorily. Religion is a very sensitive issue not only in Nigeria but all over the world. It has been exploited for political purposes with grave consequences. In Nigeria, political leaders exploit religion as a tool of manipulation. The combination of this with ethnicity and sectarianism has created some of the most terrible moments in Nigerian history. This is the enlightened context in which we should consider the word of caution from the United States. 

The first time I was in Awka, Anambra state, I had gone there to attend the Association of Nigerian Authors  (ANA)  Conference – that was many years ago. I had been to Anambra again since then, but as part of a Presidential delegation from Abuja led personally by President Goodluck Jonathan. Those visits as part of an official entourage took me to Ogidi, the home town of the literary legend, Chinua Achebe. This was on the occasion of his burial. Chinua Achebe’s death was a major loss for the whole of humanity because he was one of the finest spirits that ever lived, and he continues to live on through the immortality of his words, works, and thoughts. Achebe put Ogidi, Nigeria and Africa, on the global map. As we arrived, I kept wondering in my head whether indeed I was walking on the same soil that was once tilled by a famous fictional character called Okonkwo. Achebe was given a Christian burial and as the funeral service progressed, images from Things Fall Apart flashed through my mind: such is the power of literature -  a world of endless possibilities where fiction and reality often merge and collide in endless alterations and shaping.  I was back in Anambra, again as President Jonathan’s staff during the burial of Dim Odimegwu Ojukwu, the Biafran leader and revolutionary whose engagement with Nigeria and the sacrifice that he made for his people, the Igbos of Eastern Nigeria, will forever remain an un-eraseable chapter in the mapping of ethnic and identity politics in Africa. Ojukwu was extra-ordinary: one of those unusual occurrences in nature, a meteor, a piece of volcanic eruption, an avatar, a phenomenon whose very existence defines the meaning and nature of everything else around it, past, present and future. 

At other times, President Goodluck Jonathan was in Anambra – either to flag off a project, particularly the Second Niger Bridge, or to commission projects by the then Peter Obi-led Anambra state administration, or to campaign as was the case in 2015, for a second term in office. I was there with him. But the child-part of me always wanted to revisit Awka. Not even Onitsha, which I passed through in my younger days, on my way to and fro school in Calabar. For those who would remember, we had a successful ANA conference in Awka in those days. The local chapter of the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) not only received us well, they made very good arrangements. We were accommodated at Ikenga Hotel. In those days, ANA was a well managed association. It provided an opportunity for writers and thinkers, scholars and their students, to come together every year at a designated location to celebrate the Muse, exchange ideas, re-discover Nigeria, and honour literary achievement and originality. The old mixed with the young; the ANA annual conference was the best place to meet any major figure in Nigerian literature across the genres. There was even an annual publication; the ANA Review which promoted fine ideas and good writing. To appear in that annual publication was in itself an achievement. I served the Association for many years as a judge of annual entries for the ANA prizes. I have benefitted a lot reading the harvest of fertile seasons in Nigerian literature from ANA to the Nigerian NLG Prizes in Literature. 

Which is why it is sad and unfortunate that ANA Conferences have now lost meaning, sense and direction. I understand that this year’s ANA Conference ended up as a political war between writers loyal to the Peoples Democratic Party and loyalists of the All Progressives Congress (APC). The hijack of the community of thinkers and writers resulting in the abbreviation, manipulation and desecration of the role of writers in social thought and action is in every regard an exemplification, a very bad one, of the destruction of everything good, useful and noble in our country. So, they have taken partisan politics into ANA as a main issue?  Writers are people of ideas and action, leaders guiding the community with their thoughts. When they descend to the lowest depths, they take away every useful thing from their own moral compass. This year’s Conference, the 38^th, of the Association of Nigerian Authors (ANA) did not take place in Awka. It held in Enugu in October/November, with an interesting theme: “Literature, Nationalism and the Poetics of Integration”. But the feedback has been poor. I will comment no further, except to note that in its prime, the Association of Nigerian Authors used to be a strong civil society platform in Nigeria.  It is therefore not a flight of fancy that as I entered Anambra state, this past weekend, I remembered ANA and Awka. Chinua Achebe, a founding father of ANA, is from Anambra State. Anambra state is also the home of some of the brightest, most educated and most accomplished persons from Eastern Nigeria, and indeed the entire Igbo nation.

The road to Awka did not just invoke memories, the very encounter with the road itself was the main experience. We landed in Asaba airport, 45 minutes after take off from Murtala Muhammad Airport in Lagos. It would have been easier to go to Awka through Enugu or Akanu Ibiam International Airport in Enugu, but you’d recall that in May 2019, that airport had to be shut down, we were told, for “security reasons” – which had something to do with the fact that the runway was bad, there was a market too close to the airport and the mast of the state’s radio station had been wrongly located. This same airport has been under repairs and renovation since 2010 and it is supposed to be the international airport of the East but somehow, the authorities never got it right. After spending so much money on the same airport, it took nearly ten years to realize that the money spent between February and December 2010 yielded nothing. We have now been told that the rehabilitation of the airport will be completed in April 2020, Again, this tells the story of Nigeria from another dimension – the crisis of transportation and the absolute chaos of governance, manifest in the agony that average citizens suffer daily. It was quite an ordeal getting to Awka from Asaba.

In a short while after our setting out from the Asaba Airport in Delta State, we got to the Niger Bridge, the bridge over the Onitsha River that separates Anambra and Delta state, and Eastern Nigeria from the West. Travelling by air in Nigeria is an ordeal, going by road is painful, water transportation is virtually non-existent, rail travel which is a norm in other parts of the world is just now being introduced as an achievement. For a country of over 200 million people, not being able to move around without pain, is a tragedy! We spent hours just trying to cross the Niger Bridge. Every inch of it on both sides was truck-and-vehicle-filled. Across the bridge, to our left, in the distance, was the proposed Second Niger Bridge. It looked like an abandoned project. The old Niger Bridge had become too narrow. It was built over 30 years ago. It can no longer handle the volume of traffic and the weight that is placed on it daily. The plan to build a Second Niger Bridge made sense. But based on what I saw last Friday, it is safe to conclude that the Second Niger Bridge is an abandoned project contrary to what government tells us on the pages of newspapers. Again, another sad Nigerian story. I reflected on the madness and I was bewildered. 

Sitting beside me was Nduka Otiono, poet, essayist, polemicist, researcher, university teacher, an old and active denizen of miliki joints around town, ex-journalist, now Professor of Literature in a Canadian University.  We linked up at the Asaba airport on our way to Awka together. Otiono abandoned journalism in Nigeria.  After paying his dues in about five newspapers, working with some of the brightest journalists of the time, he relocated to the United States and later Canada, and within a period of 13 years, he moved from being a line editor and a big boy in miliki joints around Lagos to a Professor in one of the most prestigious universities in the world. Unlike many of our old colleagues, Otiono visits home regularly and when he does, he links up with the old crowd, and the amazing thing is that he sounds and behaves like he never left town. He knows all the local jokes and gossip; and he is completely without affectation. He is just the same Ikeja-axis boy of old but he has a good brain and a talent with words. As I agonized over the crisis on Nigeria’s Niger Brdige, it was Otiono, a man who had changed base and lived in better places telling me to relax and stop behaving like “a spoilt member of Nigeria’s privileged class.” We bought bottled water and I complained about drinking an unknown brand. Otiono turned the thing into laughter, reminding me of how I used to be happy with sachet water: “Drink the thing my friend, no be you dey drink pure water with us in those days? No worry, your body will remember in case you may have forgotten.”  

Talking about water, we both wondered why Nigeria has not been able to turn its water resources into a major asset.  Asaba and Onitsha are separated by a very short stretch of water. People live in Asaba, Delta State and work in Onitsha, Anambra State and vice versa. The people on both sides are linked by culture, geography and nature. But to commute from one side to the other is difficult. There has been so much talk about the Second Niger Bridge, whereas a water transport or rail link between Asaba and Onitsha could make all the difference. Otiono took a look at the water to our left and right, as our driver tried to avoid the threat of other vehicles, driving in Nigeria is like fencing, and offered an insight into how transportation is managed in Ottawa where he lives with his family. 

If the road had been good and smooth, we should have made it to Awka in less than one hour but we spent almost three hours. What I observed from Asaba to Awka was that while the roads within the states appeared good and motorable, even if the state governors still need to do more, and certainly need to be more innovative, the Trunk A roads which belong to the Federal Government are in a terrible state. Crossing over to Onitsha on a portion of road belonging to the Federal Government was painful.  Doing the same between Onitsha and Awka across Federal Government portions of the road was also stressful. Yet, the Federal Government continues to insist that state governments should not touch roads that have been classified as Federal Government Roads: If they do so, they will not be reimbursed by the Federal Government. Given the kind of delay and frustration that I experienced moving between Asaba and Awka last Friday, I conclude that there is a need for a new conversation about the ownership of roads across Nigeria. The present system is not working. It cannot work. In a Federal system, the Federal Government has no reason claiming ownership of roads outside the Federal Capital Territory. The states should be responsible for every piece of road within their territories. Moving from a good road to a bad road and having to figure out which of the portions belongs to either State or Federal Government is harmful to the mental health of Nigerians. 

…We finally made it to Awka, tired, hungry and disoriented. It was a different Awka. The village of those days has become a thriving cosmopolitan centre. Even the approach to the town was quite welcoming.  Excited, I asked for Ikenga Hotel. Everyone looked at me suspiciously. I sounded to them like the old woman who during the Yar’Adua years asked to know what Yakubu Gowon was doing about a particular problem. She was frozen in time. She didn’t know Gowon had since exited the corridors of power.  I was like that old woman as I listened to the story of how Ikenga Hotel, which used to be a symbol of cultural and identity affirmation across Eastern Nigeria, was sold off by greedy politicians. The only Ikenga Hotel that survived this rampage is in Nsukka. 

I was checked into one of the hotels of the new era, where Otiono and I soon had a reunion with Uzor Maxim Uzoatu (Boroja!), Chijioke Amu-Nnadi, and others - all in town for the public presentation of James Eze’s book of poetry titled “dispossessed”. Eze is Chief Press Secretary of Anambra State and one of our own in the literary community. I was in Awka to review his book. I also attended Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie’s event at the Golden Tulip Hotel, Agulu Lake, organized by the Purple Hibiscus Trust. Chimamanda is not just a gifted writer, she is a gift to humanity. Her event in Agulu was attended by young, aspiring writers from different parts of Africa and there she was, providing leadership and guidance, grooming the younger generation, giving back and building bridges. This is a writer beyond the ages, a beacon of hope, an authentic revelation.     

I ate correct Oha soup and I had fun at Santel World, an emergent cultural melting pot in Awka, in the company of key players in the Anambra State Government who stood by Eze and successfully showcased the Willie Obiano administration’s support for literature and the arts. The return journey to Lagos on Sunday was marred by the delay by Air Peace at the Asaba airport.

The mishandling of the Omoyele Sowore case has become clearly an albatross for the Nigerian government, an embarrassment for the incumbent Federal Government and a public relations disaster for both the Department of State Services and Nigeria as a whole. All of that was patently avoidable. Inadvertently, the Federal Government has turned Omoyele Sowore into a “hero”, a symbol for resilience against official impunity in Nigeria, and a poster figure for courage and boldness. In using the law to paint him as “an enemy of the state”, they have ended up painting the Nigerian state as an “enemy of the rule of law, due process and judicial independence.” This was a station Nigeria supposedly left with the return to civilian rule in 1999. What is happening in the Sowore case is akin to a turning back of the hands of the clock. Whatever happens, the Nigerian government with the psycho/melodrama, last week at a Federal High Court in Abuja now finds itself in a Catch-22 situation. 

Whatever may be the weight and proof of evidence at the disposal of the prosecutors, the mismanagement of the optics and the process, has turned Sowore into a hero. If he is convicted in the long run, he will be considered a prisoner of conscience. Even if the Federal Government enters a nolle prosequi, and the case dies judicially, Sowore could run as far as he can on the global stage with the national honour that the Nigerian Government would have mistakenly bestowed upon him. He and his followers have shown a greater and better understanding of the dialectics of power, history and protest than the Nigerian Government. A basic rule in this dynamics is to know the enemy, and adopt a “counter-revolutionary” strategy. In this instance, the Nigerian Government has so far played Sowore’s game and I dare say they have played into his hands. Even if they win in the court of law, or succeed in further violating the orders of the courts, I do not see the government winning in the courts of local and international public opinion. For President Muhammadu Buhari who by now should worry more about his legacy, as the clock ticks and time passes, this should be a matter of great concern beyond the incredulous statements issued by Nigeria’s secret police and the unhelpful, chest-beating declarations on his behalf by Presidential spokesman, Garba Shehu. It is sad that the Buhari administration is repeating the mistake of 1984, most unnecessarily. 

Sowore is the owner of the game so far and that is not by happenstance. He may not qualify as a man of ideology to the extent that he is not popularizing either scientific socialism or its alternative, caught as he is at the intersection of neo-liberalism complexity and a revolutionary conviction that is couched in shades of populism and opportunism. But his mastery of the psychology of protest is unimpeachable. He is definitely not new to activism and its tactics. A graduate of Geography and Regional Planning of the University of Lagos, Nigeria (1989 – 1995), and holder of a Master’s degree in Public Administration, Columbia University, United States, Sowore’s life has been one of consistent involvement in protest. He was, between 1992 and 1994, President of the Student’s Union Government at the University of Lagos. This was at a time corruption and cultism were reportedly rife at that university. Sowore turned the SUG into a machinery for exposing cultists and corrupt elements. The University expelled him twice. It took him six years to complete a four-year programme. In 1992, he led an army of 5, 100 students against the Ibrahim Babangida military government. Many activists were killed. Sowore survived. He was also a June Twelver: the pro-democracy coalition that rejected the annulment of the 1993 Presidential election that was won by Chief M.K.O Abiola. He stood with other men of conscience at the barricades. Many were killed and maimed. The Abacha military hauled hundreds of persons into jail.  Sowore would eventually find his way to a life in exile in the United States where he created an online platform, Sahara Reporters, through which he launched another campaign against excesses in Nigeria. 

I know Sowore. Let me rephrase that: I know his type, that is his persona. There are people like him who are psychologically wired to find something to fight, or protest against.  It is the adrenalin that drives them. They are motivated by the urge to change either the world or their immediate environment, and they take on that task as a mission. Whoever tries to offer them a contrary advice does so in vain; they believe that it is in a life of struggle that the meaning of life inheres. This may place their lives and the lives of others at risk but they often do not care. Their vision of reality is to identify a fault line in the immediate environment and seek to change it. The more you try to persuade them otherwise, the more they insist. When they are bored with a particular mode of intervention, they invent new ones. They often come across as selfish, stubborn and ambitious, but the curious thing is that the Establishment in seeking to protect the status quo, helps the cause of such persons by going after them with the coercive instruments of state and power. For many years, Sowore was known as a students’ union activist, anti-corruption crusader, blogger and social critic. In 2018, he decided to join partisan politics. He founded and registered a political party, the African Action Congress (AAC) and was chosen as the Presidential Candidate of the party. His main message was that Nigeria had been captured by unconscionable, incompetent and corrupt  elements to the people’s disadvantage and that the country needed to be taken back to the people. He ran a spirited campaign, falling back on his old constituency – the youth of Nigeria and students’ groups across the country. He spoke the language of the streets, and relied on street credibility. He didn’t dress like the other politicians. He didn’t speak their language. He had unusual ideas - such as proposing to legitimize the cultivation, consumption and export of marijuana as a way of diversifying the Nigerian economy and expanding the country’s revenue base. He was a maverick, and an outsider, seeking power. As is the case with his likes, he made significant impact. His party, the AAC became an issue in the Gubernatorial politics of Rivers State, even if not in a manner he approved of. In the Presidential election, Sowore came tenth with 33, 953 votes (0.12%). This should not be seen in terms of the numbers recorded, but the impact that he made in an election that was marred by irregularities and reports of manipulation. He had no money, but it was clear he had a voice and a base, beyond the actual numbers. 

Sowore had three options thereafter: he could have gone back to the United States and focus on his teaching and blogging engagements, or count his losses and hold his tails between his legs, or perhaps go to court to challenge the outcome of the 2019 Nigerian Presidential election. Instead, he condemned the outcome, and launched in due course a #RevolutionNow movement through which he announced a plan to mobilise Nigerians generally to “take the government back”. It was a bold move. It was a courageous response. It was an act of affront against the government. But unpacked, it was obvious that the strongest weapon in Sowore’s arsenal was rhetoric, free speech, orange berets and placards. He had just a handful of people around him, wearing orange berets, emblazoned with the emblem of his political party, the AAC, and non-party members who also screamed that they wanted a “revolution”. As they defined it, they wanted change and improvement in the lives of Nigerians. I was convinced that given the sociology of protests in Nigeria, the #RevolutionNow campaign was at best academic, especially given the balance of forces in the country, with all the coercive instruments of state power firmly deposited in the hands of the Buhari administration. Existential considerations in Nigeria are also so tragically circumstanced. It would take more than the wearing of berets and the chanting of slogans to move the needle. Sowore’s activism adopts the exact tactics of campus journalism, students’ unionism and civil society protest. He does not come across as a man of violence to warrant the panic response and over-reaction of the state.    

But the state, represented by the Department of Sate Services, Nigeria’s secret police, over-reacted. On August 3, 2019 they stormed Sowore’s residence in Lagos and Gestapo-style, abducted him in the middle of the night, breaking down doors and windows. Members of the #RevolutionNow protest later went ahead with the protest scheduled for August 5. Hundreds of them were arrested across Nigeria, notably in Southern Nigeria where the protest was basically concentrated. Today, the public only hears of two names in DSS custody: Omoyele Sowore and Olawale Bakare (aka Mandate). It is not impossible that there are some unnamed and overlooked #RevolutionNow protesters languishing in some Awaiting Trial prisons in parts of the country. Five months after Nigeria’s general elections in 2019, it suddenly became a crime to use the word “revolution” or make any reference to “change”. Sowore and his allies dared the state and Nigeria found itself confronted with a most problematic post-election situation. My argument is: it could all have been handled differently and far more intelligently.  

By over-reacting, the Federal Government has turned Omoyele Sowore into “the Bobi Wine of Nigeria.”  Nigeria’s Department of State Services has only managed to increase Sowore’s political capital. 

He was granted bail on September 24, 2019. The secret police ignored the court’s order.  The Court varied the original terms, upon request by Sowore’s counsel and granted another bail order on October 4.  Nigeria’s secret police again disobeyed the court. It constituted itself into a Court of Appeal, and gave conditions not contained in the Order of Court. The agency further indulged itself with rationalisation that simply looked stupid in the eyes of right-thinking members of society: (1) “Sowore and other detained persons prefer to stay in DSS detention because the agency has five-star facilities” (does that sound intelligent?) and (2): “Sowore is better off in the custody of the state secret police so he doesn’t get killed by a hit and run vehicle” (auto-suggestion?), and (3) “The DSS could not release Sowore and Bakare because nobody had shown up to receive them (how about the counsel – Femi Falana, SAN,  who retorted that he had made every effort to receive the detained persons, now legitimately granted bail, but not even the Director General of DSS, who is well known to him,  would grant him audience?) and (4) “For Sowore and Bakare to be released, their sureties must report to the DSS and go through proper documentation” (was that part of the bail conditions declared by the Court – No?). 

In the face of public outrage, the DSS bared its fangs. When a group of Concerned Nigerians tried to visit the DSS Headquarters in Abuja to demand the release of Swore and Bakare in compliance with Court Orders, they were tear-gassed, brutalized, shot at and dispersed. On December 4, the court of Justice Ijeoma Ojukwu gave the DSS a 24-hour ultimatum to release Swore and pay him a sum of N100, 000 as damages or face the wrath of the law.  Clearly in response to the outrage and the vitriolic comments that the government’s brazen disregard for the rule of law had generated, and the threat by the Court to charge the DSS boss for contempt, the agency promptly complied. Sowore and Bakare were released. On December 5, both parties were back in Court and the judge fixed the commencement of trial on the 4-count charge against Sowore -  treason, money laundering, insulting the President and cyberstalking -  for February 11, 2020. The Judge even praised the DSS for respecting her ruling of December 4. But then hell broke loose as the DSS re-arrested Sowore within court premises without an arrest warrant and an order of detention and without recourse to the court of law. In 24 hours, the DSS reversed itself and in doing so, embarrassed the Nigerian government and exposed it to ridicule.

There have been conflicting versions of what exactly transpired, but whatever that was, it is Omoyele Sowore and his counsel who are controlling the narrative. Nobody believes the DSS! An intelligence agency should never lose the trust and confidence of the people. It must not become partisan. In 2018, a team of DSS officers attacked the National Assembly. In 2019, the same DSS took over the premises of a Federal High Court and abducted a man standing trial. Nigerians are convinced that the DSS is pursuing a political agenda. No amount of press statements can correct that impression at this point. The Presidency’s statement “in support of the DSS” is also absurd because it puts President Buhari on the spot. No state official should ever use the President as “a scapegoat.”  Others should take the bullets for him. The public has every right to accuse the President because he is the Head of Government and Head of Sate but to tell the public that an agency of the Executive arm of government can do as it wishes because it has a constitutional mandate and that the President should not be blamed is an endorsement of fascism. 

The Presidency is urged to take notice of the local and international reactions to the Sowore saga and retrace its steps. Release Sowore and Bakare, investigate and sanction rogue elements in the DSS, and design a strategy to change the narrative. Many revolutionaries often fail by overstretching their luck and by over-estimating their own preparedness. Sowore in the course of his present travails should also watch his back. His wife, mother and children want him back alive, and they have the backing of the United States and the Nigerian civil society.  He too should learn to live and fight another day: (because) “… he who is in battle slain can never rise to fight again” (Oliver Goldsmith). 

Members of the Nigerian National Assembly, and by extension lawmakers across the country, have been under scrutiny lately with regard to their engagements with citizen-voters whose interest they are expected to represent in parliament. Two issues: constituency projects and constituency offices. President Muhammadu Buhari brought the issue of constituency projects to public attention when at an event organized by the Independent Corrupt Practices and Other Related Offences Commission (ICPC), in November, he lamented that there is very little evidence or benefit to the grassroots of the One Trillion Naira that had been earmarked for constituency projects in the last 10 years. This is the main finding of a tracking report on Constituency Projects conducted by the ICPC, the anti-corruption agency which has further announced that the North East is the most affected region where constituency projects were not carried out, or abandoned either due to Boko Haram insurgency or the negligence of the lawmakers from the area. ICPC is launching a probe. The second issue is that of constituency offices. In its lead story of Monday, December 2, 2019, The Punch newspaperfocused at length on the issue of constituency offices: “Five months after inauguration: Senators yet to set up constituency offices – Lawmakers shun constituents. People seek assistance for social events – Senators,” the paper declares. I intend to deal with this latter issue first and subsequently return  to the matter of constituency projects.

Lawmakers are expected to have constituency offices in the same manner in which they open campaign offices during the election season. A constituency office is a contact address for keeping in touch with the public, a place where the lawmaker can be contacted by his constituents to engage and relate with him, submit petitions for his attention and action, obtain feedback from him about his work in the legislature and draw his attention to community priorities or basically seek help from him or her. Every state in Nigeria has a state of Assembly with members representing local governments. There are 109 members in the Senate, located in the Federal Capital Territory and 360 seats in the House of Representatives. Every lawmaker represents a constituency, they link national and state politics to the grassroots, reinforcing the notion that politics is essentially local and people-centred. In most jurisdictions, constituency offices are funded by parliament or the executive, and the lawmaker gets a constituency allowance to maintain a properly staffed office. Usually, the legislative calendar is also structured in such a way that lawmakers are given enough time within a year to enable them return to base to interact with the people they represent.  

The investigative story in The Punch, earlier referenced, reveals what many Nigerians have always observed since the return to civilian rule in 1999: that is the alienation between parliamentarians and the people, and the urgent need for parliamentary strengthening within the context of citizen relations and wider local, political and sociological forces. The Punch reveals that most law makers in the Senate, five months after the 2019 general elections, do not have any office in their constituencies. The same can be said for other lawmakers. Those who probably have offices are in the minority. This is the Nigerian way. Politicians tend to remember the people only during election seasons.  In order to get the people’s votes, in those places where the people are still allowed to make their own choice unfettered, the political office seeker needs to be seen to be popular with the people, he or she must have followers and supporters.  A politician seeking a position cannot close the doors to either his office or home: he must maintain an open door policy. Many of the visitors to his home or campaign office may even be members of the opposition parties. He is obliged to welcome them and find ways to encourage them to switch their loyalty to him and his party. In the home of a Nigerian politician, food and drinks during the campaign season must not be in short supply. People will eat and drink and collect transport fare, even if they live within the neighborhood. The politician needs them. They too need him. They serve one purpose in particular: apart from keeping the campaign machinery going; they also help to keep hope alive. They will never tell the politician that he would lose the election or that he is unpopular. They will oxygenate him with so much hope, he would begin to see visions of overwhelming victory. Of what use is a Nigerian politician if nobody visits?

But this relationship often changes shape and colour immediately after the elections have been won and lost. The politician who loses election shuts his doors and withdraws into his shell to go count his losses in the privacy of his space. The supporters also instinctively withdraw, leaving behind only a core group of close associates. The crowd would eventually thin out: the same supporters who predicted victory would quietly move on to support the winner of the election. Politicians are pragmatists: even if they are die-hard party members, you can legitimately expect some of them to jump ship. But the major point in The Punch lead story is how politicians having secured victory at the polls tend to abandon the people. They become inaccessible. They lock their gates, now manned by fierce-looking security guards or able-bodied men or both. The same man who used to buy roasted corn by the road side and personally serve the political crowd food, suddenly hides inside bullet proof vehicles, and siren-blaring convoy. He is now “Your Excellency.”  If he is a Governor, he moves into Government House which is a no-go-area for ordinary people. If he is a Member of the House of Assembly, he becomes “Honourable” and he leaves the neighborhood for Legislative Quarters, in a secluded part of the state capital. Don’t expect to see him coming around to play football with his age mates as he used to before he rode on the people’s back to the Assembly. If he is elected as a member of the National Assembly, he would rather hide in Abuja. He may open a constituency office, but you’d never find him there. The poor boy or girl who occasionally keeps the place open to create an impression, has a ready answer: “Honourable is in Abuja!” “Senator is not around.” 

Thus, the objective of representation/accountability, citizen engagement and feedback, is defeated. The Punch in its story interviewed a number of Senators. While one or two affirm that they run constituency offices, the overall impression is that this is not the case generally. And why? We are told that some lawmakers stay away from their constituencies for security reasons. Lawmakers from the North West and the North East run away from their constituencies either because of Boko Haram insurgency or the fear of being attacked. One Northern lawmaker was once stripped naked and given the beating of his life by his constituents. Lawmakers from the East are afraid of kidnappers… But generally, lawmakers complain about the pressure they face whenever they have any encounter with their constituents or other members of society. It is as if nobody is interested in their main assignment of defending the people’s interests and making laws for good governance while also acting as a check on the Executive arm of government. The people are just interested in financial help: they want the lawmaker to help pay hospital bills, feed their families, get jobs for their children, sponsor a wedding, attend a funeral and make a generous contribution towards every expense. Community groups, religious bodies, market women associations, the council of church elders, the association of herbalists and spiritual masters…they all seek financial help from the elected representative. Many are unable to bear the pressure. They simply run away, or go into hiding. They hide in Abuja or the state capital. Nigerian politics, before or after the election, is so money-driven, a weak politician may be tempted to resort to armed robbery in order to live up to expectations. The crisis is complicated by the lack of opportunities for the people, and the widespread epidemic of poverty in the land. The country lacks a social security system. Politicians and their political parties have no poverty reduction strategies. Nonetheless, no politician should run away from the people because they seek help from him or her. Constituency work is part of the lawmaker’s mandate. To build a positive reputation, he must connect with citizens and other politicians. 

What often happens in this regard, is that as another election cycle approaches and the politician needs the people again to achieve his ambition, he suddenly rediscovers them.  He goes back home bearing cash and other gifts. Each politician has his or her style: they could distribute cash, clothing materials, phone sets, grinding machines, generators, motorcycles and tricycles, bags of rice, kegs of ground oil. Food is prepared. A musician is invited to entertain the people. But the politician makes sure the photographs of the items to be distributed are carefully taken and the event itself is video-taped. Journalists are invited to cover the event of course. The politician grants interviews professing his love for “my people.” Usually, the money that is spent on publicity and self-promotion is more than the actual amount spent on the people. It is also common these days to have anyone in power set up a Foundation. One lawmaker bought two electric poles and dug a borehole for his community. Another one built a latrine. Both men advertised the events in newspapers and on national television! 

These politicians would later turn around to boast that they have provided constituency projects in their communities.  They are rewarded with chieftaincy titles, the Knighthood of Forgotten Saints, or some other decorations. But what is a constituency project? Do National Assembly members fund constituency projects from their own pockets? If they do, so why would the allocation for Constituency Projects be a matter of contention between the Executive and the Legislature during every budget preparation and consideration process? If constituency projects are budgeted for in Nigeria, is the Fund handed over to each lawmaker as is the case in some other African countries? Since President Buhari and the ICPC brought up the matter of constituency projects in the last month, members of the National Assembly have been having a meltdown trying to defend themselves. Femi Gbajabiamila, Speaker of the House of Representatives in response to the allegation that Constituency Projects have swallowed over a Trillion Naira, responded that only N500 billion was released. So, who and who got the N500 billion? Where are the projects?  Who are the contractors? Other lawmakers have told us that their only connection with constituency projects is to help identify priority and useful projects in their constituencies. They insist that the projects are implemented by the Executive through Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) and if anybody is to be held accountable it should be these MDAs. This same position was repeated by Senator Ali Ndume, (Borno South –APC), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Army, in response to the ICPC claim that the worst abuse of constituency projects is in the North East where Ndume hails from. My gut feeling is that we certainly do not know enough about these constituency projects. There is something we need to know that nobody is telling us.  At least not yet. For example, are there members of the National Assembly who also double as contractors to the MDAs for the execution of constituency projects?  

Senator Ali Ndume says he is proposing a bill for the establishment of a Commission to track constituency projects. I disagree. Monitoring and evaluation of constituency projects is important, but Nigeria does not need a whole Commission to do that. The first step would be for the National Assembly to have a proper data base on constituency projects: which project is being done and where? Who is the lawmaker behind it and which constituency, MDA or contractor is involved? The relevant Committees of the National Assembly should also monitor the projects and the disbursements, and every detail should be made public, particularly for the benefit of the constituents who are the direct beneficiaries. Perhaps when the constituents are properly informed about these projects, they will have every reason to ask questions. For now, politicians throw money at their constituents whenever they can, while accountability is shoved aside. The political parties also have no structure or means for monitoring the performance or the commitment of their members in public positions. That too, must change. Every politician in public office must open a constituency office and make himself or herself available to the people.  A new typology of role playing for Nigerian politicians and a strategic pattern of behavior aligning district behavior with national responsibilities in general is what we need.         

 Governor of Osun State, Adegboyega Oyetola

Tomorrow, November 27, 2019, it would be exactly one year since the Governor of Osun State, Adegboyega Oyetola was sworn in as Governor of Osun State. The circumstances of his emergence as Governor were quite controversial at the time, especially as the Osun Gubernatorial election was analyzed in the context of the then forthcoming general elections in February/March 2019. The election in Osun, and the one that came earlier in July 2018 in Ekiti state were both seen as dress rehearsals, and indeed a test for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), the security agencies and all the institutions and stakeholders involved in the election management process. The Osun Gubernatorial election was held on September 22, 2018. The Electoral Commission declared the election inconclusive in seven polling units across four council areas in the state, and a re-run in those areas was scheduled for September 27, 2018: one polling unit in Oyere in Ife-North, one polling unit in Olode in Ife-South, one polling unit in Osi, Ife South, three polling units in Orolu, Kajola LGA, and one polling unit in Osogbo.

After the re-run, Oyetola was declared winner with a total number of 255, 505 votes while Senator Ademola Adeleke of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) got 255, 023 votes. There were protests. The Peoples Democratic Party kicked. The Coalition of Political Parties (CUPP) cried blue murder. Local and international observers reported that there had been a foul play. This was for a reason: in the original election of September 22, 2018, Ademola Adeleke of the PDP had won the election with 353 votes:  254, 698 votes against Oyetola’s 254, 345 votes. The total vote in the seven polling units that decided the final outcome in the re-run was a mere 2, 637 votes. 

The PDP therefore insisted that its candidate had been robbed, and that the election had been manipulated to favour the candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC). Many observers focused on the role of Senator Iyiola Omisore, former chieftain of the PDP who became gubernatorial candidate of the Social Democratic Party (SDP).  He came third in the September 22 election. He was accused of selling out to the All Progressives Congress (APC) whose chieftains visited him and reportedly cut a deal with him ahead of the September 27 re-run. For record purposes, PDP leaders led by Senator Bukola Saraki also visited Omisore.  Three of the contested polling units were in Omisore’s constituency: Ife North and Ife South.  Omisore became the beautiful bride of the re-run, and with him leaning t6owards the APC, the calculations favoured the APC. The PDP lost out. In the end, the PDP dismissed the Osun election and its outcome as “a black day” for Nigeria. The party went to the Election Petition Tribunal. Its candidate also insisted before the Tribunal that he was the rightful winner of the Gubernatorial election in Osun State. He dismissed the result announced by INEC as a “419 result” that should not be allowed to stand. The APC through its spokespersons enjoined the people of Osun State to ignore the ranting of losers. 

The dispute went from the Tribunal, to the Appeal Court, all the way to the Supreme Court. At the level of the Election Petitions Tribunal, Ademola Adeleke of the PDP was declared winner. The three-man panel voted 2-1, to dismiss the September 27, 2018 re-run, supplementary, election as illegal. The Tribunal ruled that Adeleke won the election at the first ballot on September 22, 2018, and hence, the declaration of Oyetola as winner was “null and void.” Oyetola and the APC naturally appealed the Tribunal’s judgement. What followed was tha  the Appeal Court ruled in their favour resolving 10 out of the 12 issues raised on appeal, in favour of Oyetola. The five-man panel voted 4-1 with Justice George Ita Mbaba dissenting.

The legal contestation did not end here. It continued at the Supreme Court. On Friday, July 5, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled in a split decision of 5-2 that the proceedings and the majority judgment of the Osun State Election Petition Tribunal could not stand. Thus, five Justices of the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Appeal Court in the matter and nullified the decision of the Tribunal. Oyetola’s election was thus validated. Aggrieved PDP politicians argued that Gboyega Oyetola was helped by the power of  APC incumbency at both state and Federal levels, and that the Osun election had been manipulated from the polls to the courts. There were also two other theories: one, that Oyetola was chosen as Rauf Aregbesola’s successor based on an internal arrangement between him and APC leader, Bola Tinubu and two, that Oyetola is Tinubu’s relation who was installed to sustain and re-affirm Tinubu’s influence in his “alleged original homestead”. In politics, there is never a shortage of conspiracy theories. But in an unusual show of magnanimity, Senator Ademola Adeleke, the PDP Gubernatorial candidate, promptly congratulated Governor Gboyega Oyetola on his victory at the Supreme Court.  He said he accepted the ruling of the Supreme Court, “no matter his misgivings” because for him, the election was “never a do-or-die affair”. Good point. 

While the litigation lasted, Governor Gboyega Oyetola ran what could at best be described as an “interim government.”  He was Governor of Osun state for 10 months with just a handful of supervisors – seven actually- and a few aides. It was only on September 24, 2019, two months after the validation of his mandate by the Supreme Court that he sent a list of commissioner-designates and special advisers to the Osun State House of Assembly as Governor.  My preliminary comment is that there are many lessons to be learnt from the debacle of the Osun State Gubernatorial election of 2018 and the emergence of Governor Oyetola as de facto and de jure Governor of the State. 

Osun State was meant to be the dress and technical rehearsal for the 2019 general elections in Nigeria, but ironically, it is from this same Osun State that we have seen the most notable demonstration of civility, common sense and maturity in the management of electoral crisis. The leadership of the two major political parties in the state - APC and PDP, against local and external promptings, refused the temptation to escalate the political differences in the state. Adeleke displayed maturity. Oyetola of the APC has been calm and level headed through the storm. They have both shown us that whereas elections may lead to a storm, it is the survival of the state and the people’s welfare that is supreme. Other elections have been held since the Osun election of 2018 and we have all seen on graphic display, the greed and madness of the political elite. Osun despite all negative predictions, remains stable and peaceful. 

As Gboyega Oyetola celebrates his one year in office tomorrow, and his survival of the travails of his emergence, it seems to me that he deserves a round of applause. Let me state that I don’t have a dog in Osun politics, what the people of Osun state do to themselves cannot in any way affect the price of a cup of garri (cassava flakes) in my own state of origin. I am a completely neutral observer, taking us back to the roots of the 2019 electoral process and what became of our expectations in the case of Osun under review, for us to look back, remember, reflect and ask the question: how far? When political gladiators fight, it is the people that suffer. Whatever happened in Osun state in 2018, is not even anything close to what we have witnessed in the Gubernatorial elections in Rivers, Zamfara, Kano, Kogi and Bayelsa states and it is the people who are waiting to suffer. What I see in Osun is the attempt by the Governor to make up for the delay and the crisis that attended the process of his emergence. From functioning as an interim, cautious leader, he has since the Supreme Court verdict crawled out of his shell. The appointment of Commissioners and Special advisers is one indication of his determination to set sail. 

But perhaps the biggest and loudest demonstration of his vision, ambition and focus is the Osun Economic and Investment Summit, 2019, which held in Osogbo, the state capital, November 19 -21, 2019, that is last week, and just a week ahead of Oyetola’s one year in office. The event was originally scheduled for June 25 to 27, 2019 to be declared open by the Vice President of Nigeria, Professor Yemi Osinbajo, but it was then postponed, I guess understandably. At the originally scheduled time, Oyetola had unresolved matters before the court, challenging his status. As at July 5 2019, his position as de jure Governor had already been confirmed. His decision to hold the Osun Economic Investment Summit, November 19 – 21, was in a sense an affirmation of his confidence in his status.  If anyone was in any doubt about Oyetola’s mission, he has now made it very clear what that mission is. The Osun Economic Investment Summit is meant “to promote investment in identified sectors to guarantee continuous growth of the state’s economy: youth employment, food security, agricultural development, tourism, and the state’s mining prospects.” The theme of the summit is “pathway to economic growth for the state of Osun 2019.” It was a well attended Summit and by all accounts, it was successful.

But note this: Osun state is one of the poorest states in Nigeria. Its close to five million people are mired in poverty because over the years, let’s say since 1999, successive administrations have taken advantage of the people. They reduced Osun state to a civil servant state, relying on hand-outs from the Federation Account. Oyetola is the fourth civilian Governor of the state since 1999.  Before him, Chief Bisi Akande ran the state with moral authority.  Olagunsoye Oyinlola had the right connections and influence. Comrade Rauf Aregbesola brought into play a socialist philosophy but he ended up being the most anti-worker Governor in Osun State since inception. Oyetola served as Aregbesola’s Chief of Staff. With his Economic and Investment Summit and road map, he asserts his independent economic philosophy. Nonetheless, he has to manage it carefully. 

Osun is one of the most resourced states in the South West. It is an agro-based economy turned into a civil servant state. It is also the foremost cultural hub in the South West region of Nigeria. Osun State is the home of the cultural majesty of the Ooni of Ife, the Alaafin of Oyo and some of the foremost Obas in Yorubaland. A substantial heritage of the Yoruba Empire sits in Osun State. It is the cradle of the Yorubas. Osun State is also the home of the University of Ife, later named after the Yoruba icon, legend and spirit, Chief Obafemi Awolowo. Most Yoruba communities, local and diaspora, also trace their ancestry and roots to Osun State. The most significant tourism sites in the South West are situated in Osun State. Osun state alone boasts of 78 annual festivals and 65 tourism sites. Osun is better resourced culturally and tourism-wise than Dubai, Hong Kong and Seychelles. It has a population of close to five million. But unlike Dubai, Osun State till date has not explored its potentials. Everyone knows about the Osun Oshogbo festival and the cultural strength of Osun State. But Osun state’s tourism potential has so far been organized as events, not as economic opportunities. In fact, some of the leading artistes in Nigeria are from Osun State: Nike, Duro Ladipo, and Wale Ogunyemi of blessed memory, Muraina Oyelami, and a long list of actors and artistes. Osun state is the cultural epicenter of Yorubaland.  Ironically, it is also the crossroads of tradition and modernity: Osun State has the largest collection of pastors, prophets and prophetesses in Nigeria.  

Osun state is also agro-based. Its people are primarily farmers and they are hard-working and productive. But the obsession with petro-dollar by the 70s made every Nigerian lazy.  By the late 70s, the people of Osun State, like others in the Western region who used to survive and progress on the basis of the wealth and sweat of their own region in the 60s, began to depend on the extractive products of the Niger Delta region. They stopped farming. They abandoned their comparative advantage. Oyetola wants to change that. He wants to turn around the economy of Osun State.  Osun State has gold deposits and an overlooked mining economy. The Odutola Brothers of Ijebu Ode started their business empire as gold miners in Ilesa which is part of the present Osun state. As the biographer of one (opportunity provided by Baba Obasanjo) and “son/friend of the other”, I am in a positon to say that Osun state had been a viable state long before Oyetola was born. His attempt to revive the state’ s potential through economy and investment deserves support and encouragement. His focus on tourism and agriculture is brilliant. 

As he celebrates his one year in office tomorrow, he should move beyond the politics of his emergence, and focus on making life better for the people of Osun State. So far, he has put his hands on a good thing. He must realize however that there are other issues of urgent consideration. He must work with the Federal Government to ensure the right enabling environment. The road to Osun state, from every direction, is in very bad shape. Whoever wants to invest in Osun State should have stress-free access. The roads, in and out, must be motorable. The security of lives must also be guaranteed. Late-coming to events in Osun State must be abolished as state policy. He is allowed to dance and wine tomorrow, but the morning after, let him remember his many promises to the people who earnestly hope that he would do better than those who came before him.  The Osun Economic Investment Summit should not be a jamboree or another event: it should be a new beginning for Osun state in all the identified sectors: from mining to agriculture to ICT and tourism, and if I may add- governance!  

 Tunde Fowler

When, in October, President Muhammadu Buhari presented to the National Assembly the Appropriation Bill for 2020, he submitted along with the budget proposal as it is known, a Fiscal Strategy or Finance Bill, 2019. The Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning has since then spoken about the importance of the Finance Bill, to the growth of the Nigerian economy. The stated objective is to promote fiscal equity, address problems with the prevailing taxation order, and reform existing taxation laws in line with global best practices. The Bill contains changes to the Companies and Income Tax Act, Value Added Tax Act (which has been quite controversial), Personal Income Tax Act, Capital Gains Tax Act (CGTA), Customs and Excise Tariff (Consolidation) Act, Stamp Duties Act and Petroleum Profits Tax Act (PPTA). Overall, the Bill seeks to expand the government’s revenue base, strengthen the extant regulatory framework (??) and also provide incentives for small and medium scale enterprises as engines of economic growth and development.  The Minister is pleased that the Bill has already passed the second reading stage in the National Assembly. No one should be surprised about that. The present National Assembly will pass anything presented to it by the Executive with unprecedented enthusiasm.  

It should be noted, however, that despite all efforts that have been made to reform taxation in Nigeria and turn taxation into a strong vehicle for effective governance, Nigeria’s tax receipts have remained relatively low. The country’s tax-to GDP ratio is one of the lowest in the world. It is far below the average in sub-Saharan Africa. The Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) targets a tax-to-GDP ratio of 15% by 2020.  Current efforts by the Nigerian government to focus on tax reform is in part a response to arguments by both home-based and foreign analysts that Nigeria needs to diversify its revenue base, and expand government revenue if it hopes to meet its targets of double-digit economic growth, wealth creation and sustainable development through foreign direct investment and local entrepreneurship, and of course a tax-to-GDP ratio of 15% by 2020, which is certainly, ambitious because the real problem is productivity and earnings. 

There are specific challenges that stand in the way of these targets: (a) Nigeria’s over-dependence on extractives, particular crude oil, which accounts for 80% of the country’s forex receipts, and a casual attitude to revenue collection and taxation – for 20 years, for example,  nobody deemed it necessary to protect Nigeria’s interest under Section 16 of the Production Sharing Contracts Agreements Act with international oil companies – resulting in a calculated loss of between $28 - $62 billion dollars for the country; (b) the weakness of tax laws, institutions and policies in the country, the effect of which is a low quality tax system; (c) the negative attitude of the Nigerian tax payer towards taxation. The average Nigerian tax payer does not trust the tax authorities and (d) there are also issues of transparency, accountability – (that is lack of accountability for collected revenues) and good governance which accounts for the poor administration of the country’s tax system. 

It must be admitted nonetheless that there is some merit to the cumulative efforts that have been made over the years, to transform the tax regime in the country, or to be more specific, to encourage non-oil revenues, and mobilise non-compliant taxpayers to see the need for tax payment as a civic responsibility. After independence, an Income Tax Management Act (ITMA) was enacted in 1961. There was also the Companies Income Tax Act No 22 of 1961 (CITA) which placed corporate taxation under the control of the Federal Board of Inland Revenue (FBIR). In 1979, CITA, 1961 was replaced with the CITA Decree No. 28 of 1979. The FBIR was responsible for the operationalization of the Act. In 1991, the Federal Government set up a study group on Nigeria’s tax system, whose recommendation led to the Finance Decree of 1993 and the establishment of the Federal Inland Revenue Service (FIRS), State Boards of Internal Revenue and Local Government Revenue Committees.  There were other efforts at tax reform in 1992 (led by Dr. Sylvester Ugoh), in 2002 (led by Professor Dotun Phillips), in 2004 (led by Seyi Bickersteth) and in 2012 (led by Mckinsey and Co). The turning point at the Federal level was in 2004. 

At the state level, Lagos State took the lead in this regard as far back as 1999 and by 2007, the state was already directly reminding Lagos residents of how tax payer’s money was working for them thus linking taxation to good governance and accountability.  Many Nigerians are not motivated to pay tax though, because they do not trust the political elite or tax administrators and they hardly ever see why they should pay tax when everyone else is enjoying oil money. Tax evasion is therefore common and this is even facilitated by tax officials who take a cut of the reviewed rates and help to doctor the papers. In truth, tax payers do not also see why they should pay any tax when paid taxes are likely to be mismanaged to fund the wasteful official and private lives of elected or appointed officials. Given new realities however, that is: the volatility of oil prices, the pro-climate change, anti-hydrocarbon lobby, increase in the production of Shale oil, increased inventories in non-OPEC countries, high budget deficit, mounting debt, a weak national currency, shifts in geo-politics beyond local control, slow domestic economic growth, Nigeria has every need to adopt new, workable and sustainable strategies. Institutionalizing a strong tax governance regime is only one of many options, but beyond all the problems already identified, the biggest challenge is the needless politicization of tax administration in Nigeria.  

This is precisely what the Minister of Finance, Budget and National Planning and the President should worry about if Nigeria must achieve its stated objectives and targets with regard to revenue mobilisation and an efficient tax system. How can we insulate Nigeria’s tax system from politics and the greed of politicians? How do we ensure that an engine of growth and development does not become a play-field for political conflicts? I raise this point because this is what has been happening in the FIRS, and even at the state levels in recent times. Politicians want to get hold of the tax office. It is the favorite posting for anybody that a Godfather wants to help. Every jobless man wants his first job to be in the tax office or Customs or any department of government that is considered “juicy”. The juiciness or non-juiciness of an appointment must be a uniquely African and Nigerian invention. The way it works out is that whoever is appointed to a position that is considered “juicy” or influential is considered a target for attack and blackmail. Everybody wants the position. And the detractors would go to any length to pull the person occupying the attractive office down. We have seen traces of that in every administration and also in this administration.  Public service is an arena where you cannot trust anybody. You have to constantly look behind your shoulders. There are civil servants who tell you: “Yes sir, Yes sir” every other minute but they are busy compiling evidence against you to be used the day the Devil seizes control of their souls. There are politicians who believe that the office you occupy belongs to them because their kinsman is the President. 

Nigeria wants to diversify its revenue base and strengthen its revenue collection system. How do we do this without the threat of primitive politics? With regard to revenue collection, two departments of government at the Federal level are of primary importance: the Federal Inland Revenue Service and the Department of Customs and Excise. If President Buhari’s advisers would tell him the truth, he should know that both departments are in the eye of the storm. Some people and stakeholders want the leaders of both departments of government changed. In fact, with immediate effect if possible. I have nothing against Col. Hameed Ali. He can be there indeed for as long as the President needs his services in line with the Enabling Act but he needs to tone down his military-style tactics. The Customs under his watch has been more military than para-military. Locking down people’s shops, harassing car dealers and seizing cellophane bags of rice, turning the Customs into a military unit create the wrong impression, but no one can doubt the fact, however, that Hammed Ali loves his job and that he means well for Nigeria. With a little change of style and tactics, he is probably the Customs Manager that Nigeria needs. Those who are insisting that he should not be re-appointed should check his records of performance and state in clear terms their objections to his methods. 

Like Hameed Ali, Babatunde Fowler who heads the Federal Inland Revenue Service, the operational department for internal revenue is similarly embattled. There have been complaints and petitions against him purportedly signed by faceless and nameless staff who accuse him of all kinds of infractions including the engagement of consultants and using FIRS money to attend parties every weekend. Fowler denied all the allegations. His cowardly detractors have not provided any concrete evidence. When the blackmail failed, one Mr. Okwara, an Abuja-based lawyer went to court in Kano to ask Babatunde Fowler to vacate his office, on the grounds that his tenure expired in August 2019, having been appointed on August 20, 2015. The plaintiff alleged that Fowler’s continued stay in office is illegal unless he is re-appointed by President Muhammadu Buhari. Counsel for Fowler raised issues of locus standi and jurisdiction. The Court eventually threw out the case noting that whereas Fowler was appointed in acting capacity in August 2015, the effective date of his appointment was December 15, 2015, the very day the Senate conveyed its approval of his appointment. 

In August 2019, Fowler further received a query from the office of the Chief of Staff on the failure of the FIRS to meet revenue projections. He was required to explain “significant variances between the budgeted collections and actual collections for the period 2015 to 2018.”  Mischief-makers seized upon this to allege that they had been been vindicated.  Fowler responded to the query, and the Presidency issued a statement to say that t the FIRS boss was not being probed by the Presidency. Given the fact that the FIRS and Customs and other revenue collection agencies of government are given set targets, and the history of abuse of the processing of revenues, it should not come as a surprise if the Presidency demands explanations. 

But what is clear is that whenever a person’s tenure in government is about to end, especially if the person is imagined, thought, or considered, to be occupying a “juicy” position, and such a person is eligible for re-appointment, other persons who are interested in that position would embark on a campaign of blackmail and calumny. Their goal is to influence the appointing authority to get their quarry out of office in as vicious a manner as possible.  With regard to Nigeria’s fiscal strategy going forward, the Nigerian government must separate politics from policy if it hopes to make any difference. To avoid taking any rash decision, beyond policy, the administration must ask critical questions and conduct a proper audit of the revenue collection agencies, and their leadership.  Is Hameed Ali, a soldier in Customs, terrorizing everybody as alleged? Even if he brings in high revenue? The people who accuse Fowler in FIRS, do they mean well for Nigeria or they are just resisting change? What is their motive? Do they just want Fowler out because they think he is close to persons who may be interested in the Presidential politics of 2023?

I understand Hameed Ali has nothing to fear. But Fowler? Appointed in August 2015 in an acting capacity, and subsequently as Chairman of the FIRS in December 2015, Babatunde Fowler’s first tenure appointment expires on December 15, 2019. He can only remain in that position if he is re-appointed by the President. Fowler, a former banker, was the pioneer Chair of the Lagos State Inland Revenue Service (LIRS). When he assumed office at the Federal level in 2015, FIRS revenue stood at N3.2 trillion. The figure at the end of 2018 was N5.3 trillion, this increase came at a time the economy suffered recession and oil prices crashed. Fowler’s FIRS recorded non-oil tax revenue of N2.85 trillion in 2018 alone, representing more than half of the total revenue for the year. He encouraged innovation and automation.  In 2016, he was elected President/Chairman of the African tax body, the African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF). In October 2018, he was re-elected for another term of two years in that position.  His term expires in October 2020 as head of the African Tax Forum. In 2017, the UN Secretary-General, Antonio Guterres further appointed Babatunde Fowler as a member of the International Experts Committee on Tax Matters. 

As I write, Fowler is in Kampala Uganda, as Nigeria’s ambassador, providing leadership as Africa’s Tax Chief. The African Tax Administration Forum (ATAF) is by the way, 10 years old today. The 4^th Conference of African Tax Administrators, international organizations, civil society groups, academics and policy makers is also being held today in Kampala, Uganda, the same city where the inaugural meeting of the Forum was held in 2009. The Forum’s theme for this year is “Innovation: Digitalization and Harnessing Technology ICT to improve tax systems”. Nigeria’s Babatunde Fowler is leading that entire process. Back home, he is being derided by some faceless characters. Those who should be proud of him are trying to pull him down. We must not reduce tax administration in Nigeria to petty politics. In the long run, tax management must be linked to per capita income and productivity within the economy, merit and achievement, not personalities.  

Our educated concern is to draw President Buhari and the public’s attention to these issues and the need to be fully apprised of the growing politicization of revenue collection agencies beyond whatever obvious limitations that may exist. Mr. President is hereby invited to consider the foregoing submissions and act with utmost discretion pursuant to Sections 5(1), 130, 147, 171 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.  

“God has been so kind, the only way I can show my gratitude to Him is to use my resources to support those who are underprivileged. This I intend to do for the rest of my life. In a world full of conflicts, diseases, calamities and inequality, we all need to show the milk of human kindness, to reach out and comfort the sick and give a helping hand to the weak.”  With those touching words about the collective humanity that we all share and the purpose of life, Femi Otedola, Nigerian multi-billionaire and entrepreneur issued a cheque of N5 billion in support of Save the Children, a 100-year old UK-based charity. Otedola’s donation is for the rehabilitation of displaced and underprivileged children who are victims of the insurgency in the North Eastern part of Nigeria. The cheque was presented by Tolani Otedola, the billionaire’s eldest daughter, at a gala event in Abuja, Sunday, organised by another daughter, Florence Otedola, who is popularly known as DJ Cuppy.

The latter is an Ambassador for Save the Children and a member of the organisation’s Africa Advisory Board. Femi Otedola’s friend, Aliko Dangote, also a billionaire and a philanthropist of note, added his own donation of N100 million bringing the total donation to N5.1 billion. I do not know how rich Otedola is, but any man that would give away N5 billion (about US $14 million) to support children or anyone in distress certainly has the milk of human kindness flowing through his veins. Otedola deserves special recognition and a word of gratitude for his generosity. By this singular act, and similar gestures in the past, he seems to be changing the narrative about the art of giving and the need for a sense of community and philanthropy in Nigeria. It is not enough to give, but to give consistently and generously, without any expectation of reward or gain.

Of all his efforts as an entrepreneur, Otedola would probably be most remembered for his acts of philanthropy in the long run, that is his social entrepreneurship, the readiness with which he offers a helping hand. In the last year or so, he has been on record for picking up the medical bills of Christian Chukwu, former Captain and coach of the Super Eagles or the Green Eagles as the team was earlier known. Chukwu (now 68) was a commanding presence on the football field. He led his local team, the Enugu Rangers to many victories, and as a member of the Green Eagles, he was a play maker and motivator of the team’s last line of defence. Both his fans and teammates called him “Chairman.” That was not for nothing. And yet the same man could not pay hospital bills. Femi Otedola stepped in and helped out. He did the same for Peter Fregene (now 72), Nigeria’s former international goalkeeper (1968- 1971). And for Majek Fashek, the gifted Reggae musician who at the height of his glory was dubbed “the rainmaker”, in attestation of the force and mythical quality of one of his famous tracks: “Send Down The Rain.” Many fans of his would insist even today, that whenever Majek Fashek performed that song, rain actually fell! But the magic has since left the stage, the myth has been compromised. The same Majek Fashek could also not pay hospital bills.  Femi Otedola bailed him out. He also did the same for two famous Nigerian actors: Sadiq Daba and Victor Olaotan. There are probably many others whose cases are not reported in the media. 

Nigeria is a very strange place where the future is as uncertain as the present. The gap between the rich and the poor is wider than the entire Sahara Desert. The average Nigerian lives on less than a dollar per day. Social infrastructure is in a state of decay. There is no social security scheme. The public health system collapsed long ago. Private hospitals detain the sick who are unable to pay for treatment. One woman gave birth in a hospital; she and her baby were detained. The country once tried to introduce a National Health Insurance Scheme. It has never worked, because it is used as an instrument of political and ethnic patronage. Ours is a country where even the rich are not sure of tomorrow. Talented people, distinguished professionals in various fields of endeavor end up becoming beggars, or destitute, not necessarily because they did not plan for their future or for unforeseeable accidents of life, but they suffer because Nigeria often leaves its citizens stranded. The state routinely disappoints the people. It is unfair. It can be cruel. People are treated as if they do not matter. 

This is why every act of kindness is significant. It is not the amount that matters, but the very thought itself, that gesture that reminds us occasionally that in this pressure cooker of a society in which we live, you can still find a rich man who gives out a dollar or two, a concerned citizen who helps an accident victim, a cab driver who finds a document or some money forgotten by a passenger and returns it, or a security agent who does his work with the fear of God. Such persons are quite rare in these parts, and it is why we need a constant reminder that beyond the state or government, Nigeria is a country where we must continue to search for the meaning of Being-ness, and the reasons for being human. An Otedola helping the sick and the weak reminds us of the big difference that we all can make, not in dollars but each man in his own station according to his strength through simple and possible gestures of kindness. 

As for Otedola, I do not imagine that he goes about with an ambulance-load of cash looking for other people’s medical bills to pay. Far from it. He supports other causes as well, particularly poor students whose school fees he pays, educational institutions to which he has donated buildings and religious bodies and groups that he has assisted. By involving his children in his most recent donation, he also signposts a strong narrative about parenting and sustainability. His N5 billion donation is routed through the Cuppy Foundation. The cheque was delivered by his eldest daughter. What else does a man need to say to his daughters or the suitors who want to marry a billionaire’s daughters? He tells them clearly that life goes beyond music, fashion, dancing, boo-ing, bae-ing, vacationing and Gelato-ing. 

It is not surprising that his donation of N5 billion drew enthusiastic applause. The Vice President, Professor Yemi Osinbajo said it is “the single largest donation to philanthropy in the country.” He may well be right. But perhaps the most notable reaction has been that of Reno Omokri, who describes himself these days as “a table-shaker.” And did Reno Omokri try to shake the table? In this particular matter, he didn’t actually shake the table; he broke the legs. Said he: “Femi Otedola has just put the billionaires of the North East to shame. Where are the Indimis, the Mai Deribe family and other oil billionaires from the North East? Google their names and some of the first pictures you will see are of their children in private jets marrying President’s children and displaying obscene wealth while surrounded by extreme poverty. It took a Good Samaritan stranger to do what the natives of the North East failed to do! Shame on them and God bless the talakawa that they have refused to look after.” This harsh and pain-inflicting comment has stretched the narrative a bit further - with the daughters of the two families that Omokri calls out directly defending family integrity on social media. The emerging controversy about how the rich Nigerian one per cent engages the rest of society and gives back or not is useful. But while Omokri may be accused of trying to politicize or ethnicize the Otedola gesture, we need to place his comment in proper context. 

One, he probably generalizes when he refers to “Oil billionaires from the North East” in a manner that may be unfair to some other persons from that part of the country. The North East, one of Nigeria’s six geo-political zones consists of the following states: Adamawa, Bauchi, Borno, Gombe, Taraba, and Yobe. I don’t know whether Alhaji Atiku Abubakar is an “oil billionaire” or not, but I know he is from Adamawa state. One of the reasons for his popularity among his people is his generosity and common touch. General TY Danjuma is from Taraba state. He easily belongs to Omokri’s “Oil billionaire” category, but it is a fact that through his TY Danjuma Foundation, the General has done a lot for his own people in Taraba State and across the North East and Nigeria. There is also a Muhammadu Indimi Foundation which prioritises the North East. We can praise Otedola without hurting the feelings of others. Two, while stating this, I am mindful of the bigger point in Omokri’s comment which is the felt, seen, and often commented upon abdication of responsibility by the Nigerian Northern elite. 

The Nigerian elite is generally callous, selfish and irresponsible but the most alienated, the worst set can be found in the Northern part of Nigeria, an indolent elite that has occupied the higher rungs of privilege and power before and after independence and yet has not been able to translate its access to power into advantages for its people. Northern Nigeria has the largest number of out-of-school children. It has the largest number of girl-child brides, and other children under difficult circumstances.  It has the largest number of persons living below the poverty line. It has the smallest number of educated Nigerians, and the highest number of Nigeria’s “lazy youths.” Reno Omokri throws up the questions: why don’t we have the Northern rich, as many of them as possible, helping their own people? Why must it be a Yoruba man from Epe donating N5 billion to assist displaced children in the North East? Our response to Reno Omokri is that philanthropy needs not wear an ethnic or partisan garb. It is about the collective humanity we share. Isn’t Reno Omokri himself running a #Free LeahSharibu campaign?  Leah Sharibu is neither a member of his church nor is she of the Itsekiri stock. Bill and Melinda Gates, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter, Oprah Winfrey, George Soros, Mark Zuckerberg have supported worthy causes around the world.          

What we may legitimately say is that the example of Femi Otedola and others like him necessarily generates a conversation about the purpose of wealth and the place of the privileged in a dispossessed society. Aliko Dangote who made his own donation to the Save the Children charity is probably the leading philanthropist in Nigeria today, in terms of spread and scope, through the Dangote Foundation, which is run by his daughter, Halima Dangote. Dangote appeared on stage recently in New York, with Mo Ibrahim and Bill Gates and he said he is inspired by their examples. Mo Ibrahim, Bill Gates and Warren Buffet are among the most generous givers in modern history. It is an ethic that should be encouraged. Closer home in Nigeria, there are other examples: Tony Elumelu, of the Union Bank of Africa (UBA) is the founder of the Tony Elumelu Foundation which promotes Africapitalism and provides opportunities for young entrepreneurs in more than 40 African countries. What TOE, as he is otherwise called, has done with that Foundation is impressive and reliable. Jim Ovia is the founder of Zenith Bank. He has invested heavily in education, not for profit, but to provide opportunities for young persons. He is the founder of James Hope College, a world-class, private school in Agbor, Delta State where he tries to provide a strong, educational foundation for the youth of tomorrow. Recently, he launched a branch of the school in Lagos with an offer of full scholarship to 40% of students. Aigboje Aig-Imoukhuede, of Access Bank and Coronation Capital, has a scheme called Africa Initiative for Governance (AIG). Every year, AIG sends five students from Nigeria and Ghana to the Blavatnik School of Government, University of Oxford, to take post-graduate degrees in Public Policy. He believes that when they return and they are injected into the public sector, over time a crop of well-trained experts would have been created to act as agents for public sector transformation in Africa. The scholarships are fully funded. There are other philanthropists of course who intervene in their own way – like Professor Pat Utomi who supports widows, Florence Ita-Giwa who provides for the poor in Bakassi, Sir Emeka Offor, Mr. Oba Otudeko, Folorunsho Alakija, Otunba Subomi Balogun…  We can have more people in this country willing to give back and help. Reno Omokri may have been direct in his finger-pointing but there is certainly a large community of rich Nigerians out there who do not know what it means to be public-spirited. They are happy to go about in private jets: it costs about US $4 million per annum to maintain a private jet in Nigeria (Otedola’s N5 billion donation is the cost of maintaining a private jet for about 4 years) and yet most of the nouveaux riche are much happier going about in those jets with girls with long legs, fake skin, fake eye lashes, Brazilian butt-lifts, fake accent, and small brains, rather than help the poor. Their type can be found across Nigeria. 

But it is not enough to make donations or set up a Foundation. There must be transparency and accountability in the management of funds and processes. Sustainability is important. Too many Foundations rise and fall. We hope Femi Otedola and his daughters will find every reason to sustain their new-found passion.  

Last week, The Supreme Court of Nigeria announced its verdict in the matter between Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and President Muhammadu Buhari, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC and the Independent Electoral Commission (INEC). After the February 23 Presidential election and the declaration by INEC, of incumbent President Muhammadu Buhari as winner of that election, the PDP and its Presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar went straight to the Presidential Election Petition Tribunal to challenge the result. INEC not only declared Buhari winner of that election. The Presidential Election Petition Tribunal further upheld the declaration in September 2019, delivering a marathon judgment that kept the entire nation glued to television for close to nine hours. Alhaji Atiku Abubakar and his party, the PDP, felt that they had been denied justice. So, they took their case all the way to the Supreme Court. But if Atiku and his supporters had hoped that they will secure victory at the Supreme Court, they were grossly disappointed.  In just a sentence, the Supreme Court dismissed their appeal on October 30. The Chairman of the panel, the Chief Justice of Nigeria, Tanko Ibrahim Mohammed simply said: “We have examined all the briefs of argument and the exhibits for over two weeks and we have all agreed that there is no merit in this appeal.” Their Lordships promised to provide their reasons later. The entire appeal didn’t last for too long. It was a brisk, hasty procedure. 

And this is where the problem lies. In the absence of a reasoned, written down and properly articulated judgment, it is difficult to take on their Lordships on the merit of their own submissions. When their reasons are finally available, it would be time to do a proper, extensive, judicial review. But what can be legitimately said at this point, is that the Supreme Court has created in this case, a problem of perception. Does the ordinary Nigerian think that justice has been done? For, it is a trite principle that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to have been done. Does the ordinary, reasonable man believe that given the approach adopted by the Supreme Court, there is fairness in the handling of the matter at the apex court? Professor Ben Nwabueze, SAN, in a widely circulated response has argued that the Supreme Court’s treatment of the Atiku case raises issues of fairness and fair hearing. He insists that the Supreme Court’s dismissal of the appeal is “inconsistent with Section 36 of the Constitution (and) it is, by the self-executing declaration in Section 1(3), null and void.” Section 1 (3) of the 1999 Constitution talks about the supremacy of the Constitution as basic law.  Section 36 is on the inviolability of fair hearing as a pillar of the justice administration process. Nwabueze’s contention is that the apex court erred in the eyes of the law by holding an examination of the appeal before it, “in secret”, as declared and admitted, without regard to Section 36 (3) of the Nigerian Constitution. 

He asks further: “… to whom does the word “We” in the CJN’s statement refer? Can the “We” be a reference to the Supreme Court? Can the Supreme Court function, as regards the hearing of the appeal, before the seven-man panel to hear the appeal was appointed, and the names of the members announced to the public? When exactly was the appointment of members made?” Nwabueze is a prodigious and productive analyst of the Nigerian legal system and perhaps one of the most percipient and most durable. His sympathy for the Atiku camp notwithstanding, he has raised fine points of jurisprudence which I hope the Supreme Court will address when it eventually provides the reasons for both its approach and decision in the Atiku Presidential Election Petition 2019.  When their Lordships provide those reasons, how they frame their ratio decidendi or obiter dicta, in relation to the naked facts of the case or to use the CJN’s words, briefs and exhibits, and the issues for determination, will be of great interest. When they say the Atiku case lacks merit, for example, do they mean that it is incurably bad and if so, on what grounds?  

And why did they have to sit “in secret”, more than two weeks earlier only to come out in the open to deliver judgment? Without any effort to listen at length to counsel on both sides, not to re-open arguments of course, a case before the Supreme Court not being the inception of a new action, but to defend their claims, the Justices rested their decision on the fact that they had examined the briefs and exhibits. The conduct of their one-day process was also so brisk, if not anti-climactic and peremptory, as if the matter before them had already been pre-determined. The Supreme Court, being a policy court and a court of last resort has a duty to worry about its brand and image. The treatment of the Atiku case, that is the 2019 Presidential Election Petition wrongly or rightly has fuelled all the suspicions that the ordinary Nigerian has expressed about the independence of the judiciary.  It is hence not surprising that many Nigerians have expressed the view that they were not disappointed because they did not expect a different outcome, even without having any knowledge of briefs of argument or exhibits, but supremely confident all the same about their knowledge of the history of power and Presidential election petitions in Nigeria.  

Why was the Supreme Court in such unusual haste? In the past, there was usually so much anxiety, drama and argumentation each time a Presidential election petition made it to the Supreme Court. The most dramatic incident in recent memory being the 1979 Presidential election which turned virtually every Nigerian into a mathematician, struggling to determine the meaning and exact calculation of two-thirds of 19 states.  In 2019, the moving spirits of the Nigerian Supreme Court treated the Presidential election matter as if it was an irritating piece of distraction. I have tried to attempt two explanations. The first is that their Lordships felt that given the pressure of time, they were duty bound to determine the matter within the time frame provided by law. Section 285 of the 1999 Constitution and Section 134 of the Electoral Act provide strict time limits for the hearing of election petitions and this has been severally upheld by the Supreme Court (re: Ikpeazu v. Otti & ors., Felix Amadi and Anor. vs. INEC & Ors.; and ANPP vs Goni). In the Atiku case, the Supreme Court was definitely not out of time in the light of Section 285 (7) of the 1999 Constitution and the fact that Atiku and PDP appealed the decision of the Election Tribunal by September 23. Questions have therefore been legitimately raised about approach and procedure. 

My second explanation is that the law is a social modulator, and may be that is what we have here. The judex are human beings and members of society.  Sometimes, the judex gauge the mood of society and try to provide the necessary balance, especially in the face of potential threat.  When the apex court goes that route though, it is travelling on the path of politics and social science rather than law. It is not impossible that the Supreme Court of Nigeria in the Atiku case took a firm decision to protect the country from any outbreak of violence or hostilities. Buba Galadima, a Buhari ally turned adversary, has said that Buhari’s declaration as winner did not result in any jubilation on the streets. He did not raise the flip question: would the declaration of Atiku as winner or anything close to that have resulted in the jubilation he seeks? Maybe not either. Galadima is obviously biased. But the plain truth is that the Nigerian voter is so alienated, cynical and so disconnected, he or she is right now largely indifferent and that is part of the problem with Nigerian democracy. The Nigerian electorate must rediscover their voice. Still, the judex must not descend into the arena of politics. The law must be applied in its purest form. The ruling of the Supreme Court when it eventually becomes available should address all the jurisprudential issues that have been raised on all sides for our collective education. 

Nonetheless, whatever concerns anyone may have in this matter, the case is now closed. The Supreme Court is the apex court. There is no further appeal beyond it, especially in election matters, which are by the way sui generis. The principal petitioner, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar has already issued a statement dismissing the ruling of the Court. Both his statement and the eventual reasons of the Court would form useful historical documents. For now, we have Atiku’s statement before us. I think it drips with too much bitterness, innuendoes and cynicism. Atiku writes that: “Today, the nail has been put on the coffin and the gains we collectively made since 1999 are evaporating, and a requiem is at hand… In a democracy, you need a strong judiciary, a free press, and an impartial electoral umpire. Nigeria has none of those three elements as at today…” But even more telling is the opening paragraph of his statement and here it is: “It is said that the Supreme Court is not final because it is infallible, but that it is infallible because it is final.”  

This statement is a direct paraphrase of Justice Robert H. Jackson’s declaration in Brown v. Allen, 344 US 443 (1953).  Jackson (1892 – 1954) was an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court and a former United States Attorney-General. He said: “We are not final because we are infallible but we are infallible only because we are final.” Chukwudifu Oputa, JSC (as he then was), famously known as the Socrates of the Nigerian Supreme Court of his time, improved on this when he tried to address the question of whether there had been a conflict between the Supreme Court decisions in two cases: Skenconsult v. Ukey and Ezomo v. Oyakhire as follows: “My simple answer”, he said, “is that it is not part of the jurisdiction or duties of this Court to go on looking for imaginary conflicts. We are final not because we are infallible rather we are infallible because we are final. Justices of this Court are human beings, capable of erring. It will certainly be short-sighted arrogance not to accept this obvious truth.  It is also true that this Court can do inestimable good through its wise decisions.  Similarly, the Court can do incalculable damage through its mistakes.” (per Oputa, JSC, Adegoke Motors Ltd. v. Dr Babatunde Adesanya & Anor). Where the catch lies is that even when the Supreme Court arrives at a decision per incuriam, it is the only Court that has the power to overrule itself. But will Atiku’s counsel ask the Supreme Court to overrule itself? I don’t see that happening, especially as the party, the PDP has handed over the case to God, and with Atiku himself declaring that the matter “has come to a conclusion.”  

Nonetheless, Atiku’s lawyers have called for a reform of Nigeria’s electoral jurisprudence. They have a point in that regard. There are too many knotty, controversial and unresolved issues to be dealt with, including access to vital materials by election petitioners, time limits for election petitions, administrative bottle-necks, and the use of technology. Atiku is obviously not convinced that he lost the 2019 Presidential election. This is the overall indication of his statement. He has also pointedly refused to congratulate the APC candidate and incumbent President, Muhammadu Buhari. Every student of Nigerian politics should be interested in what this means, and the implications for Nigeria’s future politics. Whatever that is, Alhaji Atiku Abubakar has two options before him: to start preparing for the 2023 Presidential election if his party’s zoning formula favours him or to retire to the position of a statesman and help defend Nigeria’s democracy. However, beyond elections, the biggest challenge facing Nigeria is that of sustainable development and economic growth. It is the task that all stakeholders must now address, going forward, in order to correct the many anomalies that hold the country down and behind. It is commendable that all parties involved in the Presidential Election Petition case, before and after, have resisted the temptation to resort to self-help.