Category: Friday

By Segun Gbadegesin

Last week, we tried to understand the connection between words and heart or mind as we observed that one reflects what occupies the other. Therefore, we must pay attention to utterances and make effort to draw people out so we know what they keep inside. Today, we address the question: what did Mr. President’s words in his Arise Television interview reveal to the nation about his inside on the key issues of insecurity, open grazing, restructuring, and unemployment?

On the matter of insecurity, the president, nostalgic about the past, thinks it is a matter of “local security operations” with emphasis on synergy between police, traditional rulers and traders. He is right. However, that past featured state police, which is now conspicuously missing. Notwithstanding, many local communities have been alive to their security responsibilities. They finance vigilante and local hunter operations in addition to contributing to the welfare of government security operatives in their community.

On this page some months ago, I narrated how Okeho indigenes heroically confronted an armed robbery gang which destroyed the local police station and the local bank. Some of the robbers died in the encounter and others were arrested. But what happened next? The town was forced to contribute funds for the repair of the damaged police station. And the police team was withdrawn from the town until the police certification of the repair. It didn’t matter to the authorities that the community was then exposed to more armed robbery attacks without police presence. Was that an encouraging experience on the part of the local people?

The president anecdotally referred to his response to complaints of insecurity from two southern governors. He told them to go back and do their job. He was tough and uncompromising and he was also right.  Governors are constitutionally responsible for security.  Yet, governors appear to have been doing their best with the cards they are decked. Southwest governors created Amotekun Security Network. But they had no constitutional mandate to arm the personnel of the network. Nigeria police doesn’t answer to them. Traditional rulers have complained that they had used their own funds to pay ransom for the release of kidnapped indigenes. It should help if governors were granted the authority, as Chief Security Officers of their states, to procure essential equipment, including arms and ammunition for their security network. Now they appear to have their hands tied.

The most stunning of President Buhari’s interview response was on open grazing. Acknowledging that this issue has created an unnecessary tension for the unity of the republic, he nonetheless adopted an inexplicable rigdity on the matter. All southern governors banned open grazing because it has become a burden too much to bear because of its negative impact on security and food production. On his part, the president is concerned about “the culture of cattle rearers” which he wants to conserve. But this is a culture that condemns herders and their family, including young children, to a life of poverty, ignorance, and disease.

We should note that some Northern governors, including Gov. Ganduje, have seen through the unsustainability of the practice and have moved to provide alternatives. But for some reason, the president appears to believe that herders are entitled to this this miserable mode of existence.

Would herders prefer a different kind of life if they had the choice? Or would they rather be confined to the roaming lifestyle in which there is little prospect for their young ones to be educated? Surely, this has been the only life they know. But have they been presented with better alternatives and they refused? Some populist might throw here the “E” tag for Elitism. But whoever lives in a mansion and his or her own children are not running after cattle in the bush, cannot fairly accuse us of elitism when we plead for a better life for those who don’t think they have choices.

But again, would the so-called Nomadic Fulani prefer a better life? Biblical David of Israel was a herder who famously boasted about his prowess in snatching back his flock from the jaws of lions. But David didn’t refuse the offer of the throne of Israel when he was moved from the bush to the palace. And Israel has moved on from open grazing centuries ago and is a big league global supplier of dairy products. So are many other nations with which we started the journey of independence. To be a conservative in this matter is just mind-boggling.

My honest expectation from the President was that as a compassionate leader who cares for the welfare of his people, including the Nomadic Fulani, he would take advantage of the farmer-herder conflict to better the condition of these vulnerable people with a critical buy-in to proposals for a better approach to herding, namely ranching. No one would grudge him for doing that because it would also promote peace. Instead, he proudly announced his instructions for the return to the Stone Age of existence. It’s sad that a president who leads a progressive party in power would exhibit this rigidity of mind in such a matter of life and death.

Mr. President didn’t really address the question of his position on devolution of power besides his complaint that local government has been killed. This echoes his aides’ argument that state governors must first restructure their states. The problem with this position is that it flies in the face of the party’s manifesto on devolution.  Besides, however, it is arguable that what the president sees and laments about as the “death” of local government, is what advocates of restructuring see and lament about state government.

Isn’t it true that our current state government, compared with our first republic regional government, is dead? With the federal government’s greedy appropriation of much of what regions used to be responsible for, and with revenue allocation dramatically skewed against it, state government has been killed. This is the structural wrong that we thought that the APC was going to right. This was why many of us campaigned for the party. But then, it is one such issue on which we were prevented from probing the mind of candidate Buhari prior to the election. But it won’t go away as it is at the center of every other issue that bogs the nation.

While the president and his aides have touted their various interventions on youth unemployment, his focus on youth protests and “misbehavior” in that interview was a disservice to all that he had tried to accomplish. Why couple unemployment with youth protest against police brutality and hunger?

As I observed on this page last year during the EndSars crisis, we have two categories of youths both of whom have lost faith in the nation’s capacity and willingness to do right by them. One category is well-educated and focused. They are nationalistic and even cosmopolitan in outlook. They don’t appreciate the corruption and political paralysis that has almost ruined the nation and their chances to make it. They are constantly looking for the best, and they are eager to engage their leaders. But they are frustrated every time they try.

The second category is a messed up lot because, with the collapse of our education system, we failed them at a tender age. They dropped out of school or weren’t afforded the opportunity for good education. They end up in gangs and cults. They have no respect for public property. They don’t care for dialogue or intellectual engagement. They take advantage of situation to provoke violence. It is conceivable that the president had this category in mind in his admonition to youths to stop misbehaving if they wanted jobs. Unfortunately, this category of youths is a lost cause. They don’t care!

Where do we go from here? Hopefully, the president can rethink his positions on these issues, work with NASS, and his party leadership to fulfil their promises. They have made progress on infrastructure. But a lasting legacy of this administration will be determined by the boldness of its policies and actions on fundamental national issues. Time is running out!

By Segun Gbadegesin

In Luke 6: 45, a passage that has become popularly known as his Sermon on the Plain, in contradistinction from the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus Christ declared that “from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks.” And in a relevant injunction in the Holy Quran, it is emphatically declared: “O you who believe! Keep your duty to Allah and fear Him, and speak (always) the truth”- Holy Quran 33:70.

The referenced passages from the holy books are not identical, but they are related. The Quranic injunction is about truth telling. The Biblical declaration is an interpretation of the connection between the heart and speech, with the latter seen as a true reflection of what’s hidden in the former.

The Quranic injunction may be understood in two or more ways. First, it is a command to be truthful in our dealings with other human beings. We are enjoined not to hide blood inside while we deceptively spit out white saliva. Say what’s in your mind, no matter whose ox is thereby gored. Second, however, it is also an injunction to make our words correspond to the reality that is external to the mind. Thus, we cannot make statements that contradict reality. You cannot claim that the earth is flat because it pleases your mind to say so. These are powerful injunctions.

On its part, the Biblical declaration is a warning to take what people say seriously because it is an outpouring of what is on their mind. Though the Biblical reference is to the heart, we know that the heart is simply an umbrella concept for what is inside of a person and therefore interchangeable with mind. The idea is that just as we know what is inside (the nature) of a tree by the fruits that it bears externally, so we know what’s inside the nature of a person by the words that flow out externally. The lesson is clear. You ignore the words of a person’s mouth at your own peril.

But what about those instances when people violate the Quranic injunction? That is, when they speak good words which are meant to deceive their listeners, while they hide their real intentions inside? Of course, as we see above, such is being untruthful and therefore condemnable. But wouldn’t they have gone away with deception because they have not spoken from the abundance of their heart? The Biblical declaration suggests that such deception cannot last long, thus agreeing with the Yoruba wisdom that compares character with smoke, which cannot be locked inside for long but will eventually break out. The abundance of the heart will come out eventually and the facade of words will show for what they are: fleeting like wind.

One of the hallmarks of democratic elections is the requirement that citizens as voters ought to know the mind of the candidates presented to them to choose from. It is not enough for political parties to present their manifestos; it is more important for voters to probe the mind of the candidates whom political parties will saddle with the responsibility of implementing their well-crafted manifestos. When voters are prevented from hearing directly from candidates in debate settings, they lose out on the most important aspect of candidate probing. They end up voting with their eyes blindfolded. Unfortunately, our system has not been particularly responsive to this important requirement.

We vote and then we expect successful candidates to perform wonders to our liking. But they have their own minds. They have their own motivations and those may be quite different than, if not completely at odds, with ours. And then we are shocked and we want to interact with them even as they have the mandate to govern over us with their premeditated mindset which we suddenly realize is not our expectation. Too bad!

This scenario is not new. We have gone through at least four presidential elections since 1999. None of them featured any serious debates between or among candidates. In none of them did voters have an insight into the workings of the mind of presidential candidates. We were condemned to waiting till after the election and then it is too late. Then, of course, we start to clamor for our presidents to speak to us to reassure us concerning our unwholesome experiences under their watch.

Thus, for a long time, at least since the beginning of his presidency in 2015, when their expectations appear to be unmet on several fronts, Nigerians have yearned to hear from President Buhari. They have clearly not been satisfied with either press releases or presidential addresses which are almost always written by aides. Neither have they been appreciative of proxy statements by presidential spokesmen. Indeed, many have opined that the spokesmen have not being doing justice to the president because it appeared that they were not representing him well in the media space.

In the middle of the most recent spiral of killings, a video posted by a woman who considered herself as a staunch Buhari supporter went viral with a passionate plea to the president to “talk to us now. We are your children.” Her plea appeared to be genuine from the heart, a loyal supporter wanting her president to succeed. That video message may have succeeded in getting Mr. President to give his first major interview since 2019 to Arise TV last week. If so, we must be thankful to the woman whose passionate plea facilitated a rare inroad to the president’s mind, an inroad that was denied voters prior to 2015 and 2019 elections.

The president spoke his mind without minding where the chips may fall (no pun intended). On the part of his fellow citizens who listened with rapt attention, it is left to them to figure out what characterizes the mind of their president. From his answers to the interviewers’ questions, there are plenty of choices to make. Is the president’s mind rigid or flexible, progressive or conservative, compassionate or indifferent, strong or weak, worried or unconcerned (e.g. about unemployment, insecurity etc.)? I am sure that Nigerians would line up on both sides of these various pairs of disjunctions, itself a reflection of our diversity.

But what is the import of knowing which of these, if any, applies to our president in view of the words of his mouth from the Arise interview? We must however not think that one half of each of the pairs of opposites is bad. A rigid mind is not in itself bad or dangerous just as a flexible mind is not in itself good. As Aristotle might say, it depends on that to which you are rigid or flexible. From which it follows that one cannot be rigid or flexible on all issues. A leader who is flexible on all issues doesn’t have a mind of his or her own and may end up being tossed in all directions.

Or take the conservative/progressive pair. Surely, progressives want to conserve the value of democracy, don’t they? Therefore, they have to be conservative with regard to that value. What about conservatives? Would they want to conserve the practice of human sacrifice? If not, then they have to be progressive with regard to that practice. Likewise, a leader cannot be worried all the time. Otherwise, at the smallest sign of crisis, he or she may lose bearing. But there are times when he or she must show concern for the welfare of those under his or her leadership.

The pair that appears to have a cut and dried meaning is the “strong or weak” pair. We want our leaders to be strong, not weak, and there appears to be no relativity to this. Unlike flexibility with regards to some issues, there is no redeeming value to weakness. Weakness and strength suggest absoluteness.

Now, what do Mr. President’s words reveal to the nation about his inside with respect to the key issues of insecurity, open grazing, restructuring, and unemployment? What did we learn about the mindset of our leader in that interview? We will endeavor to address these questions next week.

• To be continued

By Segun Gbadegesin

“It is not supposed to be this complex,” Opalaba thundered, bypassing courtesies as he began a half-hour phone tirade. “Democracy rests on some foundational principles, principal among which is the acknowledgement of the people as the repository of power. From this are derived several others.”

“The people are to determine the rules, procedures, and practices that will govern them directly or indirectly though their representatives. Where direct decision making is impossible, as in all modern democracies, the people must be trusted as capable of choosing their representatives without undue influence.

“The representatives so chosen are, to the best of their ability, to represent the interests of their constituencies. While there is a debate about whether representatives should vote their conscience or ascertain the will of their constituencies in pending legislations, it is understood that they would not be representatives if their constituencies had any doubt that they were chosen for their promise to represent them. After all, the wearer knows best where the shoe pinches most. It is the reason that a democracy is rated by how effective the interests of the people are promoted by their representatives.

“It is this crucial representation of people’s interests as they understand them that is missing in military dictatorships or monarchies and that therefore marks the difference between the various systems of governance. While the former two claim the right to ascertain the interest of the people without consulting them, interest of the people in a democracy is people-based and people-determined.

“Devotees of democracy, of which I consider myself one, have long insisted that our democratic republic must recognize and respect this vital character of democracy: accord the people the right to determine their interests and elect their representatives based on this determination. Second, the people should have an unfettered right to vote out representatives who fail to represent their interests.

“It is becoming clear, however, that for many of our politicians, this essence of democracy is unacceptable, clashing as it does, with their unfounded sense of entitlement to the most enduring aspect of individuals’ lives: figuring out what is their interest. But politicians would have no such audacity to impose their ideas of people’s interests on the people in the absence of an unwitting collaboration on the part of the people.

“Yes, we have strong men and women with a great sense of dignity and integrity who do not compromise with evil. When the battlefront in the war against military oppression was red-hot, they did not flinch. And with pseudo democracy in place now, they are not war-weary. Unfortunately, they are outnumbered and outspent.

“I know you want to ask why people collaborate with impostors who pretend they know the people’s interests better than the people.

“The answer is simple. Keep the people impoverished and ignorant. Dole out crumbs from the overflowing table of national treasure which you have criminally appropriated. Make them believe that you are helping them meet their basic needs even when you are discharging the obligations of your office with the resources of the state.  Extract from them the gratitude that you know is undeserved.  Based on their traditional belief in appreciation of good deeds, the people are eternally in your debt.  Once they come to trust you, you could rely on their support even when the cause you advance is against their interest.

“This has been the pattern of our political participation over the years. It’s been based on personalities and personal relationships rather than ideological beliefs. We sloganize without a grounding in the requirements of the doctrines. Progressive sounds great, so we create “progressive” parties with arch- conservatives as members. Democracy is a political winner, so we create “democratic” parties with rabid dictators as leaders. But they all thrive because people who are drawn to these parties are drawn to personalities and not to any foundational principles. That is why, even when the promises of party manifestos are breached, there are no consequences.

“Surely, you could be a Puritan or a zealot for democracy and create a platform for genuine progressive democrats. But how far can you go against professionals with deep pockets and deceptively sweet tongues? How far did NCP go? Even with his well-documented record of achievement in the Old Western Region, how far did Awolowo’s UPN go in its quest for a united and progressive Nigeria?

“But what is the foundation of our present predicament? What is it that makes a simple principle and its accompanying procedure become so complex in our republic? Money, as the old saying has it, is the root of evil. In this nation, it is a trite point to make, but political evil is nurtured by money and the greedy quest for the wealth that it creates. But the entire society, not just the professional political class, is the culprit.

“If the wealth of the country is harnessed judiciously, there is no reason why we cannot build the nation’s infrastructure to galvanize its economic and industrial development. And this will ultimately benefit everyone including the least endowed. But it appears that our cultural affinity is opposed to the basic tenets of equality of opportunity. We seem to relish a selfish appropriation of as much resources as possible without paying adequate attention to equal distribution. Consider the gap between the super filthy rich and the poor rats among us.

“We love money and the wealth it creates. Wherever a Nigerian finds himself or herself on the economic ladder, whether as a professional, artisan, janitor, or clerk, he or she is preoccupied with what can be appropriated for self. It accounts for a reporter insisting on bribe for a story to air, a teacher demanding gratification in cash or kind for a passing grade, a police officer pumping bullets on a commercial driver who refuses to bribe him. It accounts for a Senate Committee demanding an upfront cut out of a department’s budget.  This is all in addition to the regular income of these workers.

“Why do we need all these extras? We do because we have a culture that is obsessed with material accumulation, whether it be vehicles, houses, outfits, etc. Where an average working class American or British has his or her dignity intact with a pair of jeans and a shirt or blouse, doing his or her work and getting by with his or her salary, and holding his or her representatives accountable, an average Nigerian prefers to ingratiate himself or herself to her or his political representative for material gains. You cannot hold a political representative accountable when you depend on him or her for material resources which you crave but don’t need.

“When our cravings direct us to night vigils with political bigwigs, and we receive an illicit share of the ill-gotten wealth, we are implicated in the ensuing blatant disregard for the people’s right to determine their interests. We are saying to them that the crumbs from their tables are good enough for us. We cannot honorably accuse them of failure to invest in our children’s education. Or in infrastructure. Indeed, how can we legitimately complain when they impose their wills on us by choosing our representatives for us? Or when, in intra-party tribal collaboration, they create loyal factions which they use to upend the majority’s political calculus, what recourse do we have if we have been compromised?

“From South-south to Southeast, from Northwest to Northcentral, and from Northeast to Southwest, the story is the same. Intra-party crisis deriving from constraints on the people’s ability to choose for themselves is aggravating the stress on democratic structures and institutions.

“Where are the leaders baked in the oven of democracy when its walls are collapsing around them? Where are the warriors of yesteryears against military oppression when civilian narcissism now holds sway? Where are comrades who initiated and sustained the fight against election rigging in the days of the locust when partisan allies are now the shameless riggers and thwarters of people’s will?”

My friend never gave me a chance for a word.

*This piece first appeared here in 2018. Has anything changed since? Happy Democracy day, or something!

By Segun Gbadegesin

Ponder the following exchange inside the Justice Oputa Panel on Human Rights Abuses, 1999:

Sgt. Rogers:  I have participated in three operations.

Male Panel Member: Human beings were killed in those operations.

Sgt. Rogers: Only one person.

Male Panel member: What about the other two?

Sgt. Rogers: Those were Alex Ibru and Abraham Adesanya

Male Panel Member: So Mustapha was lying?

Sgt. Rogers: It takes more than the spirit of a man to accept such responsibility…….

Female Panel Member: You accepted a while ago that you were involved in three operations and only one person died. You did not tell us who that person was.

Sgt. Roger: Alhaja Kudirat Abiola.

A huge sigh from the audience, an expression of disgust and outrage, engulfed the panel hall. It was disgust about the gruesome murder of an innocent woman. It was indignation that the death was sponsored by her nation which she loved and cared for. It was outrage that the killers had been free for at least three years and were inside that hall. It was fury about what Kudirat’s assassination and the search for justice through our courts tells us about our system of justice.

Twenty five years ago today, in broad daylight on June 4, 1996, a point-blank shot in the head snuffed life out of Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, wife of Chief M. K. O. Abiola, winner of the June 12, 1993 presidential election. She was a loving mother, successful business woman, and democracy activist. She was a strong pillar of the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) which was engaged in a fierce struggle for the restoration of democracy in general and, in particular, the June 12 presidential mandate which had been unceremoniously and unjustly annulled by the Babangida military administration.

At the Oputa Panel, Sergeant Barnabas Jabila Mshiela (aka Sgt. Rogers) an operative of the Strike Force based in the Presidency during the Abacha military regime, confessed publicly to the killing. He also implicated the former Chief Security Officer (CSO) to the regime, Major Al-Mustapha, Mohammed Abacha, and others. Al-Mustapha and his co-defendants also participated in the Oputa proceedings.

In its effort to bring Kudirat’s killers to justice, Lagos State Ministry of Justice took over the case and charged the defendants to court in 2000. Sgt. Rogers confessed again before Justice Ade Alabi, repeating his statement at the Oputa Panel that he did it on the order of Major Hamza Al-Mustapha who gave him the guns for the operation. In other words, he was only an obedient servant.

But it wasn’t only Mustapha. Rogers also implicated Lateef Sofolahan who allegedly provided information about the victim’s movement and Mohammed Abacha who, according to him, witnessed the exchange and provided the car and the driver for the job. In a separate case against Mohammed Abacha, which ended up at the Supreme Court, these allegations by Sgt. Rogers were tendered unchallenged. But by a 4-1 majority decision, the apex court found Abacha not guilty.

What is important for my focus here is not the “not guilty” verdict in favor of Mohammed Abacha. Rather, it is what the Supreme Court accepted as facts of the case in 2002:

1. Mohammed Abacha visited Al Mustapha. He saw Al Mustapha whispering to Sgt. Rogers. But he didn’t know what was discussed.
2. Mohammed Abacha saw two guns taken out of a bag and handed over to Sgt. Rogers.
3. Al Mustapha was Chief Security Officer (CSO) and Sgt. Rogers was under him.
4. Katako (Mohammed Abacha’s driver) drove Sgt. Rogers and others to the scene of the operation in Mohammed Abacha’s car.
5. Sgt. Rogers fired the shot that killed Alhaja Kudirat Abiola.

In an article for the Premium Times in 2013, Femi Falana (SAN) observed that all the judges on the panel of the apex court “made similar profound findings based on the proof of evidence before them.” Furthermore, the dissenting Justice Ejiwunmi (late) quoted by Falana affirmed that “there was evidence that the Appellant (Mohammed Abacha) allowed his driver Mohammed Katako to drive Rogers, and that the said Rogers fired and killed Kudirat while being driven by Mohammed Katako. The Appellant (Mohammed Abacha) had seen Al Mustapha hand over machine guns to Rogers and his boys.” In other words, though the court decided 4-1 in favor of Mohammed Abacha, the facts of the case were not in dispute between the dissenting Justice and the majority.

Now, the Mohammed Abacha acquittal is not my focus. But it highlights for me what is wrong with our system of justice especially with regard to the handling of the case against Al Mustapha and the search for justice for Kudirat Abiola.

As we know, Al Mustapha’s case also went through twists and turns until it culminated in acquittal at the Court of Appeal. Sgt. Rogers had appeared before the Justice Oputa panel in 2001. In a widely circulated video of his evidence before that panel, he confessed to firing the shot that killed Kudirat Abiola on the orders of Al Mustapha. At the same proceeding, Al Mustapha went off on a different mission. He focused on the post-Abacha transition to accuse Abdulsalam Abubakar of all kinds of crimes.

Al Mustapha played the victim. But he and other defendants had also perfected a strategy of delay and distraction to frustrate the proceeding and ultimately justice. Thus, what began as a straightforward case of conspiracy and murder, with a heavy weight of evidence, dragged on for more than ten years due to defence tactics. Sgt. Rogers retracted his statements against Al Mustapha and others, claiming that prosecution had influenced his confessions. And while the trial judge Mojisola Dada saw through the machinations, refused to acknowledge the retraction, and found Al Mustapha and others guilty of the murder of Kudirat, the Appeal Court threw out her judgment and dismissed the case against the defendants on grounds of witness self-contradiction.

What I find stunning is that the Appellate Court wasn’t guided by the same principle that the trial court had followed. First, as Falana observed, there had been many Appeal Court cases that affirm the right of a trial judge to reject statement retraction by witness provided the judge is persuaded of the truth of the original statement.

But, second, in the Mohammed Abacha case decided by the Supreme Court in 2002 as observed above, the Apex Court had accepted the evidence of Sgt. Rogers and other prosecution witnesses even though the Court majority had inferred a conclusion of not guilty despite affirming the evidence. If the Supreme Court thus affirmed the evidence in 2002, shouldn’t this be a reference point for the Appeal Court in 2013? Will we ever have an answer to this question?

Perhaps. In 2017, after a long hiatus, Lagos State approached the Supreme Court asking it to set aside the ruling of the Appeal Court and convict Al Mustapha for the murder of Kudirat Abiola. Perhaps, then, we can expect the Court to go back and confirm the veracity of the evidence it had accepted as facts in 2002.

What about the confessed killer, Sgt. Rogers and his accomplices? Before the Oputa Panel, Rogers had declared himself a born-again Christian with more than “the spirit of a man.” But at the Appeal Court, that spirit apparently left him, and was replaced by a satanic lying spirit. Will he ever pay for his crime?

Does the arc of the legal universe tend toward justice as that of the moral universe does? How is it that a family still hasn’t secured justice for their loved one after twenty-five years, even with a public confession by the culprit? If we cannot achieve justice in this case, how can we ever hope to achieve it in other cases without confession? I am thinking here of Chief Bola Ige, Dr. Marshall Harry, Chief Ogbonaiya Uche, Ayo Daramola, Funsho Williams, Isyaku Muhammed, and others too numerous to mention.

Kudirat Abiola fought for democracy, inspiring millions of women and youth. 25 years after, we can honor her memory by selflessly doing our part to advance her cause and ensuring that her assailants are brought to justice.

By Segun Gbadegesin

It was a great relief! Southwest APC leaders finally met and spoke the minds of millions of their members and the generality of the people of the zone. To be sure, they didn’t bite the bullet of Yoruba nation activism, which to the latter is on the front burner of attention. But no one expects such an extreme position from leaders who have invested their whole life in the unity project. For all his justified frustration with the direction of Nigeria in his day, the sage didn’t go there either.

However, these leaders went where many might have only imagined them going. Consider that these are among the topmost brains behind the formation of the ruling party. They have unimpeded access to the presidency. They must have been doing the behind-the-scene contacts, expressing their concerns about the direction of the nation. But who will give them credit if there aren’t visible results? And without results, their people aren’t happy with them.

What to do? The logical implication of being a party leader is that you get to contribute to the policy priorities of the ruling party. But if you are not a government functionary, you don’t get to control the decisions of government. It used to be the case that party discipline ensures that party-endorsed policies are carried out by party-sponsored government. When that is the case, party and government speak with one voice and act with one determination.

The people of the Southwest political zone have always been upfront about their political preferences since the feisty politics of the First Republic. They are a welfare-liberal, live-and-let-live people. They are enlightened enough to understand that the foremost responsibility of government is the security of the people. Therefore, a government that cannot deliver on this number one duty is not worthy of their support and respect. For them, any government leader or any leader of a political party who doesn’t understand this, or ignores it, is on his/her own.

They also find injustice abhorrent and unacceptable, and will go any length to show their opposition no matter its source or who is in power. Military rule didn’t stop them from violent rebellion against perceived unfair burdens of taxation in the late 1960s and early 1970s. And while they respect their age-old tradition of respect for traditional authority, nothing would stop them from dealing harshly with a traditional ruler they perceive as a sell-out.

Consider, then, what they’d think of, and how they might deal with, political leaders they think don’t represent their interests adequately to the “outside” world. Recall here the episodes that led to the eventual collapse of the First Republic. Chief Akintola wasn’t anti-Yoruba. Rather, he genuinely wanted the Yoruba to be an integral part of the central administration to partake in what he saw as the legitimate sharing of the national cake. Principles be damned! Ideology his foot! True to type, however, the Yoruba decided that they didn’t care about a national cake that would compromise their dignity. They determined that they didn’t want to benefit from betrayal. This concern for fairness and dignity has always been the political forte of the Yoruba.

In 2013, Southwest political leaders went into a political alliance with leaders from other nationalities and political persuasions to wrest power from PDP. At the time, every right thinking commentator or analyst with an abiding interest in the political development of the nation agreed on two things. First, the nation needed a strong party system which can throw up strong competition at the national level as opposed to the multitude of atomized groups that littered the political field.

The second agreement among political observers was that the ruling party of 2013 had reached the zenith of its usefulness and was on the decline in terms of its offer for the progress of the nation. Beside the infighting and factionalization, PDP was mired in corruption just as the spate of insecurity was having its toll on the public. For both of these reasons and perhaps some more, the citizenry was ready for a new political party to take on guardianship of the nation.

APC was born to cheers and applauses. The joy of the masses was palpable. People just wanted change and the party smartly capitalized on people’s desire with its mantra of change. The icing on the cake for a tired citizenry was the party’s declaration of a commitment to devolution of power via constitutional amendment. It was right there on top of its manifesto page. For a people that had led the call for restructuring for the better part of four decades, there couldn’t be a more cheerful and hopeful political news. The Southwest was bought, and it was a huge win for the party.

Fast forward eight years and the narrative cannot be more different, and this must be disheartening to party leaders who have always meant well and have always struggled hard to place the concern of their people in the front burner of their political tactic and strategy. But they cannot pretend not knowing what had gone wrong. It’s too glaring to miss.

Hopes of restructuring were raised and quickly dashed. What was supposed to be a constitutional amendment priority was delayed for three years. Then, in 2018, a high-powered committee of the party was empaneled. It worked hard and submitted a report with good recommendations. What happened thereafter couldn’t have featured in anyone’s psyche. No one now knows where the report is and no political leader is saying anything about it. But our people are not stupid. They know what they want. And they know in their hearts who to blame.

Surely, many nationalities would appreciate a big share of the proverbial national cake. And there is no doubt that a lot of this is being passed around. Roads and rail works are going on like they never have. Irrigation projects and boreholes are springing up around the country. The center is making its presence felt in policies and projects across the land.

But priorities differ. What one part desires is not the priority of the other. The liking of one is not necessarily the fancy of the other. This explains why even allocation of projects may not temper the disappointment of people in the party and government’s seeming abandonment of restructuring or devolution of power as a priority.

The recent tongue-lashing from Senate President and Attorney General has only added fuel to the fire of anger among Southerners in general and Southwesterners in particular. How does one begin to understand the weird idea that confounds and equates restructuring at state level, whatever that means, and restructuring that the party promised at the national level in its manifesto? My sympathy is with Southwest leaders who are put at the receiving end of taking all these in, and dealing with the fallout as they relate to their people.

If restructuring is a bit on the abstract level of political understanding, insecurity is at the opposite end in the realm of experience. You may not understand what restructuring is about. You sure know when you are not safe on your farm, when your livelihood is forcefully appropriated as free lunch for cows and you dare not raise a voice of protest. You cry to your traditional ruler and your council chairman and councilors. They cannot help you because they don’t control the security forces. And you wonder why you even trusted them with your votes in the first place.

With their experience of insecurity due to open grazing with impunity, the most abstract idea of restructuring begins to saturate the consciousness of our people. They now have a response. If we cannot control security agents, and we are subjected to violent attacks as we try to eke a living on our farms, what have we to lose by struggling for a sovereign nation with full security architecture as its responsibility? Fair enough, isn’t it?

What came out of the Southwest APC leaders’ meeting is a delicate balance in the articulation of their people’s frustrations with the system. They deserve our understanding, empathy and, yes, prayers!

By Segun Gbadegesin

No one saw it coming as the Southern Governors’ Forum (SGF) drew its line in the sand of national politics penultimate week. How did the forum manage a multiparty, multi-ethnic, and multi religious consensus on a bombshell of diverse policy implications? It’s a miracle of sorts.

Well, maybe not quite. The governors are far behind the people of their zones. They are still farther behind cultural leaders and political activists who have, over the years, through formal and informal showings, underscored the commonality of their concerns and articulated same to the broader national audience. Indeed, the Southern Nigerian Peoples Assembly (SNPA) has been very clear in its presentation and articulating of its concerns not just as southern concerns but also as national concerns.

The Southern Governors’ Communique of eleven paragraphs can be summed up as approximately focused primarily on three issues of national importance and urgency: security, foundation and structure of the nation, and governance matters. To these three substantive issues, they added two methodological approaches, including a presidential address and national dialogue.

Without being presumptuous, one can hazard a guess that the security issue was on the highest list of the Governors and that it facilitated a meeting of minds for the emergence of the forum and its first meeting. It’s not difficult to assume that every governor, regardless of party affiliation, as the in-name-only Chief Security Officer of his state, has been overwhelmed by the tense insecurity across the land. We should give it to them that they are so mindful of their constitutional responsibility that they agree to bury their partisan differences.

But any discussion of security cannot but bring to the table every aspect of our national institution and governance structures which have severally and collectively contributed to the architecture of insecurity that has become our lot. Obviously, a governor who doesn’t have constitutional supervisory authority over the police cannot perform effectively the constitutional responsibility of securing his state. There lies our constitutional conundrum. It is why a discourse on security cannot ignore the issue of, for instance, state police.

However, the issue of policing cannot be treated in isolation, but only as part of the whole issue of the foundation and structure of the nation and an effective federal system of governance. Hence, our Southern Governors logically found themselves making recommendations on these matters. I am almost sure that these are matters that they didn’t take lightly. Those of them who are members of the ruling party must have weighed their contributions in light of their party’s position. And note, for instance, the verbal gymnastic from the Number 1 Senator, tongue-lashing the governors. Unprecedented you say. But it’s a price that these governors hopefully have thought about and remain convinced they are prepared to pay for the good of the nation.

Now, the reactions have been wide and varied. And it would appear that, overwhelmingly, they have been positive. Even within NASS, it appears that the Senate President and Senator Ndume are the outliers. And I am sure that even they would be hard put to fault the governors on some of their recommendations. How can anyone fault them on their recommendation to ban open grazing when even Miyetti Allah has apparently conceded that it is an anachronistic practice and is only asking for government support for ranches and grazing reserves.

ACF under the leadership of Chief Audu Ogbe, former Minister of Agriculture, is also solidly behind a ban on open grazing because they see the practice as not only outdated but also dangerous for food security. As Chief Ogbe, giving credit to Governor Ganduje, has rightly observed, the unhindered intrusion of foreign herders with AK-47 strapped around their shoulders, has been responsible for maiming and killing farmers. Therefore, they cannot be allowed free entry into the country. This is a policy matter for the Federal Government, not states, to handle.

Now, the governors have not been parochial in their thinking. They haven’t presented the matter as a southern problem. Most obviously, it is a national problem. Surely, banditry and cattle rustling wouldn’t be as rampant if our national policy on livestock farming prioritized ranching and grazing reserves that are leased out to livestock farmers. Therefore, while the southern governors are able to identify security concerns in their areas of supervision, their recommendation is of nationwide application.

If the southern governors recommendations on open grazing and security are of nationwide significance and good policy for the entire nation, such that even ACF and Miyetti Allah are supportive, the governors’ recommendation on foundational and governance structures are even more so, and ought to be equally supported.

Every rational analysis of the spate of insecurity has been candid about the need for us to be comprehensive in our efforts to understand and deal effectively with it. Whether it’s Boko Haram or banditry or killer herders, we can only ignore the fundamental challenges of poverty and ignorance at our peril. Boko Haram has superior weapons, no thanks to its international sponsors.

Boko Haram also has the advantage of the ease of recruitment among the poor and ignorant. Poor herders produce future generation of poor herders who are gifted AK47s as they traverse the forest and savannah regions of the nation with all the dangers they face, while their employers feed well and smile their ways to the bank. As long as these poor folks are there to be recruited, military offensive against Boko Haram or killer herders would amount to naught.

Therefore, non-military efforts must be a priority. And these must involve reordering our other priorities so that we focus on human development initiatives which states and local governments are best positioned to initiate and accomplish. But our structure of governance which is decked against the states and local governments isn’t well positioned for this kind of initiatives.

This is what the call for restructuring is all about. And both the North and the South will benefit. This is the message of activists and constitutionalists in the past thirty years. That the Southern Governors forum has lent its leadership voice is a thing of joy. Now, they must link up with the grassroots and cultural leaders with a common strategy to get it done.

It is as clear as day where the South is on these matters. And the governors have certainly hit a winning goal across the region. I have always worried that extreme partisanship on the part of elected officials may stand in the way of getting it right with their constituents. With Southern Representatives and Senators queuing behind their governors, the solidarity is encouraging and should pay huge political dividends.

Not a party to avoid seizing on opportunities, PDP and its governors have thrown their support behind SGF. In a strongly worded Communique at the conclusion of its Ibadan meeting this week, PDP Governors Forum demanded devolution of power to the states and local governments. This is all coming at the opportune time for the survival of the nation. It will be unfair to condemn the PDP position as opportunistic, because the party had endorsed restructuring in 2019 and its presidential candidate was endorsed by southern advocates of restructuring.

APC must now take a stand. Recall that for sixteen years when PDP was in control, restructuring was an anathema, a word that automatically banned anyone from the Villa. But rigidity of position is only natural for inanimate objects, not humans with rational capacity. Now, even former President Obasanjo is singing the tune of restructuring.

Which raises the obvious question: Wither APC? As a party that was the first to place restructuring on its list of “must dos” in 2015, and had a committee report and recommendations on the matter in 2018, what is holding it back now? A progressive party cannot afford to be left behind in the matter of progress.

This newly found momentum must not wane. SGF has a responsibility to meet with its northern counterpart to advance the cause which it has so commendably started. Those highfalutin messages of the imperative of national unity can only go so far without the necessary sacrifice on all sides.

By Segun Gbadegesin

We are overwhelmed and anxious. We are frightened and confused. And we are not silent about our fears. We cry out but we don’t seem to be getting help. Not from our governments because, from local to state and national governments, they are also out of their wits. It is the case of the one who promised to loan you a pant. You size him up and the one he’s wearing is in shreds.

How and why did we come to this sorry state? It’s a good question. After all, the elders teach us that when kids stumble, they only look forward because they are focused on their destination. But an adult who stumbles would look back to see what caused it. We have done a lot of this looking back to no avail. It appears that we keep stumbling anyways.

Which leads to the rationale of a different question: What exactly is going on? What is the explanation for our inability to secure our land from domestic terrorists, kidnappers, bandits, armed robbers and cultists? This is not a question about looking back to what caused insecurity. Whatever was responsible, the question here is why are we unable to deal with it in the present?

Following the popular game show Jeopardy’s signature answer format, there are four narratives of insecurity: What is leadership incompetence? What is an uncaring leadership?  What is a situation beyond our control? And the most controversial of all: What is a land-grabbing strategic conspiracy? Our interest today is to examine these four narratives.

First, leadership incompetence. It’s the least controversial of the narratives if only because there is an expectation of competence in leaders. In light of the standard that we set, we entrust them with our safety, seemingly persuaded by their previous achievements. If, upon ascending to power, they fail to live up to expectation, citizens have a right and an obligation to call them out. “You are incompetent” is the least controversial assessment.

Between 2013 and 2015, the Jonathan presidency was the butt of relentless criticisms from the opposition, the media, and the general public, this columnist included. Why would school girls be abducted from their hostels and government couldn’t do anything about it? Why would swaths of land be captured and local government areas controlled by Boko Haram terrorists and government was helpless?

The opposition party picked a former military general and head of state with a reputation for discipline, toughness, and successfully fighting insurgency. And the contrast was apparently clear. Evidential competence against demonstrated incompetence! We would get rid of Boko Haram and restore peace in a jiffy. Before the election, it was as clear as day where the sentiment of the electorate was. Insecurity was the undoing of the Jonathan presidency.

If voters prioritized their security so much that they voted out an incumbent because they judged him incompetent to deal with security, can we fault them now if they also use the same evaluative criteria in their judgment of the new leadership? This is what consistency means.

A second narrative surprisingly doesn’t buy this recourse to incompetence as the explanation of what’s going on with insecurity. How can a general of the president’s background, experience, and standing be incompetent? That’s just sheer humbug! Didn’t we all witness his record of achievements? Generals will always be Generals with tactical and strategic advantages no matter their age! The real issue, according to this narrative, is whether he cares what happens. A carefree attitude to the security of the people, the narrative goes, is the real issue.

This is a damning narrative. How can someone who voluntarily sought the position of leadership, knowing fully well that it entails securing the lives and property of the people, get the position and then care less for whatever happens to them? It would be considered callous on his part!  But the narrative insists, with what it suggests as evidence.

Unfortunately, the president appears to inadvertently lend some credence to this narrative of an uncaring leader. The narrative’s evidence is his hesitancy in empathizing with victims. It took a national outcry before he visited Benue State when the state was devastated by farmer-herder conflicts. He has been reluctant to address the nation directly on the various flash points in the last five years. The presidential podium is a bully pulpit and a comforting minbar. It is a place of national reckoning with tragedy. A president should use it to address his constituency directly on their fears and anxieties.

A third narrative doesn’t rule out leadership incompetence or uncaring attitude. But it zeros in on a far more intractable challenge that is our plight. Boko Haram which began as a domestic insurgency has escalated to international jihadist terrorism with global funding. The group has access to sophisticated weapons that the Nigerian military doesn’t possess. The military recently agonized on the state of the fight and its comparative disadvantage in terms of weapons. If Boko Haram has international sponsorship, we are in a serious trouble and we need to up our game.

This is where the fourth narrative comes in with a highly controversial claim. Surely, it suggests, the Nigerian nation can stand up against Boko Haram and/or any other terrorist group. Leadership knows what to do. Coalition of willing partners is necessary. After all, what ails us will ultimately afflict our neighbors. And the developed world cannot close its eyes on our plight because they know how strategic Nigeria is, not only in the West Africa sub-region, but across the continent.

What then is the real explanation? The conspiratorial narrative suggests a sinister leadership motive in cahoots with the military and the Fulani ethnic nationality. The most explicit of this narrative is attributed to former Chief of Army Staff and former Minister, General T. Y. Danjuma. I have seen a WhatsApp posting bearing his name many times. And interestingly, as I type this column on my IPad, as if by telepathy, a message popped up on my WhatsApp page. It’s the same message that has been “forwarded many times.”

I don’t know if General Danjuma has himself owned up to authoring this statement. But it sums up clearly this narrative of conspiracy. It reads in part: “T.Y. Danjuma: Fulanis have declared war against indeginous (sic) Nigerians and grabbing our lands in the North and Middle Belt and we’re playing games with Buhari…The game should be up now……Rise and defend your land now before it is too late….”

Now, it is easy to see why this is the mother of all the narratives for the explosive nature of its accusation against the president and his leadership. For even if there is no truth to this accusation, if a large segment of the population, from the Middle Belt to the entire South, shares this mindset of fear and suspicion, there is no way we can fight in unity against international and/or domestic terrorist forces that are ferociously lined up against us.

Yet this narrative of an elaborate conspiracy doesn’t just pop out of thin air. It has a basis in a widespread perception of an uncaring attitude as expressed in narrative three above. Consider the fact that beside the Boko Haram insurgency, we are dealing with killer herders and kidnappers. If we give up Boko Haram to international Jihadist plot, for which we are ill-prepared, why aren’t we dealing with killer herders and farmland invaders? Why do we throw our hands in the air as if defenseless citizens should give up their means of livelihood or lose their lives?

This is the crux of the matter. The conspiracy theory won’t go away, and it is dangerous because it is fueling the various self-determination agitations. No one wants to be second-class citizens in their country. Leadership has a grave responsibility to deliver on its duty of securing the lives of all citizens and avoid the perception of an ethnicization agenda. A unified stand against insurgency and criminals of all stripes requires that leadership be above board. Incompetence can be forgiven. A generalized perception of ethnic conspiracy is on a different threat level. It can cause war.