Category: Femi Macaulay

By Femi Macaulay

Senator Rochas Okorocha, a former governor of Imo State and founding member of the All Progressives Congress (APC), recently told journalists that he and some other politicians in other parties were planning to launch a new political party. It was a further indication that the ruling party may be falling apart.

Significantly, the information also introduced a new scenario regarding the battle to succeed President Muhammadu Buhari in 2023.  Another major party may well be involved in the succession drama, apart from the main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP).

It is unclear how far Okorocha and his partners have gone concerning their plan, and how soon the new party would be launched.  He said: “The movement for a new Nigeria has begun and we must come together, I mean progressive Nigerians, to make the country work.” It is ironic that Okorocha spoke of starting a new progressive party when his current party is supposed to be progressive.

“APC was a hurried arrangement formed to take power when the then government was drifting,” he explained, suggesting that the party is either not progressive enough or not progressive at all. “APC would have been better,” he remarked, “until people who were not members of the party, people who came for a congratulatory message, hijacked the party and became lords.” He did not name the alleged hijackers, but it is noteworthy that he blamed them for the ruling party’s performance, which he implied had been unimpressive.

“We are talking about the character of the politicians,” Okorocha said, adding, “For instance, if President Muhamamadu Buhari had surrounded himself with good people, the story will not be the same today.”  So Okorocha wants a party of good politicians, which is a good idea. However, it is unclear how such politicians would be identified. It is interesting that the senator presents himself as one of the good politicians who can “make the country work.”  Is he?

About a week before the Abuja announcement, Okorocha had tried to sell the idea of a new party to Rivers State governor Nyesom Wike of PDP. He was in Wike’s state to open the Rumuche/ Rumuakunde/Ohna Awuse Link Road in Emohua local government area.

Wike was reported saying bringing Okorocha to the event should not be misconstrued as associating with a rival party, explaining that they were friends.  His explanation contradicted the thinking that members of APC and PDP are mutual enemies.

“In this dispensation, there are many bad people in APC, many bad people in PDP. I think the good people of APC and good people of PDP must come together for the purpose of making Nigeria great. I could imagine where I would join forces with Wike,” Okorocha had said.

Picturing collaboration with Wike makes Okorocha look anti-APC.  It is noteworthy that his party once suspended him for “anti-party activities” in March 2019.  In a display of crude godfatherism, Okorocha, then governor of Imo State, and Ibikunle Amosun, then governor of Ogun State, had shamelessly supported the governorship candidates of political parties different from theirs in the March 9, 2019 governorship election.

Okorocha and Amosun had clearly carried godfatherism too far, and their party decided to punish them.  APC’s National Working Committee (NWC) suspended the governors “for anti-party activities.”  The NWC also took “a decision to recommend the expulsion of the suspended individuals to the National Executive Committee (NEC) of the party.”

The party said “the NWC had earlier written to the suspended governors on their anti-party activities, and several other steps were taken to ensure they desist from taking actions that are inimical to the interests of our party and candidates. Notably, these individuals have not shown any remorse and actually stepped up their actions.”

The party accused the suspended governors of “serial anti-party activities,” and “noted how the suspended members have continued to campaign openly for other parties and candidates that are unknown to our great party. They have in fact constituted themselves as opposition to APC candidates in their respective states.”

Two months later, the Progressive Governors Forum (PGF), made up of APC governors, under the chairmanship of Okorocha, organised an event to honour some of the party’s leaders for their leadership qualities and services to the APC since its formation in 2013. Ironically, Okorocha and Amosun were among those honoured for their services to the APC.

Okorocha’s announcement that he is involved in moves to form a new party obviously reflects opposition to his current party.  APC has not responded to the news. But the party should be conscious of his record on anti-party activities.

It is bad news for APC. By publicising his participation in the formation of a new party, Okorocha dissociated himself not only from the ruling party but also its performance. It is bad for APC’s image that a prominent founder member is so opposed to its operation that he is planning to leave the party and also planning to form a rival party.

It is unclear if he wants to run for president, and thinks he may not get the necessary support in his current party.  Considering the campaign for power shift to the South in 2023, and the argument that the Southeast should benefit from such an arrangement because the Southwest and South-south have enjoyed presidential power, Okorocha may just be acting out of self-interest. He is the senator representing Imo West, and by extension represents the Southeast.  He has unsuccessfully tried to be president thrice, and may still be interested in the position.

“Though I don’t believe in zoning, for the sake of equity, justice and fairness, all the zones should be allowed to produce the president, so that at the end, we will know the zone that produced the best president when we consider their achievements,” he was reported saying. This sounds like an endorsement of the campaign for a Southeast presidency in 2023.  But there is no guarantee that will happen, just as it is uncertain he would be presidential candidate if a new party is formed.

It is possible that the plan to form a new party will collapse. Okorocha may have spoken too soon about the plan; and he may also have talked too much.

By Femi Macaulay

Alaafin of Oyo Lamidi  Olayiwola Adeyemi III postponed the public celebration of his 50th coronation anniversary because of the COVID-19 pandemic, saying “the sanctity of human life is more important to me than any social engagement.” Hopefully, he would celebrate the majestic milestone with befitting pomp and circumstance after the coronavirus pandemic.

Fifty years is a long time in human affairs, and Oba Adeyemi should see his long reign as a blessing. In his five decades on the throne, the pre-eminent Yoruba traditional ruler has witnessed the changing complexion of the traditional institution, but he remains not only a veritable symbol of Yoruba culture and tradition but also a powerful and influential king even in a democratic context.

It is a striking irony that Nigerian politicians usually seek the support of major traditional rulers to win votes in a democracy, and even to sustain democratically elected administrations.  This reflects the influence of the traditional institution as well as the capacity of traditional structures of power despite the prevailing democratic system of government.

Significantly, in mid-December 2020, a group of politicians, South West Agenda (SWAGA 23), visited Oba Adeyemi to seek his support for their campaign to get Asiwaju Bola Tinubu elected as the country’s next president in 2023.

Tinubu, a pillar of Nigeria’s ruling party, All Progressives Congress (APC), has not publicly stated that he wants to be president in 2023, but the group believes he is the best man for the job. Tinubu’s promoters also visited another prominent traditional ruler, the Olubadan of Ibadan, Oba Saliu Adetunji, to sell the idea of a Tinubu presidency to him.

A former minister of state for works, Dayo Adeyeye, who led the campaigners to the kings, made their mission clear.  “Our mission is political,” he declared. “Politics has started and everyone is scrambling. We, the Yoruba people, see it as our turn because it is the agreement that the presidency would be rotational.”

Based on this, he added: “We have a joker in the south-west and the joker is Asiwaju Bola Tinubu, who was part of the struggle for democracy. There are fundamentals of governance and we want someone who is versed in politics to go into the race. We see that Asiwaju Tinubu has the clout and he is qualified. As experienced politicians, we see that Tinubu is qualified.”

Alaafin’s response showed his position on some of the country’s hot political issues. If there was an agreement involving leaders of the country’s ruling party on presidential power shifting to the south in 2023, Oba Adeyemi wants such an agreement to be respected and implemented.  “In Yoruba land, covenant is very important,” he said.  “We believe that with the law of retributive justice, if you break a covenant the repercussion is great. You may think the race for 2023 is too early but it is never too early to start.”

Oba Adeyemi also gave an idea of his position on the restructuring debate, and the kind of president Nigeria needs. “If you want to have a country that is forward moving, there must be a federal system of government… We need to have a president who can listen…We have not been fortunate to have the kind of president that we deserve… I believe in your mission.”

Aged 82, he became the 43rd Alaafin of Oyo on November 18, 1970, at the age of 32, and received his staff of office on January 14, 1971. He represents the continuity of a majestic narrative. In October 2018, an international conference on “The Alaafin in Yoruba History, Culture, and Political Power Relations” took place in Nigeria.  The organisers said: “In the 17th and 18th centuries, Oyo was the dominant political power in Yorubaland and beyond. It also became a major centre for exchanging goods from the forest areas and the coast.

“The Alaafin was the master of the realm spreading from the Savannah and as far afield as modern Benin and Togo Republics in the West African sub-region.  Oyo also gave a major identity to Yorubaland. The name Yoruba was initially used for the Oyo speaking people, their empire and dialect until the 19th century when European explorers applied the name widely to other Yoruba sub-groups.”

The Yoruba are today found in the Southwestern part of Nigeria, the Republics of Benin and Togo, Brazil, Cuba, Trinidad and other places in the Caribbean.

The ancient and powerful kingdom, and later empire, of Oyo under the Alaafin no longer exists, but the Alaafin still exists as the occupant of an ancient and powerful traditional office.  According to Oba Adeyemi, “Traditional rulers should be seen as the perfect embodiment of the culture of the place, as well as the synthesis of the aspirations and goals of the nation. This is not only in social values of veracity, egalitarianism, justice and democracy; but in dress, utterances and comportment…”

He represents an old order in a new milieu. The place of the Alaafin and the traditional institution in modern-day Nigeria is a matter of debate. Interestingly, last year a member of the House of Representatives representing Bodinga/ Dange/ Shuni/ Tureta, Federal Constituency, Sokoto, Dr Balarabe Kakale, called for a constitutional amendment to give defined roles to traditional rulers in the country.

Also, last year a group called Peoples Movement for a New Nigeria (PMNN) argued that traditional rulers in the country should have specified constitutional roles. The group’s president and founder, Yahaya Ndu, said: “In all the 36 states of Nigeria, as well as in the Federal Capital Territory, Abuja, traditional rulers are in place in their various constituencies. But strangely, the role of traditional rulers was totally and inexplicably expunged from the extant 1999 Constitution… I, therefore, with all sense of history and patriotism, urge the National Assembly to lead us back to the right track, to restore the glory, honour, and dignity of our traditional rulers; and to create and ensure specific roles for them in the constitution of Nigeria.”

Of course, there are those who oppose such proposals, which a prominent columnist, Ropo Sekoni, described as “creeping back to indirect rule.”

The debate won’t end today. Alaafin Adeyemi’s milestone coronation anniversary is a time to further reflect on the relevance, or irrelevance, of traditional rulers in modern-day Nigeria.

By Femi Macaulay

It is alarming that bandits have compounded Nigeria’s security crisis by joining kidnappers and terrorists in fuelling insecurity, particularly in the northern part of the country.

Niger State Governor Abubakar Sani-Bello, whose state in the country’s North-Central geopolitical zone is faced with banditry and kidnapping problems, last week characterised the bandits troubling the state after a meeting with President Muhammadu Buhari on security issues.

“We are having an influx of bandits from neighbouring states, especially Zamfara and Kaduna states,” the governor said. Then he introduced a more disturbing dimension, saying some of the bandits were sponsored foreigners recruited for subversive purposes.

Sani-Bello said:  “In one particular case, we arrested bandits that are foreigners from as far as Sudan and Mali and they came on motorcycles. They are being recruited through social media, through Facebook in some cases. They confessed to this.”

Who is recruiting bandits? Why? The governor observed a new trend suggesting that banditry may well be a tool to achieve political aims.  “They started burning farms and animals,” he noted. “So, this has given me some concerns and at the same time, it has kept me thinking. What is the motive?

“I can understand if you kidnap, you are looking for money. But, when you burn farms, then, there is something else happening. Or when you kill animals. They go to villages and kill animals. They don’t steal.

“So, if you stop people from going to farms, it means you are trying to deprive that nation of food security. Why will someone want to deprive people of food security?”

The governor’s observations are thought-provoking.  It is a complicated matter. It is puzzling that he also accused community leaders of collaborating with bandits. According to him, “The bandits are being invited by some locals. In fact, we have arrested some village heads. Now, if a whole village head invites bandits or harbours bandits, then, where are we headed to? The village head is supposed to secure the village.”

Worsening insecurity has generated various narratives of blame. The mass abduction of students from Government Science Secondary School, Kankara, Katsina State, by suspected bandits last month, generated another story about who is responsible for heightened banditry in the Northwest region.  Thankfully, the abductees have been released.

All Progressives Congress (APC) acting Deputy National Publicity Secretary Yekini Nabena said in a statement: “Our security agencies have intelligence reports linking one of the Northwest governors to collusion and sponsorship of violent and criminal activities of bandits. I won’t give details because of the sensitive and security nature of the issue.”

Five of the seven states in the Northwest are controlled by APC, the federal ruling party.  The governors are: Nasir El-Rufai (Kaduna); Abdullahi Ganduje (Kano); Aminu Masari (Katsina); Badaru Abubakar (Jigawa) and Atiku Bagudu (Kebbi).

The two other states in the geopolitical zone are controlled by the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the main opposition party. The governors are Aminu Tambuwal (Sokoto) and Bello Matawalle (Zamfara).

Though the APC spokesman did not name the governor allegedly sponsoring bandits in the region, he said enough to suggest the governor’s identity.  He listed the PDP among “enemies of the country who seek political gains from issues of insecurity.”

By mentioning the PDP, he suggested that the alleged evil sponsor is a member of that party. It is understandable that he pointed in the direction of his party’s main rival. It is also understandable that he seemed to have ruled out the possibility that the alleged evil sponsor could be from his own party.

Is the allegation true? It should not be ignored.  However, the claim that a Northwest governor is to blame for the increasing cases of banditry in the region cannot excuse the failure of the authorities to find a solution to insecurity.

Understandably, the Nigerian Army wants to be seen as not only fighting banditry but also winning the war against insecurity. But the army’s claims of success have been contradicted by locals in the affected areas who claim that the army has failed.

The acting Director, Defence Media Operations, Brigadier General Benard Onyeuku,  represented by the Nigerian Army Operations Media Coordinator, Colonel Aminu Ilyasu,  told journalists in Katsina State on January 6 that the army had killed 220 bandits and destroyed 197 bandits’ camps from June to December last year. He also said the army had rescued 642 kidnap victims, foiled 167 cases of attempted banditry and 81 kidnap attempts.

This picture was meant to reassure the public that the army had not failed in its effort to counter insecurity in the Northwest. The spokesman also stated that 73 AK-47 rifles, 194 Dane guns and 53,200 ammunition were recovered. Also recovered were 7,761 stolen cows and 1,876 sheep, he said.

He added that the army had arrested 335 suspected bandits, 326 illegal miners, 147 bandits’ informants and collaborators, 14 bandits’ arms suppliers, 24 rustled cattle sellers and 46 bandits’ logistics suppliers.

However, instead of applause and commendation, this narrative was greeted by complaints from some community leaders in Dansandau Emirate of Maru LGA, Zamfara State.

A community leader, Alhaji Nuhu Dansadau, for instance, was reported saying bandits were still terrorising the locals, flaunting AK-47 rifles even during the daytime. “The military operation did not make any meaningful impact, particularly in Kuyanbana forest,” he was quoted as saying.

People had deserted their villages because of persistent attacks from bandits, he claimed, naming some of the abandoned villages, including Jesa, Kalhu, Tasa, Gazamba, Yartsaba, Magamar-Danbata, Anguwar Doka, Kwangerawa and Maidoraiyi. He told a reporter: “As I am talking to you now, there are over 700 people who are waiting for vehicles to convey them to other places.”

Another community leader, Alhaji Ibrahim Tofa, lamented that “despite the deployment of the military, the bandits are still attacking us.”

Perhaps the army had exaggerated the result of its intervention in order to attract public praise. Maybe the mentioned community leaders had exaggerated the presence and activities of bandits in their areas in order to create a picture of increasing insecurity.

But there is no doubt that when insecurity is effectively tackled, there would be no such collision of narratives as the reality would be beyond dispute.

Obviously, banditry won’t end until the bandits are overpowered. It is now a major problem, and demands maximum attention from the authorities.

 By Femi Macaulay

 

Poverty is a problem that brings more problems. Nigeria should be prepared to face more problems if the World Bank is correct about rising poverty in the country and the projection that the number of poor Nigerians would be 100 million by 2022. This is just two years away.

It is a disturbing scenario.  Nigeria’s population is about 206 million. It is alarming that more than 83 million Nigerians live below the national poverty line, according to the 2019 Poverty and Inequality in Nigeria report released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) this year. Oxfam says about 94 million Nigerians live below the poverty line.

If the number of poor Nigerians rises to 100 million in two years, as the World Bank forecasts, it would mean that about half of the country’s population is poor.  A country with half of its population poor should be ready for a rebellion of the poor.

Widespread poverty could easily trigger widespread protests against pervasive poverty. The recent nationwide #EndSARS protests showed how revolutionary conditions can lead to revolutionary convulsions. In the end, the protests that prompted the disbandment of the Federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), known as SARS, were not only against police brutality but also the brutality of poverty.

The World Bank’s message deserves attention. More importantly, it should prompt action by the federal and state governments.  An economist with the bank, Marco Hernandez, presented a grim picture of escalating poverty during its Nigeria Development Update virtual event on December 10.

He said, “With the COVID-19, the recession is likely to push an additional 6.6 million Nigerians into poverty in 2020, bringing the total newly poor to 8.6 million this year.

“This implies an increase in the total number of poor in Nigeria from about 90 million in 2020 to about 100 million in 2022. Northern states are more likely to be affected.”

He mentioned some of the factors responsible for increasing poverty, including having a vulnerable employment, receiving fewer remittances, and being close to the poverty line.

“No Nigerian Government in the past has methodically and seriously approached poverty-alleviation like we have done,” President Muhammadu  Buhari boasted in his national address following the #EndSARS protests and the resulting anarchy. Buhari listed his achievements in his Democracy Day speech this year, flaunting the results of his administration’s social investment programmes aimed at reducing social and economic inequality.

But there are still too many millions of poor Nigerians. This suggests that his administration has not done enough, and needs to do much more, to tackle mass poverty. Buhari should understand that he is expected to significantly reduce the number of poor Nigerians within his remaining period in office, which is about three years.

In September, he inaugurated a National Steering Committee to oversee the development of the ‘Nigeria Agenda 2050 and Medium-Term National Development Plan (MTNDP),’ which succeeds ‘Vision 20:2020 and the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) 2017 – 2020.’

He said: “The main objectives of these successor plans are to lift 100 million Nigerians out of poverty within the next 10 years, particularly given the World Bank projection that Nigeria will become the world’s third most populous country by 2050 with over 400 million people.”

It is useful to have a long-term plan. But it is important to have a short-term plan as well, and to ensure that it works. How many Nigerians will his presidency lift out of poverty before the end of his second four-year term in 2023?

Nigeria needs to learn a lesson from news that China has been able to eradicate extreme poverty among its people.  That country’s last nine poor counties, all in its southwest Guizhou Province, have eliminated absolute poverty, according to a November 23 report. Independent agencies confirmed that poverty in the nine counties in Guizhou had been reduced to zero percent.

China had planned to eradicate absolute poverty by the end of 2020. At the end of 2019, 52 counties in the northwest, southwest and south of the country were still on the poverty list. Now there is no county on its poverty list. This is a notable feat, considering that China is the world’s most populous country, with a population of around 1.4 billion in 2019. It is noteworthy that Nigeria’s population is far less than China’s.

Vice President Yemi Osinbajo’s remarks at the two-day executive-legislative leadership retreat held at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, in October, spoke volumes about how poorly the authorities have performed on combating poverty.

”What is the reality of the context that we operate in today?” he asked.  ”We all know our nation has millions of extremely poor people; the COVID-19 pandemic has worsened employment and poverty.”

Osibanjo added:  ”It is time to focus on what we have been elected or appointed to do. This is the welfare of our people… Our people just want food on their table, shelter over their heads, clothing on their bodies, healthcare and education for their children and themselves.”

In other words, it is easy to identify the markers of poverty.  The United Nations (UN) defines extreme poverty as ”a condition characterised by severe deprivation of basic human needs, including food, safe drinking water, sanitation facilities, health, shelter, education and information. It depends not only on income but also on access to services.”

How did China eradicate extreme poverty?  Definitely, it took more than lip service. That is a lesson Nigeria needs to learn.  Mere words are not enough to alleviate poverty, and certainly cannot be enough to eradicate poverty. Urgent action is needed.

Against the background of the estimated number of the country’s new poor by 2022, it would be interesting to know how many Nigerians would be newly rich by the same date. The new poor will co-exist with the new rich.

It is tragic that the number of Nigeria’s poor is expected to continue rising. If the poverty problem worsens, the country should expect a worsening of the problems caused by poverty.  Improving socio-economic conditions is the solution. But the authorities give the impression that this solution is easier said than done.  Is it?

By Femi Macaulay

 

Insecurity is the question. What is the answer? Finding a solution to widespread and escalating insecurity in Nigeria requires tackling the menacing combination of terrorism, banditry and kidnapping.

The recent massacre of farmers by Boko Haram terrorists at Zabarmari, Borno State, was an alarming evidence of undefeated terrorism. The army gave an excuse, saying Boko Haram would have been defeated a long time ago but for the enemies of Nigeria supporting the group to destabilise the country.

The acting director, Army Public Relations, Col Sagir Musa, said in an article:  “There is an international conspiracy to cut Nigeria to size and compromise national renegades making attempts to destabilise and dismember Nigeria if possible in subservience to the international paymasters, who are the owners of Boko Haram. They train them, arm them, finance them and supply their logistics.”

Who are these external enemies of Nigeria backing terrorists against the Federal Government? This claim needs to be clarified. It is not enough to make such a serious claim without supplying proof. Importantly, even if such a situation exists, it does not justify the apparent incapacity of the country’s armed forces.

The army also claimed that local saboteurs were working against the counter-terrorism effort, and issued a statement warning “all groups or communities hobnobbing with Boko Haram/ISWAP to sever such relations.” The army alleged that such collaboration included providing information and intelligence on troops, logistics supply and trading with the terrorists.

The statement listed Benisheik, Jakana, Mainok, Magumeri, Gajiram and Gubio, all in Borno State, alleging that these communities harboured   “unpatriotic and heartless criminal elements.”

This accusation of local collaboration with Boko Haram terrorists also needs to be clarified. In a climate of fear, engendered by the reality of undefeated terrorism, it is predictable that locals could be forced to cooperate with the insurgents.  The solution is to liberate the locals from the fear of terrorists by eliminating the terrorists.

Blaming alleged international backers of terrorism and alleged local collaborators for the prolonged war on terrorism cannot excuse the failure of the country’s armed forces.  The armed forces are expected to surmount such challenges to achieve the objective of the anti-terrorism effort.

The truth is that the armed forces need to be strengthened in order to be able to win the war against terrorism.  Notably, Lance Corporal Martins Idakpini of the 8 Division, Sokoto, of the Nigerian Army, dared to speak truth to power in a 12-minute video that went viral in June.

“I’m highly disappointed in your command,” he said, addressing Chief of Army Staff (COAS) Lieutenant General Tukur Buratai.  He called the army boss “a coward, a traitor and a betrayer,” adding that the loyalty of the rank and file to the army leadership must be earned.

“You have failed,” he said, addressing Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) General Abayomi Gabriel Olonisakin. “You should be ashamed of yourselves,” he said, addressing the National Security Adviser, Mohammed Babagana Monguno, and the Minister of Defence, Bashir Salihi Magashi, both retired army generals.

“I’m a concerned Nigerian,” Idakpini explained. “We cannot continue to keep quiet when people are dying… many of our colleagues are dying.” He added that “innocent soldiers” were locked up in the guardroom indefinitely for complaining about inadequate weapons to fight insecurity.

“We need to restructure this army in order to achieve peace in the country,” he declared. He also criticised the Muhamadu Buhari presidency and the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). “I’m ready to face court martial,” he said fearlessly.

Significantly, in two other videos, soldiers involved in the war against terrorism had also claimed that the army was ill-equipped to defeat the terrorists. In one video, a former theatre commander, Major General Olusegun Adeniyi, was seen and heard telling troops that “it appears the people we are fighting have more firepower than us…” He has been court-martialled for embarrassing and ridiculing the armed forces.

The authorities cannot continue to ignore the apparent exposure of the incapacity of the armed forces to tackle terrorism. Blaming their failure on external factors, without addressing conditions within the armed forces that militate against the success of the anti-terrorism effort, amounts to denying reality.

Interestingly, it is not only the leadership of the armed forces that is playing a blame game.  For instance, at the recent fourth quarterly meeting of the Nigeria Inter-Religious Council (NIREC) which discussed the challenges of insecurity and COVID-19, the Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar III, lamented that the North had become the worst place to live in Nigeria because of increasing insecurity.

“A few weeks ago, over 76 persons were killed in a community in Sokoto State in a day,” he recounted.  The revered traditional ruler painted a disturbing picture showing a breakdown of law and order. He said: “People think the North is safe, but that assumption is not true. In fact, it’s the worst place to be in this country. Bandits go around in the villages, households and markets with their AK 47 and nobody is challenging them. They stop at the market, buy things, pay and collect change, with their weapons openly displayed. These are facts I know because I am at the centre of it.”

No one disputes the Sultan’s account. But he got it all wrong by blaming the media.  “Unfortunately, you don’t hear these stories in the media because it’s in the North. We have accepted the fact that the North does not have strong media to report the atrocities of these bandits,” he said.

It is difficult to understand the Sultan’s blame game. It is puzzling that he introduced a regional perception.  It is simply untrue that the media has under-reported insecurity, which is a country-wide experience.  The media cannot be detached from the country’s realities because its essence demands professional reporting of real life. The need to find a solution to insecurity should override unprovable arguments about media neglect.

Insecurity continues to attract attention. But there are no solutions yet. It is the responsibility of the authorities to tackle insecurity, and it is necessary to move beyond the blame game and find a solution to the problem.

Tragically, increasing insecurity suggests that the authorities lack the capacity to tackle the security crisis. That is the ultimate failure.

Femi Macaulay

 

Logically, a gentlemen’s agreement should mean that the involved parties know what it means to be a gentleman. The argument that Nigeria’s ruling party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), should choose its presidential candidate in 2023 based on an alleged gentlemen’s agreement implies that the party’s leadership understands what it means to be a gentleman.

Minister of Works and Housing Babatunde Fashola recently claimed there was an agreement within the APC that its presidential candidate in the next election would be chosen based on a zoning arrangement.  This is expected to favour presidential aspirants from the South after President Muhammadu Buhari’s two-term tenure which is viewed as a northern era.  Power rotation is designed to allow the North and South to rule the country in alternation.

It is unclear where the said agreement was reached, and who was involved.  But a former chairman of the party in Lagos State, Henry Ajomale, was reported saying: “I was part of the meeting where that agreement was reached, and it will do our party a lot of good if we can keep to the terms of that agreement as anything contrary may portend doom for APC.”

The voices making the argument sound unsure of the party’s position. It looks like some party members are afraid the party might eventually move in a contrary direction. Indeed, the party’s position on the matter is unclear. If there was such an agreement, the party should not need a reminder.

Those who are drawing attention to the alleged agreement face conflicting signals from certain quarters within the party. For instance, the Director-General of the Progressive Governors Forum (PGF), Salihu Mohammed Lukman, has been reported saying the party’s presidential candidate in 2023 would not be picked based on a zoning plan.

He said: “Everybody could see that the place is open whether you call it with reference to 2023 or reference to any election, it’s about the fact that the spirit of political contest in the party is now very high…The pertinent point to make here is that nobody can say President Buhari has decided or there is a decision on the party, this is where it would go.

”That is why in the whole speculation out there in the public, you will see that there are so many names that are being put in the public space which means that in 2023 there would be a contest in APC… By extension, it serves a death knell that marks the end of foreclosure in political contests in Nigerian politics. What we are saying is that foreclosure in our political contests is dead.”

It is unclear if he was speaking for the party. But he may well have expressed the thoughts of members of the PGF. The group of APC governors, currently comprising 19 governors, is regarded as a powerful and influential interest group within the party. There is no doubt that the group’s thinking on this issue matters and deserves attention.

Ironically, the latest member of the PGF, Ebonyi State Governor Dave Umahi, who recently defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the APC, is believed to have a presidential ambition that he thinks can be realised in his new party based on a zoning arrangement. Umahi is from the South-East, which is a part of the South. The other parts are South-West and South-South.

Notably, the PGF’s statement welcoming Umahi said: “Our message to all Nigerians is clear – politics is all about free, fair and transparent contestation. APC belongs to every member. Everyone from every part of the country is free to aspire for any position in the party in line with provisions of our party’s constitution and the 1999 Constitution, as amended.”

This is the crux of the matter. The provisions of the party’s constitution and the country’s constitution are one thing; the logic of a gentlemen’s agreement is another matter entirely. It is convenient to cite constitutional provisions, which are written and formal. It may be inconvenient to acknowledge an unwritten and informal agreement that demands a sense of honour.

Was there an agreement in the APC to zone the presidency in 2023? If there was such a deal, and the party’s presidential candidate the next time is supposed to come from the South, there is still a complication because the South comprises three parts.

Why does Umahi, for instance, think the party would favour the South-East? His move was opportunistic and egoistic. His opportunism is based on his thinking that the APC would support not only an aspirant from the South but one from the South-East. His egoism is based on his delusion that in such a situation he would be the obvious choice. There must be other APC members from his zone who want to be president.

Of course, there are APC members from the South-West and South-South who also want to be president under a zoning arrangement that favours the South.

This means that the party may need to endorse a particular geopolitical zone within the South. The idea of zoning the presidency demands such particularisation in the circumstances, which raises further issues.

Those who claim there is an APC agreement to zone the presidency in 2023 need to address the question of which specific geopolitical zone. Fashola, for instance, is from the South-West, and has not stated whether he thinks the said arrangement should favour his geopolitical zone or another geopolitical zone in the South.

Significantly, there is also a hot zoning controversy in the PDP concerning the 2023 presidential election. There are voices in the party who want a zoning arrangement that favours the South.  With the country’s two major parties facing a zoning problem that is potentially paralysing, it promises to be an intensely dramatic build-up to the next presidential election.

If, for instance, the PDP picks a presidential candidate from the North, which comprises the North- Central, North-East and North-West geopolitical zones, what would happen to the said pro-South zoning agreement in the APC?  If both parties decide to pick presidential candidates from the South, how will they decide on which particular geopolitical zone?

The problem with a gentlemen’s agreement, especially one involving the country’s politicians, is that it takes gentlemen to honour such an agreement.  Even when there is no such deal, gentlemen are expected to choose the path of honour. In the final analysis, political parties ought to act honourably.

By Femi Macaulay

It started as a self-defeating intervention and ended in failure. Ironically, the seven-man special visitation panel set up by the Federal Government to review some particular actions of the governing council of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) under the then Pro-Chancellor, Dr. Wale Babalakin (SAN), didn’t help matters.

The panel’s report submitted on September 17 lacked credibility because  its chairman, Prof. Hamman Tukur Saad, dissociated himself from the report after it had been submitted, saying he regretted signing it. Two letters in the public domain exposed the conflict between his views and the report of the panel he had chaired.

”As Chairman, I didn’t want to sign the final report but I felt that would be a slap on the face of the government and it would generate so much bad publicity in the public domain, that I would rather sign on the understanding that the matter would be referred to the Shehu of Borno as the Chancellor,” Prof. Saad said in a letter to the Chief of Staff to the President, Prof. Ibrahim Agboola Gambari, dated November 10.

According to him, the panel had an understanding with the Federal Ministry of Education which the other party dishonoured. “Final recommendation of the panel was that the matter should be referred back to the Chancellor, irrespective of what the panel recommended,” he said. This was a strange agreement that reflected the confusion of members of the panel

Contrary to the said agreement, President Muhammadu Buhari, Visitor to the university, approved all the recommendations of the panel.  Consequently, Prof. Oluwatoyin Ogundipe was reinstated as Vice Chancellor of the university; and the governing council chaired by Babalakin was dissolved.

Prof. Saad’s role in the drama deserves attention. He had also written a letter to the Minister of Education, Mallam Adamu Adamu, dated October 7, saying the panel’s report was “very one-sided” and “contained half-truth in order to protect one party and magnified the facts from the other party by pushing the blame to one side, omitting what could have balanced the report.”

He said: “As far as the majority of the team was concerned they would like to save the VC who was presented as a victim, having been sacked by the Council and no effort was spared in minimising his faults, which were often obvious.”

He mentioned instances of the VC’s “faults.” An example will suffice. “Take the issue of splitting contracts so that the figures would be within his approval limits,” Prof. Saad said,  ”in the renovation of his house and that of some Principal officers the evidence was clear, one Contractor would be given four contracts on the same project on the same day each packaged to be within VC’s approval limit. A number of such cases were evident, but the only way the Chairman could get that in the report was to compromise by rendering such as “Contracts were packaged in a way that bordered on contract splitting, in order to keep them within approval limits.”

The panel merely recommended that the “VC should be cautioned against contract splitting,” he revealed, adding, “To me, this was enough for the Government to reject this recommendation and subject the culprit to the consequences…There are a number of other issues that may have been glossed over in the report to save the VC but this is not the time to delve into them.”

According to him, “The recommendation that the VC should be reinstated was limited to the procedure of his termination. It did not mean he should be absolved of all wrongdoing. If among the faults enumerated in the report the Government believes he should be sacked, that does not contradict our recommendations.”

It is worth mentioning that Prof. Ogundipe has returned to his position at the university, and has resumed business as usual as if nothing had happened.

Babalakin foresaw the panel’s credibility problem. In his letter of resignation to the Minister of Education, dated September 15, he had described the panel as “inappropriate for the assignment,” saying he had appeared before it “in protest” and only out of respect for the minister. He added that the panel’s terms of reference “clearly indicated to any discerning person” that it was “empanelled to exonerate the Vice-Chancellor and implicate the Pro-Chancellor.”

Prof. Ogundipe’s removal  from office and  Prof. Omololu Soyombo’ s appointment  as Acting Vice-Chancellor of the university by the governing council,  which the panel was set up to probe, “deal with the interpretation of the laws of the land,” Babalakin said in his resignation letter. “The appropriate forum to determine the laws of the land is a court of law or a judicial tribunal. It cannot be determined by academics of a different discipline no matter how distinguished. These terms of reference are ultra-vires the visitation panel as constituted,” he argued.

Interestingly, Prof. Saad admitted in his letter to the minister that he “could not follow” Babalakin’s “complicated legal arguments” to justify the governing council’s actions concerning Ogundipe and Soyombo. “Even the lawyers among us were at a loss. So we were unanimous that the removal of VC and appointment of Ag VC did not comply with due process, “he said.

This exposed the panel’s deficiencies. The failure of its members to grasp Babalakin’s arguments should not be a reason to decide the matter in Ogundipe’s favour. The panel also had its prejudices. Prof. Saad said:    ”Government by nullifying the appointment of acting VC by the Council has shown where it stood.”

Prof. Saad acknowledged that there were “a number of memoranda sympathetic to the Chairman of Council for the good work he was doing and for his being above board when it came to financial probity,” but said these positives were not reflected in the report because “it appears three of the terms of reference were targeted at the Chairman in his role of removing a VC and appointing an Ag VC.”

He faulted his panel’s recommendation that the governing council be dissolved, saying he preferred “settlement through the office of the Chancellor.” The truth is his preferred approach cannot resolve the questions of law and interpretation central to the matter.

His most significant point in the letter to Prof. Gambari was that “It will be impossible for any Council to manage a university in this country if the recommendations of the panel are implemented in a Whitepaper.” Is this the result the presidency wants?

If the panel’s chair contradicted its report, it called into question not only the integrity of the report but also the integrity of the panel. By accepting a report that lacked integrity, the Federal Government opposed integrity.

By Femi Macaulay

OF all the places attacked by mobs during the #EndSARS–related mayhem in Lagos State, the palace of Oba of Lagos Rilwan Akiolu at Isale Eko, Lagos Island, was the most striking. Known as Iga Idunganran, it is the official residence of Oba Akiolu, the most important traditional ruler in the country’s economic and commercial capital.

His palace is a place of traditional power and may be likened to a government house, the official residence of a governor.  In a sense, the attack on the palace was like an attack on a government house. It is ironic that the palace was attacked by locals expected to be loyal to the king. The attack suggested that the king was unpopular. A popular king should have more friends than enemies in his kingdom.

There was an ugly twist to the widespread #EndSARS non-violent protests against police brutality and abuse of power in the country when other elements introduced disorder and destruction. The protests that prompted the disbandment of the Federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), known as SARS, did not justify wanton destruction. It is tragic that things went awry not only in Lagos, the hardest-hit state, but across the country.

It is unclear whether Oba Akiolu’s police background counted against him.  Before he became king, he had served in the police force. He spent 32 years in the police force and became assistant inspector-general of police in 1999. He retired in 2002.

Lagos Police Commissioner Hakeem Odumosu announced that “a total of 520 suspects” were arrested for various offences including “arson, robbery, murder, rioting, malicious damage, and unlawful possession of firearms.”

The list of destroyed public assets in Lagos includes the High Court complex, Igbosere; Lagos State DNA and Forensic Centre, Broad Street; Ejigbo LCDA secretariat; City Hall, Lagos Island; COVID-19 warehouse at Monkey Village; Ajeromi Ifelodun LG secretariat; and NPA head office, Marina.

It is disturbing that 16 police stations were burnt by rampaging mobs across the state, and 13 police formations were vandalised as well as police posts at Mowo, Morogbo, Ikota and Mawa, symbolising a breakdown of law and order.

Odumosu said:  “Some private facilities, as well as other investments that were partly torched and vandalised/looted, include the Oba of Lagos’ Palace; Television Continental (TVC) at Ikosi-Ketu; Access Bank, GTBank and Ebeano Supermarket at Victoria Island; The Nation office at Fatai Atere Street, Mushin; Shoprite Malls at Ajah; LTV 8, Alausa, Ikeja; Samsung outlet at Apple Roundabout, Festac; Shoprite at Festac; and Samsung Office, Oyingbo.”

It is thought-provoking that Oba Akiolu’s palace was among the casualties. The king had to be evacuated from the palace by military protectors who saved him from becoming a casualty as well. Oba Akiolu’s personal assistant, Prince Deoye Olumegbon, was reported saying, “Kabiyesi is safe. Soldiers came to rescue him. But thugs have vandalised and looted the palace. No one is dead but they carted away valuable properties.”

Dramatically, those who invaded and looted the palace stole Oba Akiolu’s staff of office and displayed it as they marched through the streets. It suggested that the mob had dethroned the king, if only temporarily.  It is significant that his staff of office was said to have been recovered, and rites were performed to welcome the king back to his palace.

A prominent Lagos royal, Princess Abiola Dosunmu, the Erelu Kuti of Lagos, explained that the stolen staff of office “is a ceremonial one and we have dozens of such staff.” She added: “It’s the one they take to parties, public functions and so on. It doesn’t have that serious significance. Of course, it’s wrong that anyone should take it; it’s still the property of the palace.”

Oba Akiolu  was crowned in 2003, 17 years ago,  but his kingship was challenged by royal rivals, resulting in a long-drawn-out legal battle that ended in his favour in 2019, 16 years after he ascended the throne. “My appointment as the king is the first time in history that kingmakers will be unanimous in selecting an Oba of Lagos,” he had said in court during the battle. The attack on his palace did not reflect his assertion.

The palace of the Oba of Lagos, built in 1670, is a tourist attraction.  The ancient palace has been modernised over the years, including in Oba Akiolu’s era. There are ancient shrines within the palace grounds, and some of the previous kings are buried at Iga Idunganran. These features were insignificant to the mob that desecrated the palace.

It is noteworthy that the palace is located in a poor locality. Isale Eko is an urban eyesore. The picture of a beautiful palace amid visible poverty is unappealing.  It is always a possibility that the poor will protest against poverty and aloof prosperity.

The Forum of Eko Princes and Princesses condemned “the wanton desecration of our traditional heritage in Lagos,” referring to the actors as “miscreants and vandals.”  The group called for an investigation by the state government.

Similarly, the Association of Lagos Titled Chiefs said it was “a taboo for instruments of office (traditional staff) or any of its replicas to be carted away from the palace” as well as “other traditional artifacts” stolen by people described as “miscreants and hoodlums.”

Those who desecrated the palace should be tracked down and punished, these traditional stakeholders demanded. But the matter is not so simple. Beyond investigating the incident and punishing the guilty, the traditional authorities need self-examination.

How has the traditional leadership helped to develop the locality and the locals? Have the traditional leaders done enough to alleviate the obvious poverty in the area?  How many of the people in Isale Eko are among the   more than 83 million Nigerians living below the national poverty line, according to figures released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) this year? Nigeria’s population is about 206 million.

The NBS 2019 report on Poverty and Inequality in Nigeria deserves the attention of not only the federal, state and local governments but also the traditional authorities across the country.  Every level of leadership has a development role and should be development-conscious.

Oba Akiolu, a lawyer, turned 77 on October 29.  He got the shock of his life when the mob violated his palace on October 21.  May he not experience such a shock again; may he have the wisdom to prevent a recurrence.