The time is long overdue, surely, to abandon, permanently, the anachronistic resort to lethal means by the security agencies of governance. No nation is so underdeveloped, materially impoverished, or simply internally insecure as to lack the will to set an example. All it takes is to recall its own history, then exercise the will to commence a lasting transformation, inserting a break in the chain of lethal responses against civic society.

I set my alarm clock for this morning to ensure that I did not miss President Bola Tinubu’s impatiently awaited address to the nation on the current unrest across the nation. His outline of government’s remedial action since inception, aimed at warding off just such an outbreak, will undoubtedly receive expert and sustained attention both for effectiveness and in content analysis.  My primary concern, quite predictably, is the continuing deterioration of the state’s seizure of protest management – an area in which the presidential address fell conspicuously short. Such short-changing of civic deserving, regrettably, goes to arm the security forces in the exercise of impunity and condemns the nation to a seemingly unbreakable cycle of resentment and reprisals.

Live bullets as state response to civic protest – that becomes the core issue. Even teargas remains questionable in most circumstances, certainly an abuse in situations of clearly peaceful protest.  Hunger marches constitute a universal S.O.S, not peculiar to the Nigerian nation. They belong indeed in a class of their own, never mind the collateral claims emblazoned on posters. They serve as summons to governance that a breaking point has been reached and thus, a testing ground for governance awareness of public desperation. The tragic response to the ongoing hunger marches in parts of the nation, and for which notice was served, constitutes a retrogression that takes the nation even further back than the deadly culmination of the watershed #EndSARS protests. It evokes pre-independence – that is, colonial – acts of disdain, a passage that induced the late stage pioneer, Hubert Ogunde’s folk opera, “Bread and Bullets”, earning that nationalist serial persecution and proscription by the colonial government. 

The nation’s security agencies cannot pretend unawareness of alternative models for emulation, civilised advances in security intervention. Need we recall the nationwide 2022/23 editions of what is generally known as the YELLOW VEST movement in France? Perhaps it is time to make such scenarios compulsory viewing in policing curriculum. In all of the coverage that I watched, I did not catch one single instance of a gun leveled at protesters, much less fired at them even during direct physical confrontations. The serving of bullets where bread is pleaded is ominous retrogression, and we know what that eventually proves – a prelude to far more desperate upheavals, not excluding revolutions.

The time is long overdue, surely, to abandon, permanently, the anachronistic resort to lethal means by the security agencies of governance. No nation is so underdeveloped, materially impoverished, or simply internally insecure as to lack the will to set an example. All it takes is to recall its own history, then exercise the will to commence a lasting transformation, inserting a break in the chain of lethal responses against civic society. Today’s marchers may wish to consider adopting the key songs of Hubert Ogunde’s “Bread and Bullets”, if only to inculcate a sense of shame in the continuing failure to transcend the lure of colonial inheritance where we all were at the receiving end. One way or the other, this vicious cycle must be broken.

‘Wole SOYINKA, the first Black Nobel Laureate in Literature, writes from A.R.I. Abeokuta.

President Bola Tinubu yesterday addressed the nation in the wake of the recent so-called nationwide protest, a complete misadventure which turned out to be nothing more than a smokescreen for mayhem, looting, insurgency and regime change through patently unconstitutional means instigated by failed politicians who woefully lost election.

These failed politicians, led by Atiku Abubakar and Peter Obi, being keenly aware that they can never win a free and fair election in this country, duped a gullible section of the youths into believing that protest, rather than nation building, is the answer to national development.

In the process, they deployed incitement and instigation, ethnicism and religion, regionalism and division into a crooked protest they had all along planned to be infiltrated by thugs, miscreants, vandals, arsonists and all manner of godless elements determined to destroy their own country.

Our President's speech has been welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Nigerians because it calmed nerves, reassured the populace and set out a clear and coherent path forward for national rebirth and renewed hope.

Expectedly, those who hoped for destruction of the entire country through the protest have been propagating baseless narratives condemning the speech, claiming President Tinubu did not address the demands of the protesters.

The bitter truth is that the majority of Nigerians never supported the protest, were always suspicious of the intent of its mandateless organisers and sponsors, and, had absolutely no interest in burning down their own country.

Those criticising the President's speech are mainly those disappointed that the overwhelming mass of Nigerians rejected their call to anarchy and largely stayed back home rather than be hoodwinked to key into a clandestine plot to tear our nation apart.

While the genuine demands of the peaceful protesters are being addressed by President Tinubu, as elucidated in his address, the ridiculous, unreasonable, undemocratic, unconstitutional and criminal demands of the organisers of the protest lack legitimacy on a number of fronts.

The organisers of the protest are either failed politicians or persons without mandate, many of whom are mere social media loudmouths and noisemakers who can never win elections even within their own families, not to talk of in their villages, wards or larger constituencies.

Several of them live abroad, where their families are safe and sound, while they instigate crisis, violence, arson, looting and destruction back home.

They encourage the children of the poor to burn down our country under the guise of a protest their children are not participating in.

They seek regime change through abominably unconstitutional and undemocratic means.

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing wrong with President Tinubu's address except for those maniacally salivating for the impossible and undoable from him.

In short, regardless of what our President might had said in the address, they would still had condemned the speech.

Indeed, the only thing that would had placated them would have been for President Tinubu to become a traitor, turncoat, coward and anti-democrat by betraying his mandate, resigning for absolutely no reason and plunging the nation into complete chaos and disintegration.

In short, they are inconsolable that Nigerians have rejected the protest and have decided to go back to work and rebuild this nation.

They have failed and will continue to fail.

I urge all our dear fellow countrymen and adorable women to go back to work, to pray for our nation, to support our President in rebuilding this country, and to continue to key into the vision of renewed hope for Nigeria.

May God guide and protect President Tinubu.

God bless Nigeria!

Onokpasa, a lawyer, writes from Abuja.

The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has rubbished the Sunday nationwide broadcast by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu following the tension in the country after Nigerians stormed major streets across states to express their grievances on the challenging situation in the country.

Naija News reports that the protests, tagged #EndBadGovernance, were organized to decry the hunger crisis and the unfavourable economic situation in Nigeria since the incumbent government took over power.

President Tinubu, however, addressed the nation yesterday, urging the protesters to suspend their action, reiterating his government’s commitment to ensuring a better Nigeria.

However, the country’s main opposition party, PDP, has criticized the broadcast which is said did not address the demonstrators’ demands.

PDP said Sunday’s address shows insensitivity to the plight of Nigerians.

The opposition camp stressed that it was clear that the All Progressives Congress (APC) administration is already overwhelmed and has no answers to the myriads of problems occasioned by its anti-people policies that are suffocating life in the country.

“The PDP asserts that the speech by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over the ongoing protests in the country clearly confirms the All Progressives Congress (APC) administration’s insensitivity towards Nigerians and the very precarious situation in the country,” PDP’s spokesman, Debo Ologunagba, said in a statement issued on Sunday.

He also expressed disappointment tha the President’s speech did not order an investigation into the brutal killing of unarmed Nigerians by security operatives during the ongoing protests.

READ PDP’s FULL STATEMENT BELOW

“Protests: @officialABAT ’s Speech Diversionary, Fails to Address Issues

“The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) @OfficialPDPNig asserts that the speech by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu over the ongoing protests in the country clearly confirms the All Progressives Congress (APC) administration’s insensitivity towards Nigerians and the very precarious situation in the country.

“Our Party is appalled that despite the fact that it took President Tinubu the prodding of the PDP to speak to the nation, it is distressing that the speech failed to offer any concrete measure to address the excruciating hardship in the country.

“Mr President’s speech failed to respond to the demand by the citizens for immediate measures to reduce the price of petroleum products, halt the fall of the Naira and urgent intervention in the provision of food items to starving Nigerians.

“It is equally shocking that the speech did not order an investigation into the brutal killing of unarmed Nigerians by certain unscrupulous operatives of the APC-controlled security agencies while demanding good governance, protection, security and welfare, which are the primary purposes of government.

“Instead, the speech dwelt on APC’s counter-productive action of disregarding the feelings and pains of the people by focusing on self-praise, claims of imaginary achievements and empty projections in the face of apparent and obvious failure of the APC in every aspect of governance.

“Such only reinforces public apprehension that the APC administration is uncaring and impervious to the suffering and pains of millions of Nigerians, particularly the youths whose dreams, hopes and aspirations are being dashed by the APC.

“It is clear that the APC administration is overwhelmed and has no answers to the myriads of problems occasioned by its anti-people policies that are suffocating life in the country.

“The APC must admit failure and be willing to accept alternative views and suggestions at this moment, recognizing that what Nigerians need now is a solution and not rhetoric.

“Our Party calls on President Tinubu to come to terms with the fact that the nation is in dire straits under his watch. He should address the demands of the people, particularly to reduce the cost of petroleum products, stabilize the Naira and take immediate steps towards the provision of food items to Nigerians.

“President Tinubu should cut the size of governance, expenditure on luxury items and free more resources for immediate intervention towards the wellbeing of Nigerians.”

[NaijaNews]

We are witnessing some of the worst anti-government protests in our recent democratic history, fuelled by economic hardship, hunger and a general feeling of disillusionment among many Nigerians. Whatever the arguments are for or against the protests, it suffices that some Nigerians are making public their anger against the system and resolute to demand change. The protest, after Day 4, showcased the massive dichotomy in the various regions’ interpretation of their stake in the Nigerian project and the impact of the economic realities and peoples’ feelings about them. Understanding Nigeria’s fault lines is not just crucial, but it’s also enlightening to understand her socio-political dynamics and culture of resilience. I will point out six ways the #EndBadGovernance Protests have shown the stubbornness of our fault lines and differences in our level of political sophistication. 

First, the North-South divide plays out clearly in the attitude, feelings, and intensity of participation in the protest. In the South, the Southeast is entirely silent and has refused to join the protest, and the South-South is shyly participating. The southwest sees a little more participation, and Lagos is the epicentre of the protests in this region. On the other hand, the North is in turmoil, and participation is more active and resilient with all sorts of unprintable demands. Unfortunately, some parts of Nigeria, especially the North, have become chaotic and bloody. It is not surprising that this is the case. This correlates with the difference in poverty, hunger, and out-of-school children’s data respectively between the North and the South. 

The economic hardship bites more in the North, and they feel the pinch and are more likely to protest it. The North have the poorest states, the most negligible GDP per capita, high infant and maternal mortality rates, and high incidence of hunger. A combination of the high prevalence of pharmaceutical opioids abuses and out-of-school children (almaJiri) in Northern Nigeria reflected in the violent dimension of the protest in that region. Kano, Zamfara, and Kebbi are the three states with the highest prevalence of opioid abuse. This high rate of idle, unengaged and uneducated youth is a ticking time bomb waiting to happen. However, these socioeconomic realities and sentiments often highlight our political certainties and show our fault lines and pain points. There is also the question of unsubstantiated ethnic and regional dimension to the north’s protest degenerating to a riot. 

Second is the Lagos – Abuja divide. Both are the two major cosmopolitan urban cities in Nigeria. There are pockets of protest across Lagos, and some have refused to be influenced by a massive campaign led by the Lagos political elite to stop the demonstrations happening in Lagos. The Lagos political elite worked hard to show that Bola Ahmed Tinubu was not that unpopular at his home base. Also, some residents did not want to pass a vote of no confidence on Mr President for various pecuniary reasons. The withdrawal of Igbos from the protest is not just in the Southeast. It was noticed that many Igbos in Lagos refused to participate in the protest, taking out an essential element in the bite of the protest. 

Abuja is home to a diplomatic community. Abuja civil society class showed themselves as enlightened and not beclouded by ethnic bias. The protest could not be restricted to the Moshood Abiola Stadium as initially proposed by the government but that did not reduce its efficacy. Police brutality in Abuja to some extent reduced the nuisance of the protest to public life. one take away from Abuja and lagos is that in cosmopolitan cities, no ethnic group can hold the cities or Nigerians hostage.

Third is the stance of the Southeast states and the Igbo ethnic group. The leadership and followership made a conscious decision not to participate. This may be a metaphor for silent political protest in the Nigerian state. The elites were united in framing the protest as not concerning the Igbos, who are victims of the Nigerian state. They sold it as a Yoruba versus Hausa-Fulani struggle. Igbos are beginning to see themselves as not part of Nigeria. The continued imprisonment of Nnamdi Kanu, the many seeming denials of Igbo’s opportunities in the higher political equation, the Igbo’s political opposition stance, and the general feeling that they are made scapegoats in conflicts like this are reasons some espoused as the significant justification  for the decision not to join the  protest.   

The fourth is the vast difference between the propaganda of government apologists and many ordinary Nigerians who refused to buy into the propaganda. Government apologists were primarily concerned with defending the government, its policies, and its actions. Although they mainly showed anger against the government at the centre, the people also looked at the subnational governments as a sore point. The federal and state governments put out arguments against the protest. They argued that first, the government is just a year old and needs time for their policies and actions that lead to growth and development start showing.

On the other hand, the people feel that one year is enough time to see signs of economic growth and prosperity that will inspire hope for a better future. The people argued that their conditions were worse on all indices one year after the new administration came to power, and they wanted things to change. The government also argued that the leadership of the protest was faceless. However, this is counterintuitive because the fear of the dictatorial tendencies of the government is driving voices of opposition and criticism underground. Civil society’s leadership typically boldly represents the masses’ views and is not afraid of a democratic government to clamp down on them for civil protest. 

The lesson here is that Nigerians who hitherto are resilient under extreme hardship are beginning to question and demand change from the government, and simplistic explanations for bad governance cannot dissuade them from reacting. Also, the government is throwing out a few “stomachs’infrastructure”to a few people here, and it is no longer sufficient to convince many people to support the government. People are against unjust laws, heavy taxation, inefficient systems, and destructive policies that lead to hunger and poverty. The government must be proactive in catering to the people’s needs and not reactive to the people’s actions because of failed promises and visions. 

The fifth is the adversarial relationship between the Nigerian police and the people. Although the Nigerian police do good work sometimes, the public perception of them is negative, and this affects the people’s reaction to the police. In managing crises and conflicts, the Nigerian police sometimes struggle. In this protest, their poor handling of de-escalation of crisis, crowd management, and more reliance on brute force to handle civil unrest are clear for all to see. Amnesty International raised concerns. The police job is difficult, especially in these circumstances. However, proper training and preparation for democratic-sanctioned civil protests are essential. The police must study their responses and modus operandi in dealing with this protest and learn the lessons that will guide future responses. 

The sixth is the Nigerian elite and their discordant tones. There needs to be an elite consensus on issues that pertain to good governance and economic development. The elites hijacked the system and are benefiting from the system and, as such, are not united in one voice to change the system. The voices of the few elites who are not benefiting from the system are faint and inaudible to make any meaningful change. These elites uphold no Nigerian values, ethos, or shared ideals and visions. The elite sees Nigeria’s interests from personal interests and ethnic perspectives.

A critical evaluation of the protest must be done to learn from it, improve things based on new findings and push for a better Nigeria. There is a need for a total rejigging of Nigeria’s government and governance system from federal to LGAs.  The mission, vision, policies and structures must be reviewed to put in place a fit-for-purpose system that will achieve the dreams and aspirations of the people. The government may think it needs more time because one year is too small to judge them, but the people have not seen a clear roadmap for growth on which to base their hopes. 

The general perception is that the government is placing a dangerous knee on the neck of the masses and does not care about their plight. This perception is dangerous because it is fuel to extreme positions by the people. The government should not feel that the benign nature of this protest is a testament to its failure. It may be a warning sign of a more significant revolution if the administration does not change direction. Perception is everything. There is blood on the street; we must reflect and ensure the spilt blood count for something.

Famous English singer, Ed Sheeran has shared how being a musician affected his sexual life.

The 33-year-old multiple Grammy-winning singer said he would have been a virgin if he wasn’t singing.

He stated this in a recent video message shared via his Instagram account.

“If I wasn’t a musician, I’d be a virgin,” he shared.

Sheeran’s first publicly known relationship was with Scottish singer, Nina Nesbitt in 2012.

Nesbitt is the subject of Sheeran’s songs ‘Nina’ and ‘Photograph’.

In 2014, Sheeran was in a relationship with Athina Andrelos but they broke up in February 2015.

She is the inspiration of his song ‘Thinking Out Loud’.

In July 2015, Sheeran began a relationship with childhood friend, Cherry Seaborn.

They announced their engagement in January 2018 and were married a year later.

Cherry is the inspiration of Sheeran’s song ‘Perfect’.

The couple welcomed their first daughter in 2020 and their second daughter on 19 May, 2022.

Operatives of the Department of State Services have arrested one of the leaders of the ongoing Endbadgovernance protests in the Federal Capital Territory, Micheal Lenin.

Lenin was picked up by the DSS around 2 am on Monday at his residence in the Apo area of the FCT.

Speaking with our correspondent, the Director of Mobilisation, Take It Back Movement, Damilare Adenola, said Lenin’s house was raided by the DSS.

He alleged that the DSS also assaulted him during his arrest.

Adenola said, “ Lenin has been arrested by the DSS. He was picked up during a raid on his house around 2am.

“He was arrested and tortured in the presence of his family. We are demanding his immediate and unconditional release.“

The DSS spokesperson, Peter Afunanya, could not be reached as of the time of filing this report.

He has yet to respond to a message sent to him.

Lenin, who is the National Coordinator, of the Youth Rights Campaign, was one of the organisers who spoke at a press briefing expressing disappointment with President Bola Tinubu’s broadcast on Sunday.

At the briefing, he said the President’s broadcast demonstrated that he is out of touch with reality in the country.

He said, “We wish to express our sadness and deep disappointment at the latest broadcast by President Tinubu which is his first address to the nation on the #EndBadGovernance protests, after over three weeks since Nigerians started mobilising to take to the streets and after scores of dead protesters and assaulted journalists from the first three days of the protests.

“ Many had requested that the President should just address the nation when the protest was being mobilised and when it started to escalate, but most of us did not know that the President would only justify state violence on protesters and journalists while dismissing the demands of the protesters whenever he decides to speak.

“This, plus the failed attempt to co-opt the progressive and radical language of the protests only shows how much President Tinubu is out of touch with the masses.“

Lenin, however, said the protest would continue massively on Monday, calling on the citizens to come out in large numbers.

He said, “We, therefore, call on Nigerians to come out in large numbers to continue these protests on Monday until our demands are met. The two-pronged approach of violence and propaganda has failed.

“The violence and repressions are just attempts to silence and control us, and the propaganda cannot sway or fool us.”

[Punch]

THE first detention of Ladi Olorunyomi was in 1993 under the Babangida military regime. That regime had annulled the June 12, 1993 presidential election, and was on rampage. She was a journalist, and journalism was a high risk profession during the military regimes. She was also a feminist, pro-democracy and human rights activist. But her detention had nothing to do with any of these. She was merely a hostage, seized by the authorities in order to pressurise her husband, the conscientious journalist, Dapo Olorunyomi, to give himself up.

Ladi had just had a baby in 1993 when they came for her. She refused to leave baby Aramide behind. So, they were both carted into detention.

However, her longest spell in detention was in the notorious cells of the Directorate of Military Intelligence, DMI, in Apapa, Lagos where some detainees never left alive.

The Abach junta has been the most vicious in Nigerian history. Nigerians were simply plugged from the streets. Public places, including buses conveying soldiers, were bombed by the regime. Also, the regime had on November 10, 1995, despite international appeals, hung famous writer Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight fellow environmentalists. By 1996, a number of journalists were in prison, including Kunle Ajibade, Mrs Chris Anyanwu, George Mbah and Ben Charles-Obi. All four had been sentenced to life imprisonment for allegedly being “accessories after the fact of treason”. One of the journalists detained, Bagauda Kaltho of The News, never returned.

Early in 1997, Ladi came to my home in Lagos with the news that a mutual friend, Lemi Gbolahan, a reserved journalist who had just returned from London after over a decade sojourn, had been picked up by the notorious DMI goons. She reasoned that if the quiet Lemi, who was not known as a pro-democracy campaigner, could be arrested, then I, who was well known to the security services and military, was not safe. She urged me to leave the country. I told her, I would consider her advice.

Nothing prepared us for what happened next. On Thursday, March 20, 1997, the DMI invaded her home allegedly searching for her husband whom they knew had taken political asylum in the United States. She was released without charge on May 6, 1997, that is after 68 days in detention.

It was a harrowing experience for her not just because her husband had been forced into exile and her children, Kitan, 7; and Aramide, 4, were deprived of parental care and had to stop schooling. It also had to do with the conditions under which she was detained. There was no bed, so she slept on a table, chair or on the floor. She had no access to a bathroom. So, when permitted to take a bath, she had to do so in the open while it was still dark. She was fed starvation rations. Ladi told herself that despite the horrible conditions, she could not afford to fall sick because there was not even a basic health facility. Fellow detainees who fell sick had to find ways of being sent money to buy drugs or were left to their fate. There was a soldier-doctor who was supposed to visit once a week, but she never saw him.

She witnessed a detainee who emaciated badly and became so sick that he could no longer speak and was too weak to walk. When it was clear the man was about to die, the DMI contacted his relatives to come carry him away with a warning that once he recovered, he must be brought back to be detained!

Ladi was one of the very few detainees who were only interrogated but not tortured. However, torture which the DMI operatives called “drilling” was common place. Detainees were so battered that they were ready to sign any document or confess to crimes they never committed. One of the days she told me she would never forget was the torture of two friends from about 2am or 3am until they turned on each other, truly or falsely accusing themselves of crimes.

She also talked about the psychological torture they subjected detainees. It was drilled into all detainees, including political ones, that for them to be brought to the DMI, they must be criminals. So they were treated like convicted criminals with no rights, including to life. That way, detainees were worn out. She said: “When I got to understand that was what they were doing, I had to protect my mind against that onslaught.”

On November 3, 1997, the DMI operatives led by a Major Mumuni, alias Bashir, and Captain Daramola again invaded her home. The armed soldiers arrived at 12.30am, made a lot of noise like hyenas, jumped the fence, broke down her door and entered her home. She was seized at about 1am. They took her to her husband’s abandoned office, then around Ikeja, the Lagos State capital and, finally to their Apapa office three hours after her abduction. Since they left no traces nor any record, the military operatives could easily have eliminated her and then deny they ever abducted her.

This time, they said they were searching for Bayo Onanuga, one of her husband’s colleagues as if she were the custodian of his colleagues. She was released at about 3pm and ordered to report daily at the DMI. She was also told the soldiers could come to her home anytime and, was instructed to open the door whenever they came. The DMI also seized her bunch of keys for 48 hours, probably to duplicate them.

Six days after her latest release, she was getting the family ready for bed when an anonymous caller told her that the DMI bullies were coming that night and, advised her not to sleep in the house. She picked the kids and her sisters who were living with her, and slipped away that Sunday, November 9, 1997 night. She took the family to a friend’s place. Then slipped through the border with Benin Republic to take temporary shelter in Accra, Ghana before taking political asylum in the United States where she has lived with her family for the past 27 years.

She said the decision to go into exile became inevitable for her because the invasions by the military thugs were beginning to affect the children. For instance, the older child had begun to have nightmares about a gunman throwing him into a cell and he was unable to get out. Also, she could not explain to them why their father never came home or why armed soldiers would be breaking into their home. She told me: “At the end of the day, for their sakes, the option open to us was exile.”