The Nation Newspaper

Category: Friday

  • What is Nigeria to me?

    What is Nigeria to me?

    Today, I dedicate this column to three distinguished Nigerians who celebrated significant landmarks in their earthly journeys in the last few weeks. Dr. Tokunbo Awolowo-Dosunmu and Chief (Mrs.) Omowale Akinrinade turned 70 while Dr. Amos Akingba (aka Triple A) turned 80. In various ways, each of them has been involved in the Nigerian project for more than a half century and each of them and their families have the scars to show for it.

    Dr. Tokunbo Awolowo-Dosunmu represented her country with the passion of a patriot as ambassador to The Netherlands. As the Director and Chief Executive of the Obafemi Awolowo Foundation, she turned her passion to activism for the sustenance of the legacy of the Patriarch and Matriarch of progressive politics and governance in Nigeria. Building upon a legacy of democratic federalism against the forces of retrogression is what sets her apart.

    Chief (Mrs.) Omowale Akinrinade is the matriarch of the illustrious Ipoola Alani Akinrinade family, a brave warrior in the tradition of Ogedengbe Gbogungboro, Lisabi Gbongbo Akala, and Balogun Ibikunle. While the Progressive People’s General defends democratic federalism in physical and intellectual battlefields, Omowale provides the tranquil and serene environment for the stability of the family. And when brutes took over the affairs of the homeland, ferociously attacking the innocent and bombing their home, and the warrior chose to retreat to fight another time, the wife was in tow. Many are not aware of the indignities of life in exile, especially for the families of our brave compatriots. Some of us knew what they experienced and continually appreciate the sacrifice of especially the wives.

    Dr. Amos Akingba has been a vocal and passionate advocate of democratic federalism. From June 12-14, 1997, the World Congress of Free Nigerians held in London. Chief Antony Enahoro was the President and I served as Director. Delegates from the US, Canada, and Europe traveled to London for the Congress. It was there that I first met Dr. Akingba who had been exiled in London. My first impression of him was his principled position on the matter of Sovereign National Conference on which he wasn’t going to give an inch despite the hardship that he and others were going through in exile. He rejected any compromise on the most important demand of the pro-democracy groups and NADECO, namely, the release of Basorun Abiola and the demilitarization of our politics. One morning, I was struck by something that stayed in my consciousness since. Dr. Akingba had bought grapes for breakfast. He presented it to Ropo Sekoni and me, saying, “fellows, this is breakfast in exile. You better get used to it.” I suppressed my emotion and joined him.

    What is Nigeria to me? What is Nigeria to my compatriots that they are willing to make these sacrifices? Readers familiar with the writings of Dr. W. E. B. Du Bois, the father of Pan Africanism, may recall him asking an identical question of Africa. In Dusk of Dawn: An Essay Toward an Autobiography of a Race Concept (1944), Du Bois asked: What is Africa to me? He asked this question in the context of his life-long obsession with Africa, recalling with nostalgia his grandmother singing what appeared to him incomprehensible songs about Africa. He knew Africa as his “fatherland” or “motherland” having been “born in a century when the walls of race were clear and straight; when the world consisted of mutually exclusively races”.

    Du Bois’s obsession with Africa developed in the context of a mixed-race society where the larger society saw his blackness as a badge of shame, an assignment that he was not prepared to accept. While he accepted the identity of his Americanness marked by the doctrine of natural rights, freedom, and citizenship, he was not willing to forego his Africanness. The task for him was to locate the basis of his Africanness and once he achieved this, the dilemma starkly presented its vicious horn and Du Bois confronted it frontally in “Conservation of Races”: What am I after all? Am I an American or am I a Negro? Can I be both? Or is it my duty to cease to be a Negro as soon as possible and be an American?

    We should note that Du Bois’s question makes sense in the context of American racism in which the black is constantly reminded of his or her blackness which is brutally undermined and ridiculed. Du Bois queried the logic of his identifying with an America that refused to recognize and appreciate him as one of her own. This justified for him the need to look toward Africa, the motherland of his ancestors, whose cultures ring loud in his African-American community. Specifically, he looked for race solidarity and race unity as a bulwark against the race persecution of the American political and social life.

    What has Du Bois’s question got to do with my question? Like America, Nigeria is an idea that was desired to become a reality. But while America was an idea generated by voluntary agents, Nigeria was an idea imposed on different peoples by a colonizing power. Two errors tainted the American story. First was the savage elimination of the Native Americans from their land. Second was the barbaric invasion of Africa and the kidnapping, enslaving, and transporting of young men and women across the Atlantic Ocean. These were the original sins of America, which created its problem of identity and race tension.

    Here, however, over the territory that the British sought to impose their will, there were separate nationalities with distinct languages, political systems, and religious sensibilities. Let me even grant what some hegemonists like to proclaim without a basis in reality: There were clans, tribes, and no nationalities. Assume that this is true, no one has denied that those tribes and clans had their systems of governance and if they had been left alone, the small clans with common languages and religions could have found the need to come together as large nations. It was what happened in other climes.

    Now, the British eventually brought all the small and large nations together under one government and ruled over them in a manner that was only beneficial to Britain. When it was suitable, it used trickery to pit one group against the other, creating a sense of mistrust among the various groups. And when it was persuaded to give up its rule, it left the country with the animosity that it had generated ruling it. Thus, while Nigerians now have a sense of political identity as citizens, the overwhelming majority prioritize their cultural and linguistic identity over above their Nigerian identity.

    In that context, Du Bois’s second question becomes applicable: What after all am I? Am I Nigerian or am I Yoruba, Igbo, Fulani, Edo, Tiv, Ijaw, Efik, etc.? Can I be both? Or is it my duty to cease to be a Yoruba, Igbo, Fulani, Edo, Tiv, Ijaw, Efik, etc. as soon as possible and simply be a Nigerian?

    The founding fathers of Nigerian nationalism struggled with this question and concluded that, as bearers of traditions, cultures, languages, and religions, the different nationalities cannot be wished away; that being a Yoruba does not contradict my Nigerianness, and that I do not have to subdue all that is Yoruba in me to the Nigerian. They were right.

    What they also did was to institutionalize a system of governance that guaranteed that my Yoruba identity is not only acknowledged and respected, but it is also represented in the governance structure. This kind of recognition and respect is what Du Bois strived for but could not get in the American system. It was this denial that facilitated his striving to connect with Africa.

    While our experience of alienation from our roots is not on the same level as the experience that Du Bois struggled with, the imposition of a unitary system on diverse peoples with diverse cultural traditions is eerily similar. This is the rationale for the incessant clamor for restructuring, which is the only bulwark against ethnic nationalities striving for their own political kingdoms.

    Happy Birthday, Compatriots!

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

  • Nigeria’s vertical man

    Nigeria’s vertical man

    “There are thousands to tell you it cannot be done; there are thousands to prophesy failure; there are thousands to point out to you one by one the dangers that wait to assail you; But just buckle in (courageously) with a bit of grin; just take off your coat and go to it; just start to sing as you tackle the thing that cannot be done and you will do it”.

    Preamble

    If certain factors of life serve as an impetus for a man of a modest background to become a distinct national icon through service to humanity, perhaps the above quoted poem should be one of such factors. The referred Icon is the current Registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), Prof Is-haq Olanrewaju Oloyede, CFR, FNAL who is now serving Nigeria unprecedentedly to the unimaginable disappointment of certain pessimists and greatest delight of true Nigerian patriots.

     

    Witnessed Evidence

    Last week Wednesday, some lecturers of the University of Ilorin whose Ph.D theses were supervised by Prof Oloyede came up with a marvelous idea in form of a jointly written book which was publicly presented at Yar’Adua Conference Centre in Abuja. The book is entitled ‘Dynamics of Revealed Knowledge and Human Sciences’. According to its writers, the book was in appreciation of Oloyede’s mentoring of their intellectual wherewithal. The initiators of that idea are Prof Yahya Oyewole Imam, Dr. Rafiu Ibrahim Adebayo and Dr. Abubakr Imam Ali-Agan all of whom are lecturers at the University of Ilorin. The presented book was jointly written by the mentioned initiators and a number of other academic personnel from various universities across Nigeria.

    Among the personalities that graced the impressive occasion were the Sultan of Sokoto and President General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), His Eminence, Dr. Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, CFR, mni, his Deputy for the South, Dr. S. O. Babalola, OFR and a galaxy of Nigerian Juggernauts including a retinue of academic gurus and top echelon of JAMB staff.

    The Chairman of the occasion was a onetime Chief Justice of Nigeria, Hon. Justice Salihu M. Alfa Belgore GCON while the Chief Presenter was the Pro-Chancellor of the University of Lagos, Dr. Wale Babalakin SAN, OFR and the Chief Host was the Vice Chancellor of University of Ilorin, Prof. S.A. Abdulkareem. The book was prominently revealed by Prof. Abdul-Afiz Oladosu of the University of Ibadan who partnered with a Nigerian Frontline lawyer, Mallam Yusuf Olaolu Ali, SAN (The Master of Ceremony) in managing the podium for serenity.

     

    Who is Prof. Is-haq O. Oloyede?

    The question above has been severally asked by many Nigerians especially those who are amazed by the unprecedented performance of Prof. Oloyede either as a Vice Chancellor of the University of Ilorin or as the current Registrar of JAMB. But the answer was provided in details at the occasion of the book presentation last week by Dr. Mahfouz A. Adedimeji, Reader in the English Department of the University of Ilorin who wrote and read the citation of the celebrated Icon under the Title, ‘A Man of All Moments’ as follows:

    “The saying goes that a man of success achieves his goals but a man of significance changes his world. If there are people who understand the difference between the two, Prof Oloyede, Registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board (JAMB), is at the forefront among them.

    Prof Oloyede’s ascension to prominence was not a matter of coincidence; it was rather a product a clear vision, a sense of mission propelled by the keen passion to excel. In other words, here is a man who has internalised five d’s as the operational blueprint for making a difference. He is a man with a dream, who then develops a drive to achieve it. With single-minded determination, remarkable discipline, this three-in-one man (Okunrin meta) sets out to achieve his goal with dedication.”

     

    Gold and sweat

    “To Prof. Oloyede, whatever is worth doing at all is worth doing well and on time. This is why he is seen as a workaholic, a man who electrifies his surroundings with an inimitable sense of duty, a man of action and guts. As Dan Gable once said, “Gold medals aren’t really made of gold. They are made of sweat, determination, and a hard-to-find alloy called guts.”

     

    His services

    “So, wherever Oloyede finds himself, whether in the classroom or podium as a lecturer, or at the National Political Reform Conference as a Co-Secretary, or as Chairman of the Committee of Directors of Academic Planning in Nigerian Universities, or the National Coordinator/ Executive Secretary of the Nigeria Inter-religious Council (NIREC) or Secretary General of the Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA) under the transformational leadership of the royals’ royal, the Sultan of Sokoto, His Eminence, Alhaji Muhammad Sa’ad Abubakar, CFR, mni, or in several other capacities he has functioned or still functions, he is renowned for being extra-ordinary and first class.

    A talented scholar and cerebral intellectual, Oloyede is an academic genius and administrative guru, who dominates his world with well-reasoned arguments and visionary ideas. A shrewd judge of men and matters, this man who accepts no half measures smashes reputations and sets records with his sterling qualities and impeccable credentials. A man of unconquerable will and a restless questing spirit, the Pro-Chancellor and Chairman of Council, Fountain University, Osogbo, is the proverbial golden fish that has no hiding place. With a Spartan commitment to duty, easy and amiable mien, Oloyede has remained a raving phenomenon to friends and foes alike with his honesty, simplicity, humility, loyalty, generosity and single-minded belief in service to Allah and humanity.”

     

    Peacock of colours

    “To tell a peacock a story of bright colours is to sing empty and discordant tunes to a care-free bird, yet the Qu’ran tells us, “And proclaim the Grace of your Lord” (Q. Ad-duha, 93:11) Though Oloyede does not see himself as special, this infectiously simple and rare Nigerian is a man of many firsts, a special gift of God to humanity, right from the classroom to the boardroom. Due to limited time, perhaps ten of his firsts would make a sampleviz: first First Class graduate of the Faculty of Arts, University of Ilorin (1981); first Unilorin alumnus to bag a Ph.D. from his alma mater (1991), first alumnus President in the Governing Council of the University of Ilorin; first Unilorin graduant to become a Professor (1995); first academic Director of Academic Planning, Unilorin; first Unilorin product to ever become a Deputy Vice-Chancellor; and first Unilorin alumnus to become a Vice-Chancellor of a University in the world; first Secretary-General of the Association of West Africa Universities; first Nigerian to become President of the Association of African Universities and first JAMB Registrar to remit N7.8 billion to the Federal Government.”

     

    Birth and Background

    “Is-haq Olanrewaju Oloyede was on October 10, 1954 ushered into the world through the family of Alhaji and late Madam Oloyede in Abeokuta, Ogun State. He started his formal education at Ta’limul Islam Ahmadiya Primary School in 1961 after which he proceeded to Progress Institute, Agege, where he bagged his 1st School Leaving Certificate with Distinction in 1969. He perfected his training as an Arabist at the famous Arabic Training Centre (Markaz) between 1973 and 1976. His insatiable quest for knowledge took him to the University of Ibadan, where he bagged a Certificate in Arabic and Islamic Studies while his passion for higher learning brought him to the University of Ilorin in 1978, where he graduated as Best Graduating Student in 1981. The University of Ilorin scrupulously engaged him as Assistant Lecturer in 1982 and he subsequently obtained his higher degrees in 1985 and 1991, rising through the ranks in th e process till he became a Professor in 1995.”

     

    Scholarship and training

    A true scholar to the core, Oloyede is a keen advocate of training and in this respect, he leads by example as the prodigy is never ashamed of being a student.  He obtained his Postgraduate Diploma in Education just in 2003 and became a Certified Teacher by Teachers’ Registration Council of Nigeria in 2005. Between 1994 and 1995, he received Special Proficiency Training on Information and Communication Technology at the International Centre for Communication Art and capped his ICT proficiency with a Certificate in Advanced Digital Appreciation Programme- Tertiary (ADAPT) at the International Centre for Communication Studies and Digital Bridge Institute, Abuja, in 2007.”

     

    Awards and honours

    This man of unimpeachable integrity has received several awards and honours in his dazzling and inspiring career and he is a member of many professional bodies. He is a recipient of the Arab League Prize for the Best Certificate Student in Arabic and Islamic Studies, University of Ibadan; recipient of Merit Award by Islamic Mission of Africa, proprietors of Crescent University, Abeokuta; Fellow, Islamic Academy of Cambridge, United Kingdom; Fellow, Academy of Religion; Fellow, Society for Peace Studies and Practice; Fellow, Academy for Entrepreneurial Studies, Nigeria; Fellow, Nigerian Institute of Management; and Fellow, Nigerian Academy of Letters.”

     

    Associations

    Prof. Oloyede has been a long-time member of the Nigerian Association of Teachers of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Professors World Peace Academy of Nigeria and the Nigerian Association for the Study and Teaching of Religion and the Natural Sciences. He is a Board Member of the African Centre for Religions and the Sciences and representative of Unilorin Local Societies Initiative at the Metanexus Institute of Science and Religion, Philadelphia, USA and several others. He has won the Federal Government Scholarship, University of Ilorin, Merit Scholarship and several national awards, including Officer of the Federal Republic (OFR).”

     

    As Unilorin V.C.

    “This distinguished gentleman had served the University of Ilorin, Kwara and Ogun States and indeed the Federal Republic of Nigeria in several capacities. His achievements are so many and etched on stone that recounting them will fill several pages. Yet, it would be unfair to the University of Ilorin and its alumni if it is not mentioned that when this illustrious graduate of the University was the Vice-Chancellor, the University was taken to such an Olympian height that Vice-Chancellors visited him regularly to understudy him. Within a period of five years, this great man of honour took the University of Ilorin from being an unranked University to one of the best 20 in Africa, according to international ranking agencies.

    Not only did Oloyede take the University of Ilorin to its apogee, he also electrified the global university system with his sterling leadership qualities and high-octane administrative acumen. No other Nigerian Vice-Chancellor has achieved being Chairman of the Committee of Vice-Chancellors (CVC)/ Association of Vice-Chancellors of Nigerian Universities (AVCNU), President of the Association of African Universities (AAU), Board Member of both the Association of Commonwealth Universities (ACU) and International Association of Universities (IAU) within a tenure of five years, apart from being the initiator of the Association of West Africa Universities (AWAU) through the Ilorin Declaration.”

     

    Research Works

    As a prolific author and astute academic, his hundreds of research works have appeared in scores of several national and international journals. Oloyede has written, co-written and co-edited books and papers published in many outlets in Nigeria, Ghana, Kenya, South Africa, Switzerland, United Kingdom, India, Pakistan, USA, among others. He has presented academic papers in conferences all over Nigeria and across the world.

    Little wonder that awards and recognitions have been swarming him but the self-effacing Oloyede has been driving them away. Nevertheless, he was on Saturday, November 27, 2017 garlanded by the well-respected New Telegraph newspaper as the “Most Outstanding Public Servant of the Year”. As the blind can see and the deaf can hear, Oloyede stands tall today as one of the greatest symbols of President Muhammadu Buhari’s anti-corruption crusade. It was therefore not surprising that when the Presidency released a statement on December 30, 2017 to showcase the achievements of the Federal Government, JAMB’s name was conspicuous in it. Subsequently, when the Minister of Information and National Orientation made an intervention in response to a statement, JAMB under Oloyede still featured prominently as a major achievement of Mr. President.”

     

    Exemplary courage

    Known for saying his mind without minding whose ox is gored, Oloyede is not unmindful of the fact that maggots would detest sanitary inspectors. In his frenetic pace for standard and excellence wherever the combination of hardwork and good luck puts him, he steps on toes with integrity. So, one would agree with The Punch  in its editorial of January 8, 2018 that “a leadership with integrity is critical….It is a fact that the Registrar of the Joint Admissions and Matriculation Board, Is-haq Oloyede, showed with the N7.8 billion his agency remitted, against 3 million annually remitted by his predecessors.” Perhaps, part of his inspiration for being who he is lies in the words of Bill Cosby: “I don’t know the secret of success but the secret of failure is trying to please everybody”.

     

    Physical and mental energy

    “A no-nonsense man of super-abundant physical and mental energy, Oloyede loathes corruption so much that corruption too loathes him in kind. At a personal level, it was through him that I learnt that it is not a shame to be broke. Ten years ago, as Vice-Chancellor, he needed to send me on an errand and he told his son, now a medical Consultant, to withdraw money from his account. He was told there was no money there. He mentioned another account and he was informed the last money there had been withdrawn under his directive. We had to wait till his next salary was paid. I learnt to assure myself since then that being broke is normal, after all, the Vice-Chancellor was broke!”

     

    Shrewdness and versatility

    “A versatile scholar, a shrewd manager of men and materials, Oloyede is a family man, happily married to the woman of his dreams, a supportive, devoted, caring and enduring Dr (Mrs) Raheemat Oloyede and the marriage is blessed with children, including a set of male twins, and an expanding clan of grandchildren!

    It is my singular honour to present to you the man of the moment, and indeed the man of all moments, a preeminent professor, astute administrator, exceptional scholar, academic mentor, redoubtable Registrar, dynamic Chief Executive, prolific writer, incorruptible leader, marvelous manager, inimitable consultant, wonderful Fellow, intellectual juggernaut,  inter-religious activist, compulsive communicator and outstanding personality, okunrintakuntakun, Prof. Is-haq Olanrewaju Oloyede, OFR, FNAL, FNIM, FIAC, FAR, fspsp, etc!”

    We pray the Almighty Allah to keep the glory of Prof. Oloyede and other men and women of his like in Nigeria aglow forever that Nigeria will be great.

  • Dapchi and the search for meaning

    Dapchi and the search for meaning

    A horrific nightmare? A national embarrassment? A national shame? What is Dapchi? How does one even start making sense of a senseless occurrence? Indeed, a recurrence! How does a government that rode to power on the adjudged weakness of an incumbent government defend itself against a reasonable charge of weakness and ineptitude? What goes round comes round!

    In the face of a mounting evidence of self-generated crises, does a loyal supporter pretend visual or hearing impairment? Or mental incapacity? Not now! After the truth is canvassed privately without effect, a self-respecting conscientious rational being has a responsibility to his or her conscience to speak truth to power publicly. In 2003, after “A Mad March”, I called out on “Those Who Must Speak Now”. Now I count myself as one among those who must speak now.

    Call it what you may. Deja vu it is not. This present, like the recent past, is real. This is not a fantastic psychiatric recall of an illusory experience from the past. We were there at Chibok only four years ago and the memory is still fresh with us all, especially with survivors and grieving parents and relations of the lost. Did we then not make a vow that it will never happen again? How did the ball get dropped and who did it?

    The wise admonish us that when a people fail to learn from experience, they are inevitably condemned to repeat it. How did we fail to learn from the experience of Chibok?

    Chibok was four years ago in April 2014 when Boko Haram terrorists abducted more than 250 young girls from their boarding house. They were sexually assaulted and exploited. At tender ages, away from their parents, their abductors hawked them as sex slaves. They mothered their children against their will. For three years, attempts to get them released and rejoined with their families failed amid partisan political jabs. Candidate Buhari and APC won the general election of 2015 with a promise to rescue the Chibok girls and end the menace of Boko Haram.

    The Buhari administration hit the ground running and in the first few weeks of inauguration it ordered Service Chiefs to relocate to the Northeast. That was greeted with relief and appreciation. The military reported progress and soon many of the Chibok girls regained their freedom, though the trauma of the ordeal, including forced motherhood, couldn’t be erased. At least, there was a national sigh of relief with a presidential promise to resettle the survivors and pursue the culprits till the scourge is permanently extinguished. Now this!

    If anything was learnt from Chibok, it was that terrorists had an easy access to the school because there was no security presence there. The police were not a match for the sophisticated weapons of the terrorists. There was no military presence. Therefore, it made sense that the military was deployed to Dapchi for the protection of the young students at the Dapchi College of Science and Technology. That was a strategic move that deterred the terrorists.

    In addition, between 2015 and 2017, the military and other security forces succeeded in the coordinated operation against Boko Haram. Unfortunately, that success had been misconstrued to mean complete routing. Apparently, someone prematurely declared “Mission Accomplished” and withdrew the army from Dapchi.

    Was it a case of political intrigue to embarrass the administration ahead of 2019? I know some within the party and the administration might be tempted to think along this line. But they should perish the thought and avoid going there because they mocked similar thinking four years ago. And frankly, to go there is to admit to the charge of ineptitude. For why couldn’t a competent administration invest thought and resources in foiling any political intrigue on the part of the opposition or other malcontents?

    If you knew that an earth-shaking occurrence took place a year to the last election and it cost the ruling party the election, does it not stand to reason that you would arm yourself against a similar occurrence under your watch? Who are the insiders of the Rock that strategize about the good of the president and the nation? Who are the security advisers? What explanation is forthcoming from the Minister of Defence? And the Minister of Internal Affairs? Are these the President’s men in whom he is well-pleased? Surely, they couldn’t be accomplices in any scheme to embarrass him! Or can they?

    So are the Service Chiefs. Indeed, some mischievous observers would see poetic justice boldly scripted in a chapter of this episode. Has the President not been recently accused of staffing the Defence headquarters with his people? Can they be implicated in a plot to embarrass him? Or are they just incompetent?

    The death of a baby is responsible for the mother’s plight in the hands of her tormentors. Unfortunately, when an administration that was celebrated at inception as the patron saint of peace and security appears to have lost its ward, it unwittingly energizes mockers and tormentors. Having succumbed to the clever tackle of the terrorists, it has opened the space of reproach to small indignities. Hear PDP and company! And wait in vain for APC publicity crew’s response. Mischief!

    The national outcry against the obvious shoddy handling of the farmer-herdsmen conflict was still raging with little progress toward its resolution. It was already being characterized as the Boko Haram of APC without knowing that the real Boko Haram of APC was around the corner. Three years into the life of the administration, the initial teething problem can no longer be an excuse. The actual practice of lunacy is shortchanged when the preparation for it takes forever.

    It didn’t help that, like 2014, the initial administration reaction was utterly confusing. “Thank God, students were not abducted. Oh! we are sorry students were actually abducted.” “But thanks to the military, abducted students have been released. Oh! too bad, abducted students have not been released.” It is anybody’s guess how parents and loved ones were supposed to handle the confusion. Do we care about our children and their parents?

    Unlike 2014, however, reason prevailed in quick succession. Cabinet members were sent to Yobe on fact-finding mission. The President ordered the military chiefs to relocate to the sector and he promised parents that their children will be returned to them, a promise that he cannot afford to break.

    Seeking the presidency is seeking a legacy for party and candidate. For the party, it is about placing its vision for the nation at the center, working hard to have it realized within the time it has, and hoping that it becomes engrained in the fabric of the nation.

    A political party’s vision could be the establishment of a security infrastructure that keeps the people safe for a long time. It could be a welfare program that takes seriously the burden of social life on people and relieves it on their behalf. It could be a vision of a structure that takes account of the diversity of the population and seeks to make it more productive of harmony in the long run. Having bought into the vision of the party, the presidential candidate is expected to promote it and implement it to its logical conclusion. At this point in the life of the administration, it is not too early to ask, what will be its legacy?

    Surely, there have been some achievements. The economy is improving. Foreign reserve is rising. Corruption is being attacked. Citizens normally expect these of any administration. Securing a legacy requires more. And for that more, attention must be paid to the various strands in the fabric of the party. Are leaders working at cross purposes? If so, can there ever be an alignment of leadership and followership?  When egocentric and ethnocentric leaders pursue their self-interest at the expense of party solidarity and victory; when they poohpooh the concept and practice of internal democracy and the grassroot revolt; if the party fails in the end, what is their gain? Or is their plan to jump ship before it hits the iceberg?

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbadeg2002

     

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • Does true federalism guarantee true democracy?

    Does true federalism guarantee true democracy?

    For clarity and transparency, I should start with an explanation of the mindset that provokes the above question. Simply put, it is the mindset of an optimism that sees beyond the present fog of uncertainty which defines our national politics to a future that is as certain as death. The future I foresee is that of change from this quasi-unitary system to one that approximates a true federal republic. And I envisionthis change coming in the lifetime of this generation.

    There are good signs that we will get there. First, we have been there before, and we were witnesses to its successes and its failures. The mark of a genuine human intellect is to learn from failure and make necessary improvements for greater success. It is a defeatist mindset that gives up on a course with great potentials after only six years. That was what we did.

    Second, the failure of the present system has been demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt for every rational being. Since 1966, we have operated a governing system that has caused unprecedented political and economic instability on a regular basis. We blame the founding fathers for agreeing to a regional federal system that fueled ethnicism. Can anyone honestly suggest that this quasi-unitary system has gotten rid of ethnicism? Third, with recent developments, as discussed in this column last week, it appears that we have put on our thinking caps again and are getting back our senses.

    For the foregoing reasons, I am optimistic that we will get to the state of a true federal republic and this is the rationale for the question raised in the title of the column today. The assumption behind the question, “does true federalism guarantee true democracy?” is that true federalism is not an end in-itself. What does this mean? It simply means that in response to the assertion “It is good and helpful to have a true federal system of governance in a multi-national state”, one may reasonably ask “why?””What is good about it?”

    The question, “what is good about true federalism?” is reasonable and it deserves an adequate answer. One possible answer can be eked from a combination of the works of John Stuart Mill and Chief Obafemi Awolowo. In “On Representative Government”, Mill argues that every nationality, with a distinct language, culture, and a sense of belonging, has a right to self-government. Where this is not possible because of a forceful imposition by a colonial power, Awolowo argues in People’s Republic that federalism is the closest to self-government.

    Yet, as reasonable as both positions are, we could still ask the question “why?” Why is it the right of nationalities to have self-government? And why is still necessary to have a federal system where two or more nationalities cohabit? Other answers are possible: political stability, balanced development, etc. For each of these, we could still ask why it is so important. The ultimate answer beyond which we might not anticipate a reasonable question is that self-government promotes freedom and freedom is an inalienable right of human beings.

    Freedom is divinely ordained. As Rousseau surmised, human beings are born free. No one is born with chains around his or her neck. And human beings are born into communities which naturally nurture them to survive the helplessness of infancy and the dependency of adolescence until they come of age and their freedom is acknowledged and respected. When a young man comes of age, he is given a farm plot of his own. That is freedom.

    We also realize, however, that a community composed of free individuals needs a governance structure; and over the years of human existence, different systems of political-economic governance have been operated. From communal to slave systems, from feudal to capitalistic, from monarchical to aristocratic, from autocratic to fascist and militocratic. The experiments have been varied and consequential. But none has endured except democracy and the reason democracy endures is that it exemplifies and validates the natural human affinity and quest for freedom.

    If freedom is the ultimate political value for human beings, and if democracy validates, protects, and promotes, human freedom, then we must expect that our quest for true federalism would also guaranteetrue democracy and promote human freedom. This is the basis for my question: does true federalism guarantee true democracy?

    My inclination is to argue that why true federalism is a necessary condition for true democracy in a multinational state, it is not by itself a sufficient condition? It is easy to see that true federalism is a necessary condition for true democracy. Mill argues rightly that “free institutions are next to impossible in a country made up of different nationalities. Among a people without fellow feeling, especially if they read and speak different languages, the united public opinion, necessary to the workings of a representative government, cannot exist.” The next best alternative to make such a system work is to give recognition to each nationality through a federal system of government.

    But while true federalism is a necessary condition in such a structure, it is not sufficient. For, a true federal system may end up empowering a few elites and power-brokers within a nationality at the expense of the freedom of every individual member of the nationality. To know what else must be added to true federalism for it to lead to the end of true democracy and individual freedom, we need to understand the impediments to the realization of the latter even in a truly federal state.

    First on the list of impediments is self-interest which is now a proxy for ethnic interest. In a malfunctioning quasi-unitary state, ethnicism is the culprit. Nepotism is the foe of freedom. We tend to ignore the fact that these cleverly elide the obnoxiousness of individual egos masquerading as ethnics. The nepotist revels in the act because it enhances his image within the group and his private interest is thus promoted. In a truly federal state, this human urge for image enhancement and ego bolstering is not suddenly supplanted with a desire to promote the freedom of all fellow-ethnics.

    Consider even now what goes on in the various states of the lopsided federation. Where there is no visible nepotism, there is factionalism even within the same political party. Party members are categorized based on loyalty to leaders, including governors, instead of loyalty to party manifesto and governing philosophy. Based on the universality of human nature, whichseldom respects moral and political ideals of freedom and equality, without additional effort to make the ideal of individual freedom the centerpiece of a true federal structure, we can expect some variants of the following.

    Nepotism will relocate to states or regions with regional tribes within regional nationalities using the political power of numbers to oppress and exploit their minority members. We could see federal

    bigmanism becoming state or regional bigmanism. We could see the enlargement of the coast of regional or state tin gods. Without additional efforts, transparency is not likely to increase, and candidate imposition is not likely to abate. As our people understand so well, it is imprudent to allow a sharp pointed wood to be menacingly close to one’s eyes before raising an alarm.

    Morning predicts the day. What we see now in state and regional politics is likely to dictate what democracy looks like in a truly federal system.

    But of course, there is always the power of the people to determine their fate. Southwest leadersmust always remember Awolowo’s eternal wisdom garnered from experience of leading our people. As he once observed in Path to Nigerian Greatness, the Yoruba are a sophisticated people who will not allow their rights to be trampled upon for long: “Many rights are enjoyed within the family; these rights are fundamental and inalienable, because the urge for their enjoyment is inherent and instinctive in man…. Because of their inherent and instinctive nature, these rights cannot be permanently suppressed. In the short run, they can be held in abeyance, but even only at great risks to the peace, harmony, and cohesion of the family.”

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • How to write your Will

    How to write your Will

    Preamble

    One of the obligatory Islamic duties which most Muslims take for granted is the writing of will. For every Muslim adult, male or female, writing a will is not a matter of choice. It is incumbent on all Muslims. But not many Muslims know this. And the few who know it do not seem to be comfortable with it.

    The general thinking is that writing a will is only for old people who are close to death or those who are very rich. This does not only contradict the concept of Islam about death, it also contravenes the principle laid down in Islam about will writing. No one knows when death will come. An octogenarian may continue to live while a man or woman of twenties or thirties may die. The healthy may die while the sick lives. The circumstances of life which cause death particularly in this age of technology are very unpredictable. Thus, death may come to anybody at any time.

    One of the advantages of Tafsir (the exposition of the Qur’an) is to disseminate knowledge especially on sensitive but fundamental issues often over-sighted by most Muslims. Writing a will is one of such issues. Will in Islam is called wasiyyah. It is a very significant means of providing a flexible instrument of transferring estate or a fraction of it to those who are not heirs. It is also a means of leaving a permanent instruction for one’s children, wives and siblings on how to conduct life after the legator might have demised.

    Wassiyyah basically means a bequest of assets and debts to others after one’s death. It depicts the differences between hibah which means a gift in one’s life time and wirathah (inheritance). Wasiyyah is a voluntary gift delivered to the intended beneficiary after the death of the giver.

    In Islam, writing a will is not about bequeath of wealth alone. It is rather more about the explanation of certain things in the life of the will writer which were not known to his or her family members, relatives and close associates.  For instance, if the concerned will writer did not pay Zakah when he was able to pay it, or if he was indebted but did not disclose it to his/her relatives or if something was entrusted to him/her without involvement of witnesses. Also, if he/she made a promise to someone without the knowledge of his/her relatives, it is incumbent upon him/her to include such matters in his/her will. This is to clear any possible ambiguity or doubt about his/her relationship with other people while alive.

     

    Contents of the Will

    The contents of such a will are never disclosed until after the death of the writer. A Muslim will can be in written or oral form. And it is forbidden for anybody to alter such a will in any way. Altering it is a crime punishable in Islam.

    Writing of will by Muslims is ordained by the Almighty Allah in Q.2:180 thus:

    “It is decreed that when death approaches, those of you that leave wealth shall bequeath it equitably to parents and kindred. This is a duty incumbent upon the righteous. He that alters it (the will) after hearing it shall be accountable for his crime. Allah is all-Hearing, all-knowing.” Prophet Muhammad was also reported by foremost Hadith experts (Bukhari and Muslim) as saying that “Any Muslim who has something to bequeath should not pass two nights without writing his will”. And Ibn Majah (another Hadith expert) also reported a narration from Jabir quoting the Prophet as saying those who die leaving will behind died in the path of truth and righteousness and they shall receive the forgiveness of Allah”

     

    Sharing Properties

    Ordinarily, in Islam, a Muslim has no right to share his/her property among his offsprings or relatives by his own whim. The Islamic way of bequeathing inheritance has been divinely spelt out clearly in the Qur’an. And that is a different topic entirely not to be lumped with the issue of writing will on this occasion.

     

    Qualification of a Will Writer

    If a will must be written according to Islamic prescription then the writer of such a will must be a Muslim. He/she must have attained the age of maturity. He/she must be sane. He/she must use an understandable language and clearly identify self in his/her will. He/she must also append his/her signature to every page of such will with a clear indication of the date of the signature. There must be witnesses to the writing and signing of the will and those witnesses must also identify themselves clearly and duly sign the space left for them as witnesses in the will.

    But if the will is to be orally recorded, the voice of the will recorder must be identifiable and audible with understandable language.

     

    The Executors

    The executors as well as the trustees of the will must be clearly named and if necessary, described to avoid any confusion that may arise from similarity of names. In that case,   four original copies of a written will must be produced. And one copy must be given to each of the four appointed witnesses. No one of the witnesses must know another and no photocopy should be produced for any reason. All available copies must be original. This is to prevent any possible leakage or connivance that may lead to betrayal of trust. Every appointed witness must be an acknowledged trustworthy person of integrity. Ditto the executors.

     

    Contents of the Will

    An Islamic will should contain the following facts as a matter of necessity:

    1. Listing all the children if there are
    2. Listing all the available assets
    3. Listing all liabilities including debts, unpaid Zakah, promises made but not yet fulfilled, entrusted property as well as illegal acquisition in the writer’s possessions
    4. Listing the wives and relatives including parents, siblings and other beneficiaries who are alive and are qualified as inheritors

    All these must be clearly spelt out without mentioning the amount or share due to each beneficiary.

    1. Listing any special bequest, testamentary transfer and endowment as well as the names of the beneficiaries. All these must be clearly spelt out.
    2. Appointing a guardian or trustee for minor children until such children attain the age of maturity
    3. Specific sections of the will may be addressed to the wife/wives and children about their expected conducts and attitude to life after the demise of the legator
    4. Any written will must be updated from time to time and each latest copy must be given to the witnesses and the trustees while the old ones are withdrawn for destruction.
    5. The executors must not know the trustees. And the trustees must not take part in the execution of the will. Their duty is to ensure that the executors comply with the letters of the will.

     

    Outside the Will

    Some facts not to be included in the inheritance aspect of the will of a Muslim are as follows:

    A non-Muslim child of a Muslim will-writer or an illegitimate child or a murderer (one who kills his parents) should not be included in the list of those to inherit because they are not qualified to inherit a Muslim parent under Islamic law. If, however, the will writer feels strongly about giving his non-Muslim child something from his estate, this may be contained in the aspect concerning testamentary transfer. Ditto the non-Muslim wife and illegitimate child. But the total aggregate of what a Muslim can will out to those not qualified for inheritance should not exceed one third of the entire estate after the deduction of debts.

    The idea of one third of total assets as gift came about from a conversation between Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and Sa’d bn Abi Waqqas. The latter had sought the Prophet’s permission to bequeath his entire estate to certain people and groups. The Prophet said ‘NO’. He, (Abi Waqqas), then said what of half? And the Prophet said ‘NO’. Then he (Abi Waqqas) said what of one third? The Prophet at that stage reluctantly gave a go ahead indicating that even the one third was too much concluding that “it is better to leave your heirs richer than poorer”. Thus, the final approval became a Prophetic tradition which Muslims must abide by. This means that one third is the maximum a Muslim can bequeath to anybody in his will outside the inheritance bracket.

    Islam does not allow Muslims to bequeath or make special provision in their will for those who are legitimately eligible as heirs. Therefore, anybody who is qualified to inherit cannot be included in the will for any gift after the demise of the legator. Any such gift must have been handed over to the beneficiary while the legator was alive.

    The copies of the will may be given to banks or any other corporate institutions like courts in confidence for safe keeping without the knowledge of the beneficiaries. However, such copies must be accompanied by covering notes. But there must be witnesses to the keeping of such a document in the bank or the court.

     

    When to write Will

    A Muslim must not wait until death approaches before writing his/her will since he/she does not know when death would come. Neither should he/she wait until he/she becomes rich before doing same since he/she does not know if he/she would ever become rich. For a genuine Muslim, writing a will must begin as soon as he/she marries and starts raising a family.

  • Tracking a report

    Tracking a report

    In its 2015 election manifesto, the All Progressives Congress (APC) promised, among other things, to:

    “Initiate action to amend our Constitution with a view to devolving powers, duties and responsibilities to states and local governments in order to entrench true Federalism and the Federal spirit.”

    With these words, APC caught the attention of a public that was tired of the wobbly structure that the military foisted on the country. And with the nomination of a presidential candidate that the party presented to them as Mr. Integrity and corruption-buster, Nigerians enthusiastically rooted for APC and saw it to the finish line.

    Satisfied that they did their part and voted for a better structure and sustainable future full of promise, electorates waited for results in the form of fulfilled promises. And they waited and waited. Then they listened in disbelief as somekey leaders of their favorite party dilly-dallied with one excuse after the other: Oh, we didn’t promise restructuring. Oh, yes, we did, but our priority is the receding economy which we inherited. Our people want food on the table, not devolution of power. And the people were in shock. Have we been duped?

    Then reason prevailed. APC announced its committee on restructuring. And there was a long gasp which morphed into a thunderous cynical chorus. “APC is deceiving Nigerians! How can an anti-restructuring guy like Nasir El-Rufai chair a committee on restructuring? Can anything good come out of such committee? It just shows that the party is not serious about restructuring”

    Undeterred by the negativities, Governor El-Rufai and his committee went into action, holding consultations across the country, receiving memoranda from Nigerians, and foraging into records of two decades of constitutional conferences from 1994 to 2014. In the end, the committee submitted its report, which, to the surprise of many thoughtful persons, is faithful to the spirit of the APC manifesto with its recommendation of devolution of power to states, including a bold effort on the question of resource control, local government, and state police.

    Surprisingly, neither the timeliness of the report nor its content has tempered the unease and the distrust that many citizens had expressed. And while the mixed reaction is normal with such contentious issues, the disproportionate amount of suspicion of the party’s motive compared to trust in its will to deliver on the committee’s recommendation is alarming. Indeed, when such deep derision is vocalized by a senator of the party, one begins to wonder whether this divided house of APC is working against its own interest.

    Compare such negative reaction to the enthusiastic reception of the report by some opposition leaders including former President Jonathan and Governor Dickson, leading to their call for the immediate implementation of its recommendations?  This is political maturity and it deserves commendation. We must join them in tracking the report and insisting on action by Mr. President and the National Assembly.

    I am not a mind-reader and I have zero ability for knowing human motives. I rely on what I see as the basis for what I know. And what I see is a report that aligns with some of my expectations about what restructuring must look like. Therefore, rather than dismiss the report as a gimmick, I welcome it as the beginning of our movement toward a truly federal structure.

    Right on top of the agitation for restructuring has been the contentious issue of fiscal federalism and resource control. The El-Rufai committee proposed a constitutional amendment to give states control over mining and onshore oil exploration, which means that oil-producing states will now have control over on-shore oil revenues.

    Second, determined to rebut the charge of false advertising against its party (remember Speaker Dogara’s #political malpractice), the committee took up the important issue of devolution of power to the states, with a recommendation that “the first schedule, Part I and II be amended to transfer some powers to the states.” Among the powers to be transferred from the Exclusive to the Concurrent List are Food, Drugs, Poison, Narcotics, Fingerprints and Identification of Criminal Records, Registration of Business Names, Labour, Mines and Minerals, including oil fields, Geological Surveys and Natural gas, Police, Prisons, Public Holidays, Railways, and Stamp Duties.

    Third, as mentioned above, the restructuring of the policing system is one of the recommendations of the committee. The demand for state police has been one of the most forceful issues since the last days of military rule. Though this demand has been resisted over the decades with the Police leadership taking the lead in the resistance, its obvious inability to maintain peace and order over the entire country has finally dawned on the most adamant advocates of the status quo.

    We cannot deny the fact that, as the resisters fear, state governors are human beings who may be tempted to abuse the system of state police as it was in the First Republic. But as humans we are expected to learn from experience. Therefore, we must consider thistendency to abuse in formulating the lawsto set up state police. Rather than make governors the exclusive authority over the police, there are various approaches to establishing a free and independent police force.

    Fourth, for the effective performance of the additional responsibilities that states must carry with the devolution of powers, they will need additional revenue. Therefore, the committee recommended a constitutional amendment to give more revenue to states and reduce the share of the federation account that goes to the federal government. It also recommended an amendment to the Revenue Mobilisation and Fiscal Commission Act, so that it can have the power to review the derivation formula and make recommendations to the President.

    Fifth, contrary to some comments, the committee did not vote against state creation. It noted that there is a constitutional provision for it, whereas there is none for the merger of states. And in view of the current voluntary intra-zonal cooperation among states, it is important to have a constitutional procedure for merger should any of such cooperation lead to an interest in merger. This is a commendable recommendation. Hopefully, this recommendation is not only accepted but that a warm embrace of its provision by states is encouraged. But assume three states merge. Is the merged state treated as one for purpose of federal allocation?

    Sixth, one of the most far-reaching recommendations by the committee is that on local government. While some commentators have understood this recommendation as respect for local government autonomy, I see it as respect for state jurisdiction over its local governments. I do not see the local governments as being more independent or freer than before. However, states are now going to have constitutional authority to create and fund local governments. And while many will see this as a de jure affirmation of what has been a de facto practice, the difference is that funding will now come from states and not from the federal government.

    Other recommendations including those on referendum and independent candidacy are long overdue and if accepted should make the polity more open and fairer with more participation by citizens. In sum, then, these recommendations are our first step toward becoming a true federal republic.

    Four factors are responsible for public cynicism. First, there were discordant notes about restructuring and true federalism coming from some APC leaders. Second, the timing of the committee report toward the end of its third year in power gave room for the usual political sarcasm. Third, no matter what the party does or doesn’t do regarding restructuring, some of its political rivals, especially in PDP, will gleefullypoohpooh it. Finally, there are thoughtful and vocal advocates of restructuring for whom what has been offered by APC is simply not adequate. These include, on the one hand, advocates of regionalism among which I count myself, and on the other hand, separatists who see no redemption in any form of restructuring for the Nigerian state.

    APC and the Buhari administration will do well for themselves and for Nigeria to implement the El-Rufai Committee recommendations before 2019. Any delaying tactics or untoward action will be politicallyunwise.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

     

     

     

  • Deconstructing a message

    Deconstructing a message

    Nigeria is truly blessed. Beside her many ethnos and cultures, religions and sects, there is also an enviable diversity of individual talents and skills in various walks of life including military strategists and tacticians, analytical and speculative intellectuals, smart accountants, gifted prophets and clerics, learned lawyers and judges, skillful physicians and compassionate nurses. Add to these the long list of master artisans from home builders to motor mechanics and service providers from drivers to nannies. With such an impressive demographic, this country should be a socio-economic powerhouse.

    Unfortunately, Nigeria is only a potential socio-economic powerhouse. For that potential to become a reality, all the pluralities of ethnos, cultures, religions and diversity of skills and talents need to be thoughtfully harnessed and skillfully deployed. This is the task of the institution of politics,which, following Aristotle, is a practical science concerned with the happiness of the citizens. As such, politics is the master or authoritative science because the ends of other sciences serve as means to its ends. Politics is for the human good. And whatever their immediate ends, ultimately, all other sciences must aim at human good, which is the immediate and ultimate end of politics.

    If Aristotle is right, Nigeria has not been able to fully realize its potential as a socio-economic powerhouse because her politics has not succeeded in thoughtfully harnessing and skillfully deploying the multiplicity of ethnos, cultures, religions, and its diversity of skills and talents. Why? This is a question that begs for an answer.

    Furthermore, however, if Aristotle is right, and politics is the authoritative science, it is strange that, unlike other sciences which require a period of apprenticeship, politics appears to be an open theater for everyone. Political science does not aim at training politicians. It is an empirical or scientific approach to politics. Political philosophy doesn’t pretend to train politicians either. It is a normative approach to study of politics. For this reason, it is not unusual for citizens trained in other theoretical and practical sciences-intellectuals, lawyers, and yes, soldiers– to be drawn to politics as the master science.

    Of all those drawn to politics from other fields, soldiers are probably the most impatient and the most presumptuous. Perhaps due to their training in leadership, they are impatient when the ship of state is steered into troubled waters. And perhaps because they are tasked with responsibility for the external security of the nation, they presume to have answers to all the challenges facing the nation at any time. Nigeria, like many other African countries, has had its share of the tragedy of the know-all mentality of its warrior class.

    When in 1998, we thought that we had laid the ghost of militocracy, it resurfaced in a civilianized form when our democracy had to march to the orders of a General who could care less about the niceties of democratic norms. From strongman interference with the internal leadership decisions of National Assembly to the brazen intervention in the sacred work of electoral umpires, and the thwarting of people’s mandates in several states through orchestrated impeachment proceedings and abuse of emergency declarations, the nation was a victim of autocratic democracy.

    We were told that for the sake of continuity of programs and policies, the strongman’s choice of a successor was inevitable. And he did, even though against all democratic norms. But how did that end? And when he picked another successor, what was the outcome? Is the strongman not armed with a crystal ball?

    And now, are we being asked to join a popular political movement? Led by whom? Caveat emptor! Here are real concerns.

    First, Dr. Obasanjo argued that neither APC nor PDP is “a worthy horse to ride to lead Nigeria at this crucial and critical time.” Then, second, he floated “Coalition for Nigeria Movement (CNM)”as the alternative because “we cannot just sit down lamenting and wringing our hands desperately and hopelessly.” Third, he describes CNM as “a coalition for democracy, good governance, social and economic well-being and progress. Coalition to salvage and redeem our country.” What does this mean?

    Is the Coalition a political party? No, the erudite doctor responds. It is only a Movement for now. However, nothing “should stop such a Movement from satisfying conditions for fielding candidates for elections.” Indeed, this is simply deception at the most disgusting level. It is using a kobo coin to hide a Naira note.

    In the first place, though a political movement can have several issues as its focus, it is more effective the fewer the issues. Recall NADECO with its goal of dislodging the military and restoring democracy. Or the Nationalist Movement before it. Here, there is nothing outside of the orbit of CNM. Its objects are the run-of-the-mill campaign issues. If an organism quacks like a duck it is probably a duck. Why the deception?

    In the second place, Chief Obasanjo has dismissed the two major political parties as contenders for 2019. They are both to be discarded. Therefore, if CNM is only a Movement now, it is  only reasonable to expect it to be up and running as a party by the time that INEC declares open campaign for 2019.

    In the third place, anyone that believes that this is a brand-new Movement that only occurred to Dr. Obasanjo in the last three weeks is hopelessly ignorant of Ebora Owu as the tactician-in-chief. The former AD Governors, most of whom are co-founders of APC, know better. The idea for the new Movement germinated in the conspiratorial crevices of the tactician’s mind as soon as Buhari took the oath of office in May 2015. OBJ assembled his loyalists and encouraged them to work on mobilizing others to form a new political party. The meetings went on around the country since then, with the initiator looking for the best opportunity for outing. The southern resentment against the December fuel crisis, continuing herdsmen attacks, and lopsided federal appointments only provided the desired opening.

    On February 1, at the Ogun State launching of CNM, the former president provided more details about the Movement. He argued that the “instruments we have used so far in our nation-building and governance since independence have not served us well, it is imperative that we should rethink and retool.” To which I ask: what instruments have we used?

    We started with a genuine federal and parliamentary system. It did not fail us. But the military did not allow it to prove effective. They introduced a unitary and presidential system which has failed us since 1979. What re-thinking and retooling does CNM offer? We are told that it is “proposed as the new direction to mobilize our population to unity, cooperation, development, rule of law, employment, law and order, justice, integration, peace, security, stability, welfare and well-being”, a highfalutin account with no attention to specifics. Look in the manifesto of APC and PDP and you will not be disappointed that they both echo the language of CNM.

    When specifics such as nation-building and insurgency and violence are identified, these are not missing from the proclamations of APC and PDP. So, it could be that the difference we are promised is in leadership of the new movement. “Among many other things that CNM will do is to raise standards of political leadership and governance.”

    Excellent. But who are the leaders being presented to us now? They are dissenters from APC and PDP. We were shown this script before.Remember? It was in 2014 when APC emerged as the party of change which drew its leadership core for PDP, CPC, ACN and ANPP. With the announcement of 12 governors from the existing parties having declared interest in CNM, what different standards of leadership can we expect than what they are bringing from their various party bases?

    A popular political movement does not by itself transform a nation. More ominous, such movements quickly degenerate into dictatorships because of the tendency to identify popular with unanimity. Indeed, several known world dictators started as organizers of popular political movements. There was one in Zaire led by Mobutu. There is one in Cameroon.

     

    • Follow me on Twitter:

    @SegunGbadeg2002

    @HarvestDayPubs

     

  • Is APC doomed?

    Is APC doomed?

    The All Progressives Congress (APC) was barely two years old when it defeated the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Remarkably, three years later, both parties are being dismissed as “the wrong horse to ride” in a recent statement from the self-appointed custodian of national conscience.

    Ex-President Obasanjo was an early supporter of APC in 2014. The entire leadership of the new party paid him a courtesy visit at his Abeokuta mansion. Those were good times when the new party was riding on the goodwill of Nigerians against a ruling party which had been abandoned by its first president and party leader. How time changes!

    But no matter his place in Nigerian history, Obasanjo would not have an audience if Nigerians felt that his attack was misplaced whether during the Jonathan presidency or now. Nigerians are intelligent people who would not be goaded into following anyone against their reasonable judgement on any matter. Therefore, the fact that Obasanjo’s press statement has received such a positive reception by a broad segment of the populace should give APC leadership serious heartburn.

    While some PDP stalwarts saw Obasanjo’s statement as an admission of his error in abandoning the party and its candidate in 2015; others, including his daughter who had been a vocal critic of her father pursuant to his letter to Jonathan, stand solidly behind him. And though the ruling party appeared to have been blindsided by the latest salvo from the predictable letter-writer, it has also trodden softly in its response, choosing to highlight some achievements of the government.

    Considering the history of Dr. Obasanjo’s unsolicited interventions and the outcomes of such interventions for various administrations from Shagari to Jonathan, when his missives had provided the fuel that fired the termination of those administrations, it is timely and reasonable to ask the burning question: “is the end of the Buhari presidency in sight and is APC doomed?”

    For those with vested interests, the answer is a categorical “yes”. The man they mischievously or endearingly nickname “Ebora Owu” is an enigma better to avoid. Those who crossed his path are miserable living testimonies. So, the myth goes. In the matter at hand, however, it is better to err on the side of reason. What are the issues?

    The logic of Obasanjo’s complaint centers on good governance, which is accomplishment in, localizing an American jargon, yam and palm oil issues. Specifically, the former president identifies “the lice of poor performance in government” including “poverty, insecurity, poor economic management, nepotism, gross dereliction of duty, condonation of misdeed-if not outright encouragement of it, lack of progress and hope for the future, lack of national cohesion and poor management of internal political dynamics and widening inequality” as the ills which “are very much with us today.”

    Dr. Obasanjo is not isolated voice. His concern about “kinship and friendship that place responsibility for governance in the hands on the unelected” only echoes an earlier complaint of the lady in the other room. His complaint about “poor understanding of internal politics” which “has led to …making the nation more divided” has been a recurring critique of many southerners since the beginning, when many pointed to lopsided appointments. This is also true of the issue of having competent hands in key sectors of the economy and foreign affairs. There has been a deafening chorus of complaints from thought leaders and the public in the last three years.

    Why has the noise not been taken seriously by the presidency? Every president has a coterie of loyalists who tell him about the massive support he enjoys across the land. They were there in Jonathan’s villa. They were responsible for Obasanjo’s term elongation agenda which fell flat on his face. They are professional politicos and court jesters bragging about their grassroots influence. A wise president would see through the fog of lies they feed him and break away from their fatal grip. He will arm himself with credible intelligence about his vulnerabilities. He will not see those who helped him to ascend the throne as rivals to be sidelined. He will not bite the fingers that feed him. I am not too sure that President Buhari has been loyal to his benefactors who would have benefitted him in return with sound advice.

    I do not know if the Buhari presidency is doomed. If it is, it will not be because Obasanjo turned against him. And despite Obasanjo, there is still enough heat from the shining sun to dry the wet laundry on the cloth line. In the matter of the prospect of the ruling party, APC, it unfortunately missed its bearing very early one. Perhaps it may now be getting back its mojo. I start with the party and then the presidency.

    APC was voted for massively as the party of change. It had the goodwill of many Nigerians in 2015. Then, not too long after, the arrogance of power and egoistic pursuit of same set in. Cohesion and collective interest became a slave to self-interest. The highest hierarchy of the party that should root for its overall interest and chart its course succumbed to the cult of personality. The result is mass disenchantment.

    It became quite clear to many of its members and supporters that the party had lost its focus when the National Assembly, where it enjoyed a super majority, voted down a bill for devolution of power, which had featured prominently in its manifesto. Later both the president and the chairman of the party would openly prevaricate on the matter with the chairman suggesting that the priority of the party was for the welfare of Nigerians as if there is any distinctive difference between these issues.

    Now if the party has sincerely returned to its source of strength as the party of change, with the reported recommendations submitted by its committee on true federalism, there is a prospect of change in its fortune. We may cautiously suggest that APC is not doomed if it can now convince Nigerians that it is ready to address the fundamental structure of the country. For when this change is implemented, many other things will follow.

    As for the Buhari presidency, its lifeline now is to accept the recommendations of the committee and take immediate steps to implement them. Should it seek to dither on the recommendations or delay their implementation, then Obasanjo’s wish might just be fulfilled.

    Note that, historically, the former president’s complaints have never targeted the lopsided structure of the country. But this flawed structure has been at the foundation of all the ills: nepotism, corruption, inequality, poverty, and underdevelopment. When power is so concentrated in the center with corresponding resources at the disposal of the federal government, we should not be surprised that all those ills are the co-travelers. Change the structure, beginning with the modest action of devolving power to the states, and the responsibilities shared between the center and the periphery would make a huge difference in the lives of the people.

    Why has Obasanjo now called for the abandonment of both APC and PDP? Without prejudice to his Coalition for Nigeria, with which I have no problem, I would like to hazard a guess. Both APC and PDP have now come to the realization that Nigeria needs to be restructured. PDP organized the last National Conference of 2014 which came up with far reaching recommendations. Now APC is being faithful to its manifesto with recommendations for devolution of power to states. For Obasanjo, both parties are moving in the wrong direction.

    In this matter, the former president is not only against the direction of the two parties. He is also against the expressed preference of a super majority of Nigerians across the six zones. Unless Obasanjo’s Coalition for Nigeria also embraces restructuring early on, I do not see it in the forefront of Nigerian politics anytime soon.

    To the extent that APC moves fast in the matter of restructuring and the Buhari presidency commits to its early and effective implementation, the party will prevail. As for Buhari, since he has not declared his interest, prediction of his fate is premature.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbadeg2002

     

    @HarvestDayPubs

  • NSCIA’s press statement

    NSCIA’s press statement

    Preamble

    In a seeming reaction to the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN’s) belligerent salvo fired venomously at the leadership of Nigerian Supreme on January 15, 2018, which was widely publicized by Nigerian media on January 16, 2018, the NSCIA issued a Press Statement published last Tuesday to put the records straight . An excerpt from the statement signed by Deputy Secretary General of NSCIA, Professor Salisu Shehu and entitled ‘CAN’S PENCHANT FOR MISCHIEF AND HATE’ reads as follows:

    “The Nigerian Supreme Council for Islamic Affairs (NSCIA), under the leadership its President General and Sultan of Sokoto, His Eminence, Alhaji Muhammad Saad Abubakr CFR, mni, makes this press release in response to the recent campaign of venom, hatred, calumny and unimaginable malice that smacks of intolerance and political brigandage by Reverend Musa Asake, the Secretary-General of the Christian Association of Nigeria (CAN) in response to the advice of the Jama’atu Nasril Islam (JNI).

     

    Awareness

    Many Nigerians are aware that NSCIA would ordinarily refrain from joining issues with CAN, but the silence of the Council seems to give the impression that only CAN has the license and reason to complain and impugn motives. Like other right-thinking Nigerians who hoped that the ignoble past of this erstwhile respectable Association would be confined to history especially with the change of leadership, it is disappointing that Rev. Asake, a beneficiary of the old order of institutionalized corruption, is still there making hate speeches, heating the polity and diminishing himself and his Association. Little wonder that the new President of CAN publicly cut him to size when he said Rev. Asake’s formal endorsement of Governor Ayo Fayose’s alleged Presidential ambition was personal as “there was no time CAN or the president of CAN authorized such a letter.” It is now clear that Rev. Asake’s political leaning is not personal, as claimed, but a smoke-screen to deceive the public”.

     

     Without Decorum

    “Rev. Musa Asake’s CAN derisively and uncouthly referred to President Muhammadu Buhari as “a bad product”. He made further outlandish statements characteristic of egocentric, relevance-seeking and loquacious politicians associated with discredited political parties and called out “the President of Supreme Council of Islamic Affairs” (sic) in his attempt to react to two Nigerians he disagreed with. Was President Jonathan declared a bad product at any time by CAN despite the earth-shaking atrocities of his government?

    It is no longer a secret that CAN has since its last Administration descended to the abyss of infamy. The role the leadership of CAN played during the dark days of the past corruption-riddled Administration is well recorded. CAN did not call for heaven to fall when private planes were being openly used to support money-laundering and (failed) gun-running enterprise which involved its leadership….”

     

     CAN’s Campaigns of Calumny

    “The unfortunate escalation of the herdsmen/farmers conflict has been exploited by the cantankerous CAN scribe to cast aspersion and spew venom, hatred, calumny and invectives at Muslims in Nigeria. Reading some of the effusions coming from people like Rev. Asake, who should be a custodian of good conscience and beliefs in this country, one wonders the type of models they would be for their followers. After hobnobbing with the powers that be during the last Administration, taking their right and every other thing left in the vast corruption enterprise that they criminally ran with their partners in crime, the strategy now is to cry wolf where there is none, make a storm in a teacup and shout of maginalisation and Islamization, even though they are the ones still in charge, in order to totally emasculate Muslims in their own country…”.

     

     Herdsmen/Farmers’ Violent Clashes

    “The state of insecurity presently being experienced in some parts of the nation is owed to fundamental factors than the simplistic delimitation of the crisis to the desire of the Fulani herdsmen to re-launch the “Caliphate’ afresh. While the NSCIA deprecates and denounces all acts of violence no matter the motive or cause, the Council considers it an infantile indulgence in crass ignorance, a manifestation of noxious prejudice or a predilection for roguish subterfuge to insinuate that the herdsmen who are suspected of brigandage or criminal behaviour are doing that in the name of Islam. The NSCIA says this because it recognizes that Churches are already ‘planted’ in various parts of the North even in the homeland of the Caliphate where the Fulanis have become sheep in the house of God”.

    “Furthermore, NSCIA knows that the current challenges posed by the herdsmen/farmers conflicts to our security speak to a greater cankerworm assailing the nation. These include erosion of mutual trust and love among the citizenry, easy access to weapons of violence, failure of the herdsmen to appreciate and get attuned to the new challenges and circumstances posed by modernity, loss of national values and the quest for quick money which has made kidnapping a new industry since the reign of former President Goodluck Jonathan. Thus to argue that President Buhari has been treating the security challenges posed by the Fulani herdsmen attacks with kid gloves because he is Fulani is not only arcane and puerile but also tantamount to saying that the reason why President Jonathan could not permanently stop the militants’ attacks in the Niger Delta was because he is of Ijaw tribe…”.

     

     State of Federal Appointments

    “Despite the data provided by the President’s Adviser on Media and Publicity, Mr Femi Adesina, on President Buhari’s federal appointments so far and the consequent rebuttal to the erroneous impression of an Islamist agenda on the part of the current Government at the federal level,  with data showing that Ogun, Imo and Kano States have enjoyed the uncommon privilege of the highest patronage from the Federal Government, certain groups and individuals in the nation like CAN still accuse the President of  Northernization/Islamization agenda. In its recent press release on this matter, CAN mentioned Education and Security sectors. Always listed are NUC, NBTE, JAMB, NABTEB and TETFund. Has CAN forgotten so soon that in the past 15 years, the Executive Secretaries of NUC have been  Christians? Has CAN forgotten so soon that the last substantive Executive Secretary of TETFund up to 2016 was a Christian? Has CAN forgotten so soon that in the last 20 years, except for 14 months (i.e. May 2015 – September 2016) the Registrars/CEO’s of NECO till date have been Christians? Has CAN forgotten so soon that during the past ten years before August 2016, the Registrar of JAMB was a Christian? When almost all the appointees were Christians and Southerners, it was normal but when some are Muslims and Northerners, it is nepotism, favoritism and discrimination”.

    “Again, has the CAN forgotten that under a past Christian President, the Chief of Staff was a Christian, the Chief of Air Staff was a Christian, the Chief of Army Staff was a Christian, the Chief of Defence Staff was a Christian, the DG SSS was a Christian, the DG of NIA was a Christian and the Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) was a Christian? Is this a case of selective amnesia or that of acute balefulness? NABTEB, TRCN and NIEPA have never for once been headed by a Muslim to date. That is normal?”

     

    Southern Muslims

    “When the Muslims Ummah of the Southwest (Nigeria (MUSWEN) complained that all the Seven (7) Ministers from the zone were Christians, the former President Jonathan initially refuted it, though he belatedly at the twilight of his tenure brought in Senator Musiliu Obanikoro from Lagos and Jelili Adesiyan from Osun State for window dressing”.

    “It is on this note that in order to demonstrate that we are fair and we do not condone injustice, we call on the Federal Government to commence immediately, the process of conducting a religious census of not only the leadership but also the staff membership of all Ministries, Departments and Agencies with a view to confirming or refuting the allegation of CAN leaders when they visited the President. We know the allegation is another barefaced lie, the stock-in-trade of CAN”.

    “Then, while commiserating with the victims of the recent attacks in Benue,  we strongly call for a thorough investigation of all aggressions, including the initial ones in Mambilla and Numan in Taraba and Adamawa States respectively. We expect the Federal Government to expeditiously redouble its efforts at arresting the current state of insecurity in all parts of the country. We also urge CAN leaders to follow and obey the teachings of Jesus Christ of love, peace-making, compassion and standing by truth and justice, and not follow the path of the devil by always being invidious, insidious, mischievous, vicious and hateful in its postures and pronouncements”. God save Nigeria.

     

  • Killer-herdsmen and the logic of accommodation (2)

    Killer-herdsmen and the logic of accommodation (2)

    In an era of an enormous explosion in the population of both humans and cattle, open grazing has proven to be an unsustainable approach to cattle breeding and rearing because of its inherent potentials for conflict. This is not a question of ethnicity or religion. It is simply an economic matter. Provided their herders do not, cattle do not discriminate between grass and crops. They are all food. Neither do they discriminate between the farmlands of Hausa, Fulani, Tiv, Biron, Igbo, Edo or Yoruba. Every farmland they are led through is suitable for feeding. Cattle are equal-opportunity feeders. No one can blame them.

    Now, as for herdsmen, you would expect some modicum of respect for crops on farmland and for the principle of non-trespass on the economic privacy of others. But when legitimate fodder is unavailable, and their cattle are on the verge of starvation, ethical concerns could take the back of the burner. It is a case of competing economic demands where they can get away with it. And since they are not sure that they will easily get away with it, they prudently, even if immorally, arm themselves with AK-47s. It’s the philosophy of armed robbery, isn’t it? Armed robbers claim no moral consciousness. They simply want your good and in case you resist, they must prepare against your stubbornness.

    Farmers, on the other hand, are like homeowners who are defenseless against armed robbers. They only rely on the rule of law and on its enforcers for protection. And while the latter have shirked their responsibilities for far too long in the matter of the atrocities committed by herdsmen, whether foreigners or indigenes, the recent events have called attention to the need for government to wake up.

    Predictably, state governments have taken up the challenge against the backdrop of violence against their residents by herdsmen, with policies ranging from anti-open grazing laws to various forms of accommodation regulations. One such accommodation regulation is the registration of herdsmen in some states and regulations governing sanctions when cattle destroy farm crops. Some states also include laws against cattle rustling or killing by farmers.

    One problem with such regulations is their effectiveness. Chief Olu Falae has been on the receiving end of herdsmen brutality with his kidnapping and the repeated destruction of his crops to the latest case of arson on his farm. While he is certain that herdsmen were responsible, the Police have not been able to identify and arrest the culprits as far as we know. Therefore, the various state efforts to regulate open grazing and prevent conflict and destruction are simply ineffective band-aids on a festering national wound.

    It is because of the realization of the futility of such approaches that some state governors and legislators have gone to the extreme of banning open grazing within the confines of their states. Can we really blame them? They were elected to protect the lives and properties of their citizens and they are simply doing their job how best they know under the circumstances that they face.

    Miyetti-Allah has rejected anti-open grazing laws because it is inimical to the economic well-being of their members. Herdsmen are pastoralists by nature and culture, we are told. Is this true? Herdsmen may be cattle breeders and cattle rearers. But does this commit them to a life of nomadism. The ancient Hebrews, the ancestors of the present citizens of the State of Israel, were cattle breeders and herders. They were as nomadic as our Fulani herdsmen. But Israelites have modernized the art of cattle breeding. As the Minister of Agriculture has also observed, the cattle that is made to travel hundreds of miles on foot are not happy cattle at the end of the journey, that is, if they make it to the end. And what about the waste of the potentials of young men and women condemned to a lifetime of nomadism? Culture is simply not a good argument for open grazing.

    If not open grazing, then, what is the alternative?  Perhaps Miyetti-Allah is not opposed to alternatives to open grazing. Perhaps what they are against is finding and negotiating those alternatives prior to the promulgation of anti-open grazing laws. Granted, but states have limited alternatives. Most of their residents, for whom they are politically and responsible, are farmers, not herders. Again, it is not a matter of ethnicity. They simply do not feel a sense of obligation to non-residents. This is the political reality of a federal system. It is why in the United States, citizenship of the country does not confer on residents the same privileges in different states. For example, non-residents pay higher tuition when they register as students in state colleges other than their own. Thus, a student resident of Maryland pays in-state tuition in Maryland state colleges while a student from New York pays higher non-resident tuition when registered in a Maryland state college.

    Having come to an appreciation of its indispensable role as an arbiter in a matter of great importance that can tear the nation apart, the Federal government has now taken up the matter. But what are the options being canvassed?  First, it came up with the idea of grazing reserves, which was first presented as a bill to the National Assembly in 2008. Second, it toyed with the idea of ranching. Third, it seems that the government has now settled on the idea of cattle colonies.

    Two points are important to note here. First, each of the suggested alternatives-grazing reserves, ranching, cattle colonies-requires the availability of a large landmass and ownership of land across the nation is governed by different customs and conventions. Therefore, the federal government will not find it easy to acquire land simply by fiat. It is gratifying that the Minister of Agriculture has, for all intents and purposes, come to terms with this reality. Second, herdsmen, whose culture and economic needs require to engage in cattle breeding, are only one link in the chain of links in the industry. There are other links including the wealthy businessmen who invest in livestock farming and employ the herdsmen, just as we have commercial famers and the farmhands who are the face of the industry.

    Commercial farmers buy their farmlands from landowners or they lease those lands from state governments. In addition, commercial farmers buy their equipment and the services of agronomists, soil scientists, and technicians. They also use extension services provided by state governments. The question then is this: which of the alternatives of grazing reserves, ranching, and cattle colonies best approximates commercial crop farming?

    Frankly, I do not see the difference between cattle colonies, ranching, and grazing reserves except for the size of the former which, we are told, will be big enough to accommodate several cattle owners. However, as it has become clear since it was thrown up by Minister Ogbeh, beside the substance of its merit or demerit, the idea of cattle colony evokes a negative feeling, and rightly so. Why would a post-colonial enclave, which has continuously decried its colonial history and raged against internal colonization of various kinds, reopen old wounds with this unnecessary flirtation with creating cattle colonies, which Nigerians have mischievously labelled Fulani colonies? Branding is everything and labeling is a huge part of branding.

    Ranching is the global best practice in commercial cattle breeding. Minister Ogbeh says that ranching is “of an individual venture” for herdsmen and investors. But is there a good reason ranching in our peculiar condition cannot be a cooperative venture? After all, we have commercial farming as cooperative ventures. Instead of accommodating several herdsmen and their cattle in colonies, it is more productive to organize them in ranches as cooperatives.

    Miyetti-Allah’s argument against ranching is that it is technologically driven, and the Nigerian climate is unsuitable for ranching. If the latter is true, won’t the same objection apply to cattle colonies? Regarding technology, however, the federal government should deploy the resources it has promised for cattle colonies to ranching with better outcomes of healthy cattle, prosperous herdsmen and a peaceful and united nation.

     

    Follow me on Twitter:

     

    @SegunGbadeg2002

     

    @HarvestDayPubs