The Nation Newspaper

Category: Femi Macaulay

  • Between the masses and the moneybags

    What’s the fuss about President Goodluck Jonathan’s reelection campaign war chest of at least N21bn, to go by the figures of the December 20 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Fund Raising Dinner held at the old Banquet Hall of the Presidential Vila, Abuja? Indeed, the outcome of the money spinner may be considered anticlimactic, given the known capitalistic orientation of the Jonathan administration and its major supporters. It is instructive that the Chief Fund Raiser and Chairman of the Dangote Group, Aliko Dangote, who is listed among the world’s wealthiest persons, was reportedly out of the country; and  his representative, Mr. Joseph Makanju, was said to have assured the organisers of the event that Dangote would live up to their expectations when he returned.

    Jonathan was quoted as saying, “I thank everyone who made donation tonight.” He probably had a good reason to be grateful, considering the dimensions of the donors and the significance of their donations, which included: N5bn from players in the Oil and Gas sector; Real Estate and Building, N4bn; Transport and Aviation, N1bn; Roads and Construction, N560m; Power, N500m; Food and Agriculture, N500m; Automotive Association, N450m; PDP Governors N1.05bn; Jerry Gana and others, N5bn; and Tunde Ayeni and others, N2bn.

    Also, what’s the commotion about the possible legal implications of the grand collection? The Jonathan administration is not particularly known for its adherence to the letter and spirit of the law, and may ultimately exceed the lawful N1bn spending limit for presidential campaigns without compunction.

    It is intriguing that the scale of financial support appeared to contradict any negative perception of the Jonathan presidency. If the intention was to make a statement about the backing Jonathan ostensibly enjoys, the message was strikingly delivered.  Also fascinating is the remarkable donor anonymity, which introduced an impersonal angle; paradoxically, it would suggest that the individuals who gave money wished to be faceless. In this connection, it is food for thought that Balarabe Musa, a former governor of Kaduna State, said: “It is money stolen from the government. The money could not have been donated by someone who earned it legitimately. They are monies stolen from the public fund. Can they say the money is from their pocket?” Beyond the question of whether the humongous resources came from questionable sources, it is thought-provoking that the donors in question went so far in providing a pillar for the administration, which suggests that the opposition has an intimidating power contest ahead in next year’s general elections.

    Against the background of Musa’s far-reaching conclusions, it is interesting to note that former President Olusegun Obasanjo who recently released   his explosively controversial three-volume autobiography, My Watch, wrote of the Jonathan presidency in the most unflattering terms.  Obasanjo said:  ”Under Jonathan we seem to have gone from frying pan to fire. If in the past corruption was in the corridors of power, it would seem now to be in the sitting room, dining room and bedroom of power. If what is called ‘corruption’ is stealing, under the watch of Goodluck Jonathan, then government has become legalised and protected robbery.”

    This vignette is particularly persuasive in the context of the news that Transparency International (TI), the respected watchdog, this month ranked Nigeria 136th on its 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) focused on 175 countries. The assessment was based on the presumed extent of public sector corruption in the countries. Nigeria scored 27 out of a maximum 100 marks, and was listed as the 39th most corrupt nation in the world. Particularly relevant to the country is the TI observation: “A poor score is likely a sign of widespread bribery, lack of punishment for corruption and public institutions that don’t respond to citizens’ needs.” TI Chairman, José Ugaz, said: “The 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index shows that economic growth is undermined and efforts to stop corruption fade when leaders and high level officials abuse power to appropriate public funds for personal gain.”

    Ironically, the projection of finance-driven strength might well be an indication of weakness in the critical area of people appeal. It is logical to observe that money by itself is unlikely to win the presidential election for Jonathan next year, especially given his provably poor performance in office.

    It is noteworthy that under Jonathan, for instance, the country’s poverty profile is tragically inexcusable for an oil-rich country. Of relevance is the observation by the World Bank President Jim Yong Kim at the April IMF/World Bank Spring Meetings, where he restated that Nigeria was among the top five countries with the largest number of the poor. Scandalously, the country ranks third on this list of infamy behind India (with 33 percent of the world’s poor) and China (13 percent). With 7 percent of the “wretched of the earth”, the country is ahead of Bangladesh (6 percent) and the Democratic Republic of Congo (5 percent). Together these countries are home to nearly 760 million impoverished people.

    For a picture of poverty, the World Bank’s definition is clarifying. According to the institution, “Poverty is an income level below some minimum level necessary to meet basic needs. This minimum level is usually called the “poverty line”. What is necessary to satisfy basic needs varies across time and societies. Therefore, poverty lines vary in time and place, and each country uses lines which are appropriate to its level of development, societal norms and values. But the content of the needs is more or less the same everywhere.” It further said: “Poverty is hunger. Poverty is lack of shelter. Poverty is being sick and not being able to see a doctor. Poverty is not having access to school and not knowing how to read. Poverty is not having a job, is fear for the future, living one day at a time. Poverty is losing a child to illness brought about by unclean water. Poverty is powerlessness, lack of representation and freedom.”

    There is no doubt that the majority of Nigerians can understand what the World Bank says about poverty, and even what it has not said. The poverty of leadership, which has so devastatingly levelled the country, requires urgent redemption.

    It is eye-opening to contrast the Crowd Funding Project of the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Gen. Muhammadu Buhari, with Jonathan’s moneybags financing scheme. Buhari said: My strength mainly is the ordinary people. N100 is plenty of money for them and I know that they are going to make the sacrifice required for the change we are looking for, especially when I made them a promise to be transparent and personally responsible for the money.” He disclosed that the people had contributed N54.4 million, and declared, “So far so good.” In the end, it will be a battle between the masses and the moneybags.

  • Second term or second chance

    Does President Goodluck Jonathan of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) deserve a second term in office? Should the people give him a second chance?  These questions certainly have different meanings. Whether Jonathan’s governmental performance in his first four-year term, which may well be his only one, is worthy of a pass mark and an extension leaves room for debate. On the other hand, whether he should be given a second chance suggests that he has been a definite disaster, and only a supremely forgiving electorate would give him another chance.

    It is fascinating and thought-provoking that former President Olusegun Obasanjo chose to release his explosively controversial three-volume autobiography, My Watch, at this critical juncture as the country anxiously awaits the important 2015 general elections. His portrait of Jonathan in the tome is a punch with the devastating potency of a Boko Haram bomb blast. It remains to be seen whether Jonathan will survive the hard blow.

    What makes Obasanjo’s picture notable, not to say believable, is that he was fundamentally, and perhaps culpably, the prime puppeteer in the plot that produced Jonathan as president in 2011. While his insight and magisterial pronouncement on Jonathan’s career cannot exculpate him, it would be simply illogical and fallacious to respond to Obasanjo’s viewpoint with an ad hominem attack suggesting that his negativities should make him unbelievable in this respect.

    On Jonathan, Obasanjo wrote: “Jonathan is lacking in broad vision, knowledge, confidence, understanding, concentration, capacity, sense of security, courage, moral and ethical principles, character and passion to move the nation forward on a fast trajectory.” He continued: “Although he might wish to do well, he does not know how nor does he have the capacity to. To compound his problem, he has not surrounded himself with aides sufficiently imbued with the qualities and abilities to help him out. Most of them are greedy hangers-on or hungry lacklustre characters interested only in their mouths and their pockets.”

    Obasanjo further highlighted Jonathan’s alleged “inadequacy, myopia, personal interest and self-aggrandisement, lack of sagacity, wisdom.”  He added: “Under Jonathan we seem to have gone from frying pan to fire. If in the past corruption was in the corridors of power, it would seem now to be in the sitting room, dining room and bedroom of power. If what is called ‘corruption’ is stealing, under the watch of Goodluck Jonathan, then government has become legalised and protected robbery.”

    This vignette is particularly interesting against the backdrop of the news that Transparency International (TI), the respected watchdog, this month ranked Nigeria 136th on its 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index (CPI) focused on 175 countries. The assessment was based on the presumed extent of public sector corruption in the countries. Nigeria scored 27 out of a maximum 100 marks, and was listed as the 39th most corrupt nation in the world.

    Considering the lamentably positive excitement that the information generated in Aso Rock, the seat of the country’s presidency, as far as the Jonathan administration is concerned, it’s a big deal and worth celebrating. To appreciate why the Jonathan presidency somersaulted in ecstasy over the latest ranking, it is important to note the background: Nigeria was ranked 144th in 2013, 139th in 2012 and 143rd in 2011. So, with the 2014 position, the 2013 standing has been bettered, if such a positive word may be used, by eight rungs. Does the administration think there is a significant difference between being 136th and being 144th?

    It is possibly a reflection of corruption, or more specifically, corrupted thinking and understanding, that Jonathan’s Senior Special Assistant on Public Affairs, Dr. Doyin Okupe, burst into song.   Perhaps more appropriately, he should have burst into tears. Okupe gleefully said in a statement: “The latest TI rating is a proof that President Jonathan’s effort in the fight against corruption is yielding positive results. There is no doubt that since President Jonathan came on board as president of this country, the fight against corruption has been taken several notches higher.” He further said: “Unlike any previous administration in the country’s history, the present administration has instituted institutional reforms aimed at giving fillip to the anti-corruption war.”

    Okupe’s zeal is understandable, considering that the 2014 grade is Nigeria’s best on the CPI under President Jonathan. It is evidently a merry matter for those who are in power but have failed to exercise their power to arrest corruption in the country in any impressive manner. However, this moment cannot be for crowing, and it is both puzzling and disturbing that Okupe demonstrated unawareness by his effort to take advantage of the news for publicity purposes. Okupe needs to be told, or taught, that the country’s 136th position in a class of 175 is still as shameful and embarrassing as it has been since the inauguration of the Jonathan administration, and certainly does not qualify as a publicity opportunity.

    Particularly relevant to the country is the TI observation: “A poor score is likely a sign of widespread bribery, lack of punishment for corruption and public institutions that don’t respond to citizens’ needs.” TI Chairman, José Ugaz, said: “The 2014 Corruption Perceptions Index shows that economic growth is undermined and efforts to stop corruption fade when leaders and high level officials abuse power to appropriate public funds for personal gain.”

    It is a point to ponder that there is a striking common ground between Obasanjo’s uncontrolled demolition and Transparency International’s institutional perception.  Indeed, it may well be impossible for the Jonathan administration to significantly minimise public sector corruption, given his peculiar perspective. This is the leader who said on national television: “Over 70 per cent of what are called corruption (cases), even by EFCC (Economic and Financial Crimes Commission) and other anti-corruption agencies, is not corruption, but common stealing.” There is nothing to add, except to wonder at Jonathan’s thought process.

    In this context, the emergence of Gen. Muhammadu Buhari as the presidential candidate of the potentially victorious All Progressives Congress (APC) and Prof. Yemi Osinbajo (SAN) as his running mate can be better appreciated for the promise of immaculate integrity.

  • Kashamu should write his own book

    For a book that is so explosively controversial, the reviewer, Patrick Okigbo, was correct in describing My Watch, the new three-volume autobiography by former President Olusegun Obasanjo, as “thought-provoking and revealing,” although he probably never intended certain meanings.  To start with, it is remarkable that a Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) Southwest pillar, Prince Buruji Kashamu, moved to legally restrain Obasanjo from publishing his book. Also, it is striking that Obasanjo on December 9, despite a restrictive court order, unveiled the book at the Lagos Country Club, Ikeja.

    Interestingly, there was a dramatic continuity as Justice Valentine Ashie of the Abuja High Court, in reaction gave Obasanjo 21 days “to show cause, via affidavit, why he should not be punished for contempt committed by publishing and distributing for sale to the public, the book, My Watch, in plain disregard of the pendency of the substantive suit and the order of this court made on December 5, 2014, restraining him from doing so.”

    Still dramatically, Jusice Ashie ordered the Inspector General of Police (IG), the Director General of the Department of State Services (DG,DSS), and the Comptroller of Customs to recover the published book from all book stands, sales agents, vendors, the sea and airports, and deposit them with the court’s registrar pending the determination of the substantive suit. It is not clear how far this particular order has been carried out, and whether the mentioned officials may also be eventually accused of contempt.

    It is noteworthy that the pending substantive suit in question is a libel case brought by Kashamu, relating to Obasanjo’s public letter to President Goodluck Jonathan in which he alleged that Kashamu is a fugitive wanted in the United States. Also, it is worth mentioning that Kashamu’s action to stop the publication of Obasanjo’s book was based on his fear that it would contain a reproduction of the allegedly libellous letter. So, his anxiety was a product of anticipation.

    The developing drama expanded when the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library (OOPL), in a statement by Mr Vitalis Ortese, said: “Chief Olusegun Obasanjo wishes to state that the media report which conveyed the impression that he intended to “dare or confront a judge or the judiciary” is highly misleading. Far from this, on the contrary, the former president is a law-abiding citizen, who will only pursue his rights within the law and will not “dare” a judge or knowingly flout an order of a court of competent jurisdiction.” The spokesman further said: “The former president wishes to make it clear that in the first instance, no formal order from Justice Ashie was served and received by either himself or by proxy regarding any injunction restraining the publication of the book, “My Watch” which from the records was already in circulation.”

    More importantly, however, Obasanjo himself said at the ceremony to release his book: “The book had already been published and printed three months ago, only for the court to be asked to put a stop to it. Buruji went to a court to stop the book from being published and the hearing was fixed for yesterday (Monday). When that was not enough, he went to another court by 5pm on a Friday and got an injunction, saying the book should not be published. Unfortunately, the book was already completed three months ago. Secondly, I want the judge that gave such an injunction to be penalised.”

    Against the background that Obasanjo has challenged the “contempt of court” charge, and indicated his intention to seek a suspension or stay of execution of the court’s orders, it is clear that the unfolding show is far from a finale. Indeed, there may well be even more fascinating twists and turns before the denouement.

    Of course, the thought-provoking quality of Obasanjo’s book is not limited to these extra-literary gyrations. In content, the book is a veritable trigger of contemplation. To illustrate this point, it will suffice to concentrate on Obasanjo’s pictures of his immediate successor, Umaru Yar’Adua, and the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan who succeeded him.

    Obasanjo wrote in his book: “I was heavily involved in the transition and exit process that saw me leaving office for my successor, Umaru Yar’Adua, as recounted in Chapter 37, the ninth chapter of the second volume of this book. The unprepared and unplanned transition from Yar’Adua to Jonathan was a more difficult exercise in some respects. One reason was the ‘cloak and dagger’ manner in which Yar’Adua’s illness was handled.” He continued: “The illness of a President cannot be regarded as private. His health has implications for the security and wellbeing of the nation. For the president and those around him to have attempted strenuously to keep the fact of the severity of his illness from public smacks of ignorance of the enormity of what the job entails and the level of provinciality of their understanding, attitude, and approach.”

    On Jonathan, Obasanjo wrote: “Jonathan is lacking in broad vision, knowledge, confidence, understanding, concentration, capacity, sense of security, courage, moral and ethical principles, character and passion to move the nation forward on a fast trajectory.”  He added: “Under Jonathan we seem to have gone from frying pan to fire. If in the past corruption was in the corridors of power, it would seem now to be in the sitting room, dining room and bedroom of power. If what is called ‘corruption’ is stealing, under the watch of Goodluck Jonathan, then government has become legalized and protected robbery.”

    There is no doubt that these portraits have revelatory features, but not only concerning the portrayed characters. In a profound sense, they also represent a self-portrayal by the portraitist, who is fixated on the canvass and cannot appreciate that he may need to remove the log in his own eyes, which suggests a hypocritical hypnosis. Obasanjo was fundamentally, and perhaps culpably, the prime puppeteer in the plots that produced Yar’ Adua and Jonathan; and so he may, with believability, make magisterial pronouncements on their political careers. However, he cannot offer these insights in order to achieve self-exculpation.

    It is conceivable that others have their own stories too, which they could tell by writing books. Sadly, an enduring minus of the country’s political class is the poverty of mind that prevents many of its major players from documenting their experiences for whatever it may be worth.

  • Mama Goodluck Nigeria

    When it comes to celebrating the country’s First Family, every angle deserves to be explored, to go by the creative sycophancy of the Ethical Leadership Academy, which has dreamt up an award for Mrs. Ayi Eunice Afeni Jonathan, mother of President Goodluck Jonathan.  This is no laughing matter, considering that the award for excellent motherhood is reportedly designed to “promote transparent family values that inspire honesty, truth, justice, discipline, unity, better understanding, reconciliation, equal opportunities and respect for others.”

    If words have meanings, and indeed they do, it may be difficult, if not impossible, for objective observers to associate the string of positives with President Jonathan, meaning that in the eyes of the dispassionate public he reasonably cannot be said to stand for honesty, truth, discipline, unity, better understanding, reconciliation, equal opportunities and respect for others.

    But it would appear that the Ethical Leadership Academy is driven by a peculiar understanding of ethics, which may paradoxically prove enlightening for its lack of insight. According to a statement by the academy’s Executive Director/CEO, Dr. Chijioke Nwandikom, the maiden award will be given to Jonathan’s mother to “celebrate the joys of motherhood and give God glory that you are alive to witness the transformation of the child you delivered like a Hebrew woman, rise to become the president of Nigeria.”

    In case anyone missed the significance of the president’s birth for the country, the academy, with a tinge of regret, noted that little “is known of MAMA who has bestowed on Nigeria a gift of a great leader who has within a phenomenally short period transformed the political and socioeconomic landscape of Nigeria, a virtuous woman who has become an inspiration to generations and worthy of being celebrated.”  It is against this backdrop, Dr. Nwandikom said, that “Mrs. Ayi Eunice Afeni Jonathan will be conferred with the title of MAMA GOODLUCK NIGERIA for giving Nigeria the gift of GOODLUCK as our amiable and transformational president and national leader.” Mama Goodluck Nigeria is expected to take this grandiose title on December 20 when the academy will also launch the Mama Eunice Afeni Foundation for Excellent Motherhood.

    All things being equal, it should be expected that Mama would grace the occasion with her presence, most likely calculated to boost the apparent publicity stunt for her son. In addition, it may not be unrealistic to expect President Jonathan and First Lady Patience Jonathan to attend the event as well, considering that it has the quality of an image-building exercise, or perhaps more specifically, an image-redeeming project, with both of them as the indirect focus. Certainly, it does not require any special gift of discernment to recognise that the award is a not-so-subtle effort to sell President Jonathan in connection with next year’s general elections and to promote his re-election ambition.

    It may well be that the organisers of this unique event would miss Pa  Lawrence Ebele Jonathan,  President Jonathan’s  father  who died  in  Aso Clinic, Abuja , in 2007 at the age of 81, while his son was still Vice President. If he were alive, it is possible that he also might have been factored into the ceremony by the academy. However, those he left behind would probably spare a thought for him on the important day.

    Interestingly, according to the awardee’s profile: “Madam Eunice Ayi Jonathan swept the Anglican Church in Otuoke every day for 30 years from when she became a Christian in 1976. She recounts that when she saw young people singing hymns from the hymnal she would say, ‘All I wanted was for them (my children) not to be illiterate like me, for them to be able to sing Christian songs from the hymn books as well as read the Bible for me.’  ‘God in his infinite mercy saw my sincere desire and decided to bless our family the way He has done. I know we do not deserve it, but when God says yes, who can say no? We give Him all the glory.”

    Mama’s words are not only thought-provoking; they have a disturbing ring. By appealing to divine intervention, she suggests that her son’s ascendancy is beyond human intervention, which may have the implication that she probably believes President Jonathan’s re-election cannot and will not be humanly decided. While she may be entitled to her faith and her understanding of divine operation, her perspective is not to be encouraged in a democratic context. Indeed, it ought to be emphasised that people power should determine the people in power, and not divine benevolence as suggested by Mama Jonathan. It may be a good sign that she said her family did not merit the unbelievable height; and, hopefully, she should appreciate the reverse saying – when God says no, who can say yes?

    The dubious idea that Mama Jonathan represents model motherhood, and the shaky projection that President Jonathan has been a success in office, and stands for exemplary leadership, are perhaps predictable as the 2015 elections approach and desperation reigns supreme; however, the baseless communication cannot translate into acceptance.

    It is relevant to recall that Mama Jonathan made news in August last year when she donated two multi-million naira buildings of 20 flats to Federal University Otuoke (FUO) in President Jonathan’s hometown in Bayelsa State. Of course, President Jonathan was present at the event. Of course, no questions were asked, and no answers were provided, concerning Mama’s resources. There was no need for questions because the answers were clear enough. It was, without question, another unconscionable instance of dishonesty and untruthfulness, which are euphemistic in this case, and opposites of two of the qualities Mama Jonathan’s award seeks to promote.

    As President Jonathan’s mother becomes Mama Goodluck Nigeria, it is reminiscent of the dramatic move by First Lady Patience Jonathan who last year renamed herself Mama Peace.  Mrs. Jonathan announced her new name to a probably bemused audience at the Banquet Hall of the Presidential Villa, Abuja.  The occasion was the December 13 launch of the Subsidy Reinvestment and Empowerment Programme Maternal and Child Health (SURE –P MCH) known as MAMA Project.

    She said: “My name is no more Patience but now Mama Peace because I believe that without peace, there will be no more women, no more children and no more health sector. Without peace, the international community will be afraid to come and invest in our country.”  It is one year since this theatrical name-change, but where is peace?  Similarly, concerning Mama Goodluck Nigeria, the question is: Will this title be less senseless one year from now?

  • Beyond the cancer ward

    For Nobelist Wole Soyinka, who turned 80 on July 13, it would appear that the best birthday gift of all came three months later on October 28 when, according to him, he finished taking treatment for prostate cancer, which was diagnosed in December last year, some six months to the elaborate celebration of the milestone. What could be greater than the gift of life? It is noteworthy and ironic that at the time of the grand ceremonies that marked his 80th birthday, the colossus of letters was actually benefiting from medical intervention to keep him alive and possibly prolong his life, which may not necessarily mean the same thing.

    Interestingly, the dramatic dimension was unmistakable when Soyinka took the stage on November 24 in a rare publicisation of his private life. The June 12 Cultural Centre, Kuto, Abeokuta, Ogun State, where he spoke at a press conference, became not only a platform for communication but also a place for clarification. At the forum suggestively tagged “Beyond Ebola and Beyond reign of the Silent Killer,” Soyinka said: “Let me emphasise this, like many of you know, I am a very private person, I believe there are certain territories of individuals that should be private to them and their families. It is only when it is public interest that you probe into people’s health.”

    This background set the stage for Soyinka’s public-interest move, which is what his self-disclosure ultimately represented. He said with an arresting candour: “For me, it is not a decision that I am happy with, but I felt I have an obligation being a member of the Africa Cancer Centre and also having donated during the festival of fundraising for cancer. I felt I owe people an obligation to make it known and also to demystify cancer. Many people feel it is a death sentence. Family, friends and colleagues begin to look at you as if you were a ghost, just because you have cancer.” Soyinka continued: “No, cancer is not a death sentence. It is curable and I have undergone treatment and I am able to tell you that I even have a medal to show for it.”

    Undoubtedly, Soyinka’s impressive celebrity status as an illustrious Nigerian playwright and poet, and the first black African Nobel Laureate in Literature, gave his message of hope an enduring appeal. He deserves an ovation for sacrificing his deeply felt need for privacy in order to satisfy an equally intense appreciation of the public need for cancer awareness and enlightenment. He said: “Everything is fine and I want to use myself to encourage others to take whatever test available to you in our little circumstances here, but more importantly, to encourage those who are in charge of health matters to take seriously the cancer menace, which many and I call the silent killer.”

    In a profound sense, by speaking out in this context Soyinka effectively introduced another angle to his well-known and widely acknowledged activism. Indeed, his performance could be interpreted as another far-reaching instance of his courageous interventions in the country’s trajectory. In particular, it is a testimony to his fighting instinct and his progressive voice that he seized the opportunity to characteristically speak truth to power. It is thought-provoking that Soyinka said:”The important thing is that I am convinced that we have enough funds in this nation to build cancer centres, including research that this country requires.” It could be argued, without any fear of contradiction, that Soyinka was speaking the mind of many of his compatriots.

    It is instructive that, to buttress his point, he added: “One of the major reasons why I have decided to make this appeal is that I happen to know that money was budgeted and approved for the cancer centre in 2011. I want to make a personal appeal that this money should be released. Not all of us can gallivant everywhere where we can stop over and have the necessary treatment. But we should have diagnostic centres everywhere where elementary treatment can be given to patients.”

    Tragically, Soyinka’s observation and appeal further highlighted the country’s poverty of leadership and its regrettably disastrous implications. The country’s oil wealth, which should be a blessing, is being sadly and unpardonably exploited by a self-centred corrupt circle in the corridor of power for the enrichment of the pockets of its members and to the detriment of the people.

    If any proof was needed that nauseatingly visionless and obscenely crooked leadership is a major factor responsible for the country’s arrested development, it was strikingly supplied by Prof. Olufemi Williams, the chief promoter of the Africa Cancer Centre, who reportedly said, “We have been at it since 2005.” The picture he painted of the forces of backwardness that have held up the realisation of the project is worthy of contemplation. Williams said: “It took two years to design, and another two years to get the then Minister of Health, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, to have him to sign it. I know they have tried to set up a centre, which never worked. That is why I took the advocacy to the Senate. But at the end, Chukwu said because he was not carried along, he would not release the money under his ministry.”

    He continued the story of unbelievable abuse of power: “That is why I will say that our democracy has not matured; a democracy in which elected people approved a budget, following my presentation at the Senate. It has never happened before. You know what it is like to get into the Senate and present an individual budget. I did and elected people put it in the budget and the president signed it into law and yet, a minister, who was selected by the president, decided to withhold it. And I tried everything, even went to him. And he said ‘Why don’t you go and sit down and send younger people to me.’ That is the situation we have in Nigeria.” Wow!

    Against this background, Soyinka’s plea for the release of the N400 million allegedly approved and budgeted as seed fund for the cancer centre project may fall on deaf ears, which would be a further confirmation of unconscionably bad governance.

  • ‘Do you want to go back to the old ways?’

    Two days to the November 26 date for “Screening and Appeals” in connection with presidential hopefuls in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), it is beyond question that the scheduled exercise would be a non-event. Predictably, it may well be a day for further merriment among the stage managers, in celebration of a programmed outcome.

    Such a conclusion reasonably follows from the reality that President Goodluck Jonathan is, by the look of things, the party’s recognised sole presidential aspirant and its arrowhead in the 2015 general elections.  Indeed, perhaps it is unrealistic to refer to Jonathan as just an aspirant in the sense of someone seeking endorsement by his party, because he already enjoys the image of a chosen election candidate on account of the accepted exclusivity.

    For the purpose of clarity, it is worth mentioning that Jonathan’s aspiration has enjoyed institutional protection and promotion to the disadvantage of any other person who might have been nursing a presidential dream on the party’s platform. He acknowledged this possibly unfair advantage in his November 11 Declaration Speech at the Eagle Square in Abuja. Jonathan said: “I am overwhelmed by the trust, confidence and support of the various organs of our party, the Board of Trustees, the National Caucus, the National Executive Committee, the National Working Committee, the PDP Governors Forum, members of the PDP Caucuses of the National Assembly, and others.”  Interestingly, this suspiciously choreographed backing not only effectively foreclosed the conventional presidential primary to choose a candidate; it also makes nonsense of the publicised screening date.

    Upon reflection, Jonathan’s stunning stage management may qualify as arguably the most systematically planned and methodically controlled pursuit of power in the country’s history of democratic politics, which should not necessarily be seen in constructive terms. He apparently got carried away when he said at the declaration ceremony: “So many things have inspired me in the journey to this moment. I want to appreciate ordinary Nigerians, especially young people, for the solidarity shown to me by contributing their meagre resources to enable me arrive at this point. I appreciate the kind gesture of the Cattle Breeders Union, Miyetti Allah, and the Market Women Association, who encouraged me by coming together to contribute to the purchase of my Nomination form. In the same vein, I am touched by the National Association of Widows who also encouraged me with their widow’s mite.”  It is a testimony to his script writing skill that his party’s November 15 date for “Return of Forms” by presidential aspirants was exclusively for him because everyone else was denied access to the relevant form.   Against this background, it is food for thought that, by fixing a date for a so-called presidential screening, the party is trying to give the wrong impression that it had not already approved Jonathan’s candidacy. Now, why would the party apparently consider it important to project an appearance of propriety when it has all along been a model of subversion?

    To think the unthinkable, is it possible that Jonathan could fail at this screening stage? Doesn’t having the prior backing of the party’s most influential organs and decision makers suggest that the advertised screening may be nothing but a smokescreen? In the event that Jonathan is unsuccessful at the screening show, he has a chance to appeal on the same date. What if the appeal fails?  Of course, this is an unlikely scenario, not to say an impossible one. Remember, Jonathan is the one and only aspirant.

    Who would be surprised if, at the party’s December 10-11 “National Convention” where its presidential candidate is expected to formally emerge, Jonathan is officially given the ticket as if he had not always had it?  Who is fooling whom? This is an inevitable question for both the puppeteer and the puppets. It would be intriguing to hear Jonathan’s speech at his party’s national convention, after the perfection of the execution of the mind-blowing plot. It would be equally interesting to observe the response by party members to his address.

       Birds of a feather flock together, they say; and this should largely explain Jonathan’s strikingly stage-managed emergence as PDP’s presidential candidate in the coming elections. It is a tale that has further exposed not only the party’s fundamentally flawed character but also its flawless darkness.

    It is worth mentioning that Jonathan said he “accepted to re-present” himself for re-election as president “after seeking the face of God, in quiet reflection with my family and having listened to the call of our people nationwide to run.”  The speech itself had a theatrical quality, quite distinct from the dramatic aspects of the delivery. In particular, Jonathan’s adoption of striking performance techniques, specifically, repetition and refrain, deserves serious reflection.

     At some point in his speech, Jonathan repetitively employed a rhetorical question: “Do you want to go back to the old ways?”  This was a tellingly appropriate question, and its import was apparently lost on Jonathan himself. Ironically and amusingly, he may not  appreciate that he represents “the old ways”, meaning that to re-elect him would amount to a perpetuation of the same condemnable old ways. It is worrying that this truth possibly eluded him; it is even more unsettling that perhaps he simply ignored the unmistakable and undeniable reality.

    Thankfully, Jonathan also introduced a refrain that provided an answer. “We cannot go back to the old ways!” he repeated a number of times. Similarly, it would appear that he missed the significance of his own line. In a profound sense, it could be interpreted as an unwitting admission of the failure of his administration and a suggestion of removal.

    Probably for effect, Jonathan added: “We have to move forward! Only forward!! My dear people, Forward!!!”  The people should be thankful not only for his rare realisation of the way to go, but also for its public verbalisation. Could this mean that Jonathan has finally seen the light and recognised that he is standing in the dark?  Does he grasp the fundamental implication that in order “to move forward’, the people would need to dump him?

  • LAGOS as unique selling point

    More than just a publicity stunt, the projection of the political vision of Lagos State governorship hopeful Akinwunmi Ambode through an inventive acronym, LAGOS, bespeaks thoughtfulness. At the well-attended October 24 ceremony at the Onikan Stadium, Lagos, where he formally expressed his desire to govern the state, Ambode of the All Progressives Congress (APC) declared: “Our message is LAGOS. LAGOS is Leadership, LAGOS is Accountability, LAGOS is Good Governance, LAGOS is Opportunities and LAGOS is Service. This is what I stand for.”

    It is interesting, and a demonstration of impressive originality, that he has been able to package his guiding principles in a capsule named after the state he seeks to govern. More importantly, his antecedents indicate that he is a man who can walk the talk. His credentials in leadership, accountability and service are showcased and reinforced by the well-publicised letter of commendation he received from Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola following his voluntary retirement from the state civil service after a 27-year career that he ended as the Accountant-General from 2006 to 2012.

    At the risk of repetitiveness, the well-quoted letter simply cannot be ignored or downplayed in considering Ambode’s suitability for the office of governor. Fashola reportedly wrote, in what stands as a glowing testimony to Ambode’s observed and undeniable quality: “I write on behalf of the people of Lagos to commend your high sense of dedication, selflessness and integrity which you brought to bear on the civil service. I wish to specifically remark that working closely with you has been of tremendous mutual benefit, particularly in the present administration.” He continued: “You have displayed high sense of professionalism and have been a good team player, guided by the philosophy of a true public officer, who must place himself last while rendering service to the public. We are convinced that your brilliance and zeal will make you excel in your future endeavours.” It is beyond question that Fashola knew what he was talking about, and that his striking song of praise for Ambode was firmly rooted in reality.

    It is unsurprising that Ambode, 51, the Chief Executive Officer of Brandsmiths Consulting, made a passing reference to the characterisation at his May 15 book launch at the Civic Centre, Lagos.  The presentation of two books, Public Sector Accounting by Ambode, and his biography, The Art of Selfless Service by Marina Osoba, provided a fitting forum for him to bask in the glory of his recognition.   “The letter of commendation by Fashola is my gold medal for public service,” Ambode said at the event.

    Perhaps the most credible governorship hopeful in Lagos State today, irrespective of whether the other aspirants belong to his party or are members of rival parties, Ambode represents a positive mix of knowledge-driven vision and experience of the workings of the administrative system, qualities which Lagos would require of its next political helmsman to build on the acknowledged achievements of the Fashola era. It is instructive to note that Ambode himself has signified his intention to pursue “continuity of excellence.”

    It is probable that such pursuit would require a reimagined governmental approach to cope with the increasing challenges of a megacity with a population of over 10 million, which may soon become a metacity with at least a population of 20 million. Indeed, an individual with Ambode’s broad perspective, reinforced by post-retirement training in top international business and leadership institutions, may be in a better position to manage the diversity of the populace for the social good.

    This is certainly not the time, or more precisely, the time is past when governorship aspirants, especially in Lagos, with its urban sophistication, would expect that all it takes is mouthing populist slogans without manifest competence in what may be considered essential to modern governance, namely, a solid developmental visualisation informed by a practical blueprint. In this regard, Ambode’s concrete history recommends him.

    In particular, Ambode’s critical role in the creation of the State Treasury Office (STO) should be of special significance in rating him as a governorship aspirant. The STO has been acknowledged as a ground-breaking development which has fundamentally improved how the state’s funds are raised, budgeted, managed and spent. It goes without saying that Ambode’s demonstrated authoritative grasp of treasury issues would most likely be an advantage. ”If we take the concept of resource generation, allocation and distribution into cognisance and apply the principles of good governance, we will achieve economic growth and development,” Ambode said while presenting a paper titled “Public Finance: Probity and Accountability” at a workshop organised in August by the Lagos State Government and the Lagos Business School.

    Also important is Ambode’s work experience at the local government level, given that the so-called third tier is regarded as the closest to the people. Ambode himself observed: “If you work successfully at Local Government level and you are able to make a difference, there is nowhere else you cannot work successfully.”

    It is noteworthy that, beyond his respected financial wizardry and managerial mastery, Ambode’s claim to selfless service, which is also recognised, is another plus. This aspect may be considered fundamental because a leader without a correct sense of service is ultimately negative.  Service to the people, in the purest sense of the concept, is apparently not alien to Ambode.  According to him, “A true leader sees his work as selfless service towards a higher purpose. A true leader should be judged by what he has not – ego, arrogance and self interest.”

    Demonstrable commitment to good governance and ability to deliver what the people yearn for should rank among the uppermost qualifications for the type of progressive leadership that would benefit the state at this point in time. As Fashola prepares to leave the stage, the state deserves an exemplary successor who will be focused on excellence in office informed by a mastery of wealth creation and a humanitarian orientation.

    In a newspaper interview, Ambode shed light on his understanding of good governance, which is an essential aspect of his vision. He said:  “In essence, the elected government is like a caretaker for the rest of the people, overseeing their resources on their behalf. The citizens remain the landlord while the elected officials are only caretakers.”  He further said: “Arising from this, good government can only thrive where the resources of the people are judiciously distributed to various sectors/needs in the society in a just and equitable manner that makes life easier for every person.”

    Ambode’s positioning with LAGOS, in the countdown to the APC governorship primary election in the state, and indeed next year’s general elections, deserves serious attention from the electorate, considering his profile and the unassailable evidence of its genuineness.

  • Buhari, Amaechi and people power

    Of all the possible expressive metaphors, why did Gen. Muhammadu Buhari (retd) go for the gun?  It would appear that the former military ruler and All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential hopeful is still in love with the weapon nearly 30 years after his military government was toppled and after three futile electoral attempts to be president. He blurred the fundamental distinction between the gun and the vote at a rally in Kaduna where Nasir El-Rufai, a former minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), formally unveiled his governorship aspiration.

    Interestingly, Buhari reportedly said to the crowd: “Your card is your gun against incompetence in government and deception.” He added: “We have suffered enough. You know what it takes to repair Nigeria, especially as regards infrastructure, security and employment. Let us get the infrastructure working; let’s get security materially, physically and morally.”

    Considering that his party’s symbol is a broom, it may have been more fitting, and by far less jolting, if Buhari had stuck to the familiar image of sweeping as a means of removing the unwanted. It is possible to interpret his language of violence as a reflection of the depth of his political frustration, which is understandable in the context of the observable continuing ruin of the country by the ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). There is no doubt that the picture of the gun, perhaps more than any other euphemistic expression, drives the point home not only about the need for direct action but also the necessity for a destruction of the status quo.

    The suggestion of blood and death, in the framework of social resistance, was similarly communicated by Rivers State Governor Rotimi Amaechi of the APC at another rally in Ilorin, the Kwara State capital, where Governor Abdulfatah Ahmed publicly announced his pursuit of re-election. In an impassioned speech, Amaechi said: “I am very impressed by the number of persons that I have seen here today. What you must do is to stop the PDP from rigging.” He continued: “When you vote, do not go home at all. They will bring soldiers and police, remain there. If they want to kill us, let them kill us. If you go home, you will hear a different result. Stay there and make sure nobody rigs you out.”

    This striking convergence of thoughts, particularly the frightening verbalisation of violence, mirrors the decay and the defiance in the country’s political arena. Against this background, next year’s general elections promise to be, in a manner of speaking, a battle to the death for the country’s soul. It may be considered reassuring that the situation is not without instances of non-violent combativeness. APC leader Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu said at Ahmed’s event: “The best thing to do is to sweep them away through broom revolution.”  Significantly, his choice of words, even with the apparent lexical ambiguity, plays down blood and guts.

    It is a tribute to the essential concept of political sovereignty that, by clear implication, the APC’s approach is to rouse people power. It is a positive and creditable corporate stance, which has an excellent potential for achieving the desired regime change. However, the party will need to get its act together in order to surmount the objective challenges of organising for power and change, especially given the crippling socio-economic conditions that have blunted political consciousness across the country, resulting in an unbelievable atrophy of the exercise of political sovereignty. In other words, the people seem to have lost their voice, if not their votes.

    To save the sinking ship, words, whether hot or cold, will never be enough. How well the campaigners for change can demonstrate difference and distinction will likely be an indispensable factor in awakening the people. Sadly, it is still possible to argue, as various observers have done, that the opposition is yet to acquire a distinctive and unimpeachable stamp of progressivism.

    It would amount to a gross failure of discernment to trivialise the capacity of the Goodluck Jonathan administration for self-perpetuation. Indeed, Jonathan’s stunning choreographic approach to the 2015 presidential election may qualify as arguably the most systematically planned and methodically controlled pursuit of power in the country’s history of democratic politics, which should not necessarily be seen in constructive terms. Consider his unprecedented exclusive endorsement for re-election by the PDP state governors, Board of Trustees and National Executive Committee, which effectively foreclosed the conventional presidential primary to choose a candidate.  Add to this picture the reinforcing activities of the myriad Jonathan support groups practically begging him to be the PDP presidential candidate in the coming election.

    In a manner that may have been thought impossible based on reason, the desperadoes have not only redefined the noble concept of “transformational government”; they have also gone to the ridiculous extent of labelling the Jonathan administration as an exemplary case in point. It is instructive to note that Jonathan has continued to display a reptilian sneakiness, and perhaps the ultimate joke concerning his open concealment of his re-election ambition must be his show at his party’s September 20 “Southwest sensitisation rally.”  In his speech on the occasion, he referred to the various endorsements and introduced a calculated complication. He said: “I also have the right of refusal and I thank the party for giving me the opportunity.”

    Whoever thought he might exercise this “right of refusal” must be living on another planet. So, news that he had set up a Presidential Declaration Committee to work towards a November date when he would formally declare his presidential ambition was unsurprising. When he eventually pronounces his hunger for power, or finally puts his power-hungry scheming beyond question, the countdown to an unforgettable power struggle would begin in earnest.

    There is no doubt that the country is at a historical juncture of colossal consequence. It is a ripe moment for a full and far-reaching performance by the people, who will need to reclaim their sovereignty by seizing the stage. It remains to be seen whether they would be guided by Buhari’s image of the gun, or Amaechi’s be-ready-for-death presentation, or Tinubu’s picture of a thorough sweep.

  • Two plays in search of a stage

    On October 1, a public holiday to mark the country’s independence anniversary, I set out for Glendora bookshop in Ikeja, Lagos, confident of getting a copy of Egbon of Lagos, a dramatic work by Akin Bello and the winning entry for the $20,000 Wole Soyinka Prize for Literature in Africa established by The Lumina Foundation, which was awarded in July. It was unbelievable that the book was not in stock, which may not be the same thing as saying it was out of stock because it was never available in the first place. It was disappointing that the bookshop attendant, an enthusiastic young man, was clueless about the work and the prize, despite his boast that he read the major newspapers routinely. He suggested that I should go to Jazzhole, a sister bookshop at Falomo, Lagos.

    His idea made sense to me as both shops had a reputation for being up to date in the book business, although, in my estimation,  that standing had been dented by the dramatic disappointment at Glendora. Falomo was at the other side of the megacity; but it was a lazy day without the familiar road traffic challenges. The courteous female attendant at Jazzhole was also unaware of the work and the prize. She suggested Quintessence in Parkview Estate in Ikoyi, Lagos, which sounded sensible, considering that it also had a good rating as a book place.

    I began to wonder about the distribution of Bello’s book, and reflected on the book publishing chain, particularly the flow from the writer to the market. When I finally located the shop that also promoted Africana, I marvelled at the breathtakingly picturesque scenery. Sadly, I experienced another letdown. But, this time, it was encouraging that the young man who attended to me wrote down the writer’s name and the book title, apparently a signal that the shop may consider stocking the work.

    A week earlier, I had read a newspaper story on this year’s Wole Soyinka Prize for Literature, and Bello was quoted as saying: “I hate it when people place so much emphasis on the prize money. I am constantly being asked: ‘how much has $20,000 changed my life?’ The truth is that the money is tucked away in a fixed deposit so it has not changed my life in any way. And that’s the way I want it for some time at least.” Bello, who is 64 years old, also said: “At my age, what new things do I want to go about acquiring frenziedly because I’ve won a prize? I’d want them to forget about the money and look for my play to read if they’re really interested in literature and literary attainment.”  He further said: “I absolutely detest the poverty-induced Nigerian mentality that portrays and delineates everything in the world as money, money, money. I also hate it when people who haven’t even seen the book, let alone read it, want you to start telling them about it.”

    Published in September 2013, Egbon of Lagos reportedly “took about a year from writing to publishing”. It is said to be “about a journalist in Lagos – of Lagos ancestry – who tries to carve a niche for himself in the city.”  It reportedly beat 162 others to the prize.  Bello said: “The metaphor in the play may have caught on with the judges. But I want anyone who wants to really find out what makes it worthy of attention to get a copy and read it.” The problem, Mr. Bello, is where to get the book.

    What’s more, it is interesting, not to say puzzling, that staging the play doesn’t appear to be on the cards, given his emphasis on reading. For drama especially, if people don’t read, they can watch, which may be considered as the beauty of the genre. It is a shameful testimony to the state of the performing arts in the country that a play of such status may never be put on stage. Or is Egbon of Lagos closet drama? In other words, is it probably more suitable for reading than for production?

    It would appear that it is the year of “the drama”, but not the year of “the stage”. To illustrate the fundamental import of this distinction, it is useful to highlight the enlightening citation received by Luigi Pirandello, an Italian dramatist, novelist, poet and short story writer who was awarded the 1934 Nobel Prize in Literature for his “bold and brilliant renovation of the drama and the stage”

    Intriguingly, the focus on the drama to the detriment of the stage was similarly discernible as Sam Ukala, a professor of Theatre Arts, on October 9 clinched the $100,000 Nigeria Prize for Literature sponsored by Nigeria LNG Limited. His dramatic text, Iredi War, was adjudged the best out of 124 plays. This is how Ukala described his play: “Iredi War, being the title of my own work, happened in 1906 in Delta State. It is a true life story of the mess put in place by the colonial overlords to overwhelm the local people. In that mess, some of the local people became collaborators and helped the white people to mess their people up. The motive behind this was to denigrate the people and their culture.”

    It is noteworthy that the judges applauded Ukala for “the masterly handling of vast historical material through the narrative and action method.”  It is not surprising that this commendation hints at the logic of performance. The truth is that although drama may be created and treated as literature outside the context of performance, it is within the setting of theatrical performance that it probably achieves the greatest fidelity to form.

    This is why the celebration of the works of Bello and Ukala as dramatic texts divorced from performance may ultimately represent a subtle subversion of the dramatic genre if they are not eventually elevated to the stage. Considering that the two prizes are awarded for the literary genres of drama, prose and poetry, and the spotlight is in perpetual motion, it may be a good idea for the sponsors to introduce a performance dimension, or more specifically, a stage production, when the focus is on drama.

  • Lagos and identity question

    As Lagos State, which is considered a megacity with a population in excess of 10 million people, surely approaches the status of a metacity or hypercity, meaning that it would be home to more than 20 million people, there is a renewed focus on the concept and definition of Lagosian, thanks to a new book. Launched on October 17 at the City Hall in Lagos, Possessed: A History of Law and Justice of the Crown Colony of Lagos, written by Olasupo Sasore, a former Commissioner for Justice in Lagos State, provides a basis for reflection on the identity and identification of the people in the megacity.

    It is no news that Lagos has been tagged “no man’s land” in certain quarters, especially by those who view its richly diverse populace and cultural variety as evidence of its alleged non-ownership by a particular group. In an illuminating interview, Sasore said: “I actually addressed that phrase because it is a phrase you hear a lot. I answered people who use that appellation for Lagos, and I hope that with the reading of history, it will show you that there are people who have indigene rights.”

    He further said: “I’m not an ethno-centrist, but indigenous rights have been recognised by the United Nations. Nigeria is a signatory to the United Nations’ convention right of indigenous people, and the convention clearly states that you have a right to feel indigenous, to dress indigenous and to speak with your indigenous tongue.” What he said next suggested his self-classification as a Lagos indigene. Sasore stressed: “It is my right and you can’t take it away from me. If you read the history of colony, you will understand that some people have that inalienable right.”

    However, it is significant to point out that the issue is whether indigenousness should be tied to exclusivity in specific contexts.  The matter is certainly not restricted to Lagos. It is instructive to note that in July the National Council of State formed a committee to address the alleged discriminatory promotion of indigenousness in states across the country and work towards ending the institutionalisation of indigenity.

    The committee included the governors of Sokoto, Niger, Enugu, Akwa Ibom, Ondo and Gombe states, representing each of the country’s six geo-political zones, and they were expected to identify discriminatory practices in all states of the federation.  Two governors, Godswill Akpabio of Akwa Ibom State and Babangida Aliu of Niger State, gave useful insights into the dimensions of the problem.

    Akpabio said the Council was against the idea of states creating platforms for the registration of indigenes, adding, “Council viewed the report seriously that some citizens were being deported; deportation should be from one country to the other but where you have a Nigerian who is being returned to his state of origin from other states then you know there is a problem. We felt that that was capable of disrupting the unity of the country, making Nigerians to become apprehensive and unsafe.”

    Aliyu highlighted alleged discrimination in the education sector which also came up for discussion, saying that in some states “non-indigenes” paid higher fees in public schools. He said:  “In fact the very concept of indigeneship came to the fore; whether in Nigeria we should be concerned about so called indigeneship or residency.”

    Interestingly, Sasore attempted a clarification that seemed like a complication. According to him, “So, Omo Eko (Lagos indigene) is a right that some people have and you can’t take it away from them, but ‘Lagosian’ is the right that all people who live in it have.” He continued: “It will interest you to know that the word ‘Lagosian’ was in use in the 1870s, I didn’t create it. I used to think that the term ‘Lagosian’ was a latter-day term until I started my research. It was a term that was used in The Weekly Record newspaper that was in circulation in Lagos in the 1890s.”  What Sasore means is that not every Lagosian (Lagos resident)is Omo Eko (Lagos indigene).  The questions are: Are there rights that should be considered exclusive to indigenes? If so, what are those rights?

    It is food for thought that an interest group called Lagoon State Movement is campaigning for the creation of Lagoon State out of Lagos State. The group re-energised this advocacy at its 7th town hall meeting this year at the Awolowo Institute for Government and Public Policy and Museum, Lekki, Lagos. According to reports, its leader, Chief Babatunde Olusola Benson (SAN), claimed that the consequences of preserving the status quo include overpopulation, inadequate representation of the state’s indigenes at the federal level, imposition of heavy taxation on residents of the state and indigene welfare problems. On the other hand, he argued, the creation of Lagoon State would result in substantial job openings, greater representation of the indigenous people in the Senate and House of Representatives, and increased federal government funding which would facilitate grassroots development. It is confusing that members of this group seem to assume that they would retain their Lagos indigenity should their campaign for Lagoon State succeed. The proposed state is expected to include the following local government areas:  Ikorodu, Epe, Ibeju-Lekki, Apapa, Eti-Osa, Somolu and Kosofe.

    The definitional challenge, which Sasore may not have overcome, was also evident at the 6th Herbert Macaulay Memorial Lecture and Merit Award held in March at the Nigerian Institute of International Affairs (NIIA), Lagos. The event was organised by the Association of Lagos State Indigenes (ALSI).   Prof. John Obafunwa, the guest speaker and Vice-Chancellor, Lagos State University (LASU), who spoke on the theme, “The place of Lagos State Indigenes – Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow”, acknowledged the difficulty of categorisation, after a conceptual exploration that significantly accommodated “native and original inhabitants” of Lagos and those whose progenitors had settled in Lagos at least “60 years” before Nigeria’s independence from British colonial rule in 1960.

    Obafunwa took advantage of the forum to elaborate on what he called the “challenge of indigenisation” at LASU. According to him, the dream of the university’s founding fathers was that it should have a 70 per cent indigene composition, and since his appointment as the institution’s head in 2011 he had achieved 60 per cent indigene makeup.  It is enlightening to note that as part of the 2013/2014 screening of candidates for admission, the Lagos State University Independent Indigeneship Verification Committee issued a revealing identification guide, which indicated “acceptable evidence of Lagos State indigeneship.”

    According to the guide, “freshmen who claim Lagos State as their state of origin” are expected to back such identity with   “Photocopy of birth certificate of the applicant; Photocopy of birth certificate of the applicant’s father; Evidence of title to landed property (Long standing title usually over 50 years); Written testimony from relevant Oba to certify claim to Lagos State; Written testimony from Secretary to Local Government.”  Can there be a more thought-provoking expression of the seriousness of the identity question?