The Nation Newspaper

Category: Femi Macaulay

  • Ebola and myopia

    Perhaps the most striking and fascinating preventive calculation in the Ebola battle is the informal restriction of Prophet Temitope Joshua of the Synagogue Church of All Nations (SCOAN), Lagos, who has been told  to limit his faith-healing activities to cases other than the deadly Ebola Virus Disease (EVD). Although the Lagos State Commissioner for Health, Dr. Jide Idris, who led a team that visited Joshua in his church, played down what amounted to a governmental interference, there were no questions about the import and the desired effect of the move.  Interestingly, his explanation that the visit was an extension of the state government’s enlightenment campaign prompted by the international colour of the church’s flock and Joshua’s image as a magnetic faith healer sounded like an unwitting endorsement.

    Idris said diplomatically to Joshua: “We have our strategies that we intend to share with you. Again, we need to know the resources you have here because whether it is one or two cases, if they are allowed to get out, it is a major problem. We are here to work together on how to contain this disease.” For the avoidance of doubt, it was another member of the delegation and Director, Centre for Disease Control (CDC), Prof. Abdulahi Nasidi, who expressed in more precise and enlightening terms just how Joshua is perceived even by the scientifically minded among the visitors. Nasidi, an epidemiologist and a virologist, described the meeting as a “positive engagement mission.” He told Joshua: “We are here to engage you positively. We know the powers of this House and your powers, and we are duty-bound to protect you and your congregation. We have no doubt the power God has given you; we can’t do that, but we want to help and make it stronger.” It is unclear what he meant by helping to reinforce Joshua’s capacity, but he provided food for thought about the possibility of a working and winning partnership between science and religion.

    In a profound sense, this event could be interpreted as a potent publicity plus for both Joshua and SCOAN, and it is likely that those who have been suspicious of the faith-healing reports emanating from the church must be wondering why the government, maybe unintentionally, seemed to have lent credence to the prophet’s claimed spiritual healing power. Unsurprisingly, Joshua took advantage of the promotional value of the event and implied acknowledgment of his supposed healing ability by assuring the delegation that he would take preventive measures to arrest the spread of EVD in the country. In particular, and understandably with an eye on glory, he explained  that he would not entertain visits by foreigners who may come to the country seeking healing for EVD, and added that he would instead visit countries affected by EVD  for the purpose of  miracle healing. He was quoted as saying to members of the team: “I am ready to work with you. I love my country and I will be ready to work with you.”

    The questions must be asked: How many more churches and faith healers will the group visit in furtherance of the campaign, and how will these be determined? What about mosques and indigenous religion temples, which are also places where people usually look for divine intervention in health-related cases?  If Joshua turns out to be a solitary and singular instance, it will further make the group’s operation opaque.

    More importantly, the suggested denial of the possibility of spiritual healing in EVD cases, which may be appealing in certain quarters, could actually represent an ignorant narrow view. The discernible truth is that although we live in a world of extraordinary advances in the realm of science, we cannot afford to be slaves of scientism. If, for example, it is accepted that Joshua is possibly effective as a faith healer regarding other health conditions, including life-threatening ones, why is he being doubted in the Ebola drama? Of course, this poser is not to suggest that Joshua’s healing claims are for real, but to stress that faith healing could be real.

    It is significant that medical science, despite its touted and demonstrable efficacy, is far from a solution to Ebola. Considering that the virus, which causes a haemorrhagic fever that can kill infected people in a week, first appeared in Zaire in 1976, the continuing search for a cure demonstrates the scale of the scientific challenge. It is noteworthy that the United States is expected to launch an early-stage trial of an experimental vaccine against Ebola in September, and if successful such vaccine might be available in 2015 for health workers who are exposed to extreme risk in the treatment of Ebola patients.

    Also important is the work of a six-man committee set up by the Federal Ministry of Health to carry out research into the Ebola virus and possible treatment of EVD. It is interesting that this body includes Prof. Maurice Iwu who in 1999 was involved in a study of Ebola with American researchers concerning the use of bitter kola as a curative fruit. In this connection, the observation by the Health Minister, Prof. Onyebuchi Chukwu, is instructive because it tends to hint at the idea that the route to a solution remains an open question. He said: “There is no scientific proof yet to suggest that if you eat bitter kola you will prevent the disease or where you have it, it will help to cure it.”  The positive implication of his statement is that there is a possibility of potency, even if there is no proof as yet.

    Current knowledge indicates that the animal-borne virus can infect humans through contact with or consumption of the host animal; this is apart from the possibility of infection from the blood or bodily fluids and secretions of people who have the virus.

    It is alarming, to say the least, that the Ebola virus has officially found its way into the country; and the horrifying news of the July 25  death of Patrick Sawyer, a naturalised American of Liberian origin, from EVD at First Consultant Medical Centre in Obalende, Lagos, was a wake-up call. The subsequent death of a Nigerian female nurse who treated him, the  first known Nigerian to die of the disease, and the confirmed infection of five other health workers who had primary contact with the late Sawyer, have raised the frightening possibility of a local epidemic if swift  action is not taken to arrest the spread of the virus.

    Of relevance are startling figures released by the World Health Organisation (WHO), which indicate that so far, related to the current outbreak in West Africa, mostly affecting Guinea, Liberia and Sierra-Leone, 932 people have died. The degree of the problem, which has thrown the West African sub-region into reasonable apprehension, is highlighted by the fact that a WHO  emergency committee is expected to determine whether it constitutes a public health crisis of international concern and to recommend measures to tackle it.

    This latest outbreak of Ebola, regarded as the worst since the virus first surfaced, will most likely require lateral thinking in the search for a lasting remedy; and myopia will not help matters.

  • Osun: Between heroism and histrionics

    It is telling that a radio debate organised for the candidates in the Osun State governorship election on August 9 turned out to be a one-man show after all. A statement by the Director of Publicity, Research and Strategy of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the state, Mr. Kunle Oyatomi, painted a picture of the event sponsored by the International Republican Institute, which is based in America. He said: “But it turned out to be almost an interview and not a debate because Omisore ran away.”   In other words, Senator Iyiola Omisore, the candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and the main challenger of the incumbent governor who is seeking re-election for another four years, Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola, was not present at the debate, which was billed to be broadcast live on July 26 by the Osun State Broadcasting Corporation, Osogbo. Against the background that the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) released a list of the 20 political parties and governorship candidates that will be contesting in the poll, Aregbesola’s sole participation in the radio programme was symbolic of the weakness of his opponents.

    It is curious that Omisore failed to take advantage of this obvious opportunity to further promote his candidacy and sell the election manifesto he has presumably been busy projecting during electioneering. Ordinarily, he was expected to use the platform, which provided a chance for a frontal interaction with Aregbesola, to demonstrate that he had a competitive edge and should be elected to take his place. In particular, it was an occasion that he could have seized to drive his point home about the alleged unsuitability of Aregbesola.

    Oyatomi observed: “Osun citizens had waited with bated breath to hear Omisore articulate his accusations against the governor on such issues as the debt profile of the state, the school reform programme and the vexed issue of capital flight.”  His non-attendance was, therefore, bewildering and suggestive of the possibility that he himself did not believe his criticisms of Aregbesola. Perhaps more importantly, he probably realised that the forum would have exposed his fakery.  So, it would appear that his non-participation was tactical; but it was ultimately tactless as the people are unlikely to be fooled.

    Omisore’s trickery was evident from the laughable excuse he offered for his absence, after having agreed initially to be on the show.  Listen to him: “How can I be afraid of engaging him in a debate? But when argument is being drawn between two unequal parties, the weaker of the two may resort to physical assault and harassment. We don’t want this to happen…So, we need an assurance that Ogbeni will not resort to physical assault if he is confronted with hard facts, with evidence.”   Considering the apparent conviction with which he pushed this position, it may not be out of place to suspect that Omisore must be living with GD, that is, grandiose delusions.

    Ironically, he appeared to be correct in recognising the fact of “two unequal parties”, but was pitiably confused about the identity of “the weaker of the two”.  Similarly, he was mistaken in thinking that his own standard of decent conduct is appealing to others. Speaking of thuggish behaviour, perhaps Omisore needs to be reminded of his publicised crudeness in a recent encounter with Isiaka Adeleke, a former governor of Osun State, in the context of an intra-party struggle for the candidature.   The portrait of behind-the-scenes bestiality painted by Adeleke was damning and disqualifying.  He alleged that he was dangerously manhandled by Omisore and Minister of Police Affairs Jelili Adesiyan, possibly to discourage him, and described his attackers as “unfit to live in a civilised society.”

    In an unwitting self-endorsement of this characterisation, Omisore subsequently terrorised the populace, at least psychologically, by the alarming use of a masked and armed security guard during his election campaign. By a creative interpretation, it is possible that the presence of the masked protector was nothing more than a publicity stunt by a candidate who is under pressure to be noticed. If that was the case, the trick worked, given the attention he received on account of the oddity. However, it was a desperately short-sighted promotional approach because it was overloaded with negativity. Certainly, there was no need to introduce a mask, with all the rattling implications, except there was a hidden motive, which is imaginable. No doubt, a power-seeking individual who is not personally repulsed by the very thought of a mask-wearing defender ought to be viewed with suspicion, if not trepidation. It represented a dangerous signal not only about his personality, but also about his values.

    Still on masks, now consider the import of the report that the masked musician Lagbaja rejected in strong terms an offer by Omisore’s campaign organisation to perform at his final rally in Osogbo, which is expected to be witnessed by President Goodluck Jonathan who is a member of the same political party. Lagbaja was quoted as saying in response to the invitation: “Though the court of the land discharged and acquitted you (Omisore) in the murder case against the former Minister of Justice in Nigeria, the late Cicero of Esa-Oke and foremost nationalist, Chief Bola Ige, I have deep-rooted innermost conviction that you are culpable in the death of my mentor and benefactor. If you offer me all the allocation of Osun State during your four-year-tenure peradventure you win (which I seriously doubt), I will not perform for Iyiola Omisore governorship election.”

    Clearly, anyone who is looking for instances of ridiculous but thought-provoking staginess in Omisore’s campaign will find them in abundance. Perhaps the most inane are the images of him as a passenger on a commercial motorcycle, popularly called Okada, and of him eating roasted corn in a campaign convoy, all in a futile effort to convince the people that he is a grassroots politician. Considering the fact that he was a deputy governor of Osun State from 1999 to 2003 and two-term senator from 2003 to 2007 and 2007 to 2011, it is enlightening that he is still struggling, albeit clownishly, to connect with the people.

    To go by the latest opinion poll on the coming election conducted by TSN-RSM, his histrionics have not swayed the electorate. The research firm, a member of Gallup International, said: “The APC continues to dominate the political landscape in Osun State, judging by its performance on key indicators evaluated. It scored highest and increased in rating on first mention, sympathy and voting intention.”

    Of course, the heroes of this political battle will be the  majority of the electorate, who will expectedly vote against the opposite of heroism, and hopefully defend the decision.

  • PR for Pure Ridiculousness

    It is laughable, not to say nonsensical, that the Goodluck Jonathan presidency, in an apparently desperate pursuit of image laundering, has reportedly contracted an American communications firm to cosmeticise its performance. The news is that Levick Strategic Communications has been hired, with effect from June 16, to employ its public relations expertise to make the government smell like roses.  According to the contract, Levick will be paid $100,000 (almost N16 million) monthly as professional fees, totalling N275 million for the initial one-year deal.

    Other costs to be billed to the government include a sub-contract to Perseus Strategies; travel-related expenses and meals; fees for other services such as paid media, video production and web development; and long distance or conference calling charges incurred on behalf of the client. In addition, the government is expected to bear the cost of private newswire, outsourced printing, copy jobs, and significant expenses for postage and handling.

    The report said: “Under the scope of services, Levick is to provide government affairs and communications counsel with the primary objective of changing the international and local media narrative related to: the Government of Nigeria’s efforts to find and safely return the more than 200 girls abducted by the terrorist organisation, Boko Haram, in Chibok; assisting the government’s efforts to mobilise international support in fighting Boko Haram as part of the greater global war on terror; and communicating the President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration’s past, present and future priority to foster transparency, democracy and the rule of law throughout Nigeria.”

    Irrespective of the puzzling goals, it is pertinent to wonder why this particular job was given to a foreign firm, despite the government’s mantra about its commitment to the promotion of local content and local value across the country’s various sectors. Would it have been unreasonably costlier to use a local communications company for these objectives?  Or did the externalisation of the campaign mean that it couldn’t be handled locally with the desired competency?  It would be interesting to know the details of the process that produced Levick. Could the US firm be fronting for local interests?

    Perhaps what makes this image-management project especially intriguing is the inclusion of the continuing tragedy of the still-missing Chibok schoolgirls who have spent over 100 days in captivity since they were kidnapped on April 15. It is difficult to comprehend how PR can change the reality of their disappearance and the government’s unimpressive demonstration of incapacity to change the picture. Maybe there is a need for a reminder: This traumatising issue will not just vanish; and then everyone will live happily ever after. There is no doubt that the hashtag #Bring Back Our Girls is unlikely to become impotent and irrelevant without a desirable closure; specifically, the safe return of the captives.

    It is remarkable, and relevant to the Levick contract, that a report released last week by a UK-based risk consultancy, Maplecroft, ranked Nigeria as a global leader in “terrorism fatalities.”  The report on the country’s terrorism and security situation, based on 146 terror attacks recorded between January and June, indicated that there was an average of 24 deaths per incident, while the global average is two deaths per attack.  More disturbing is the information that the latest figures represent a doubling of the 1,735 deaths recorded within the same period in 2013. In other words, according to the report, “Nigeria, Africa’s biggest economy, recorded 3,477 deaths in those attacks as violence by the Boko Haram Islamist militants grew in scale and sophistication.”  The consultancy concluded: “The increased capacity of Boko Haram is likely to lead to a further loss of investor confidence.”

    Although it could be said that the Levick contract mirrors the government’s anxiety, the truth is that PR cannot be the solution. For the avoidance of doubt, truth-based PR cannot deny the actualities, or erase them.  For instance, can any creativity disprove the fact that shocking twin explosions in Kaduna on July 23 reportedly killed 82 people and nearly claimed the life of   Gen. (retd) Muhammadu Buhari, a former military Head of State?  Or what inventiveness can contradict the fact that, the following day, another explosion at a popular motor park in Sabon Gari, Kano, took five lives?

    These tragedies and others are intensified by the self-acknowledged cluelessness of the country’s military. By a significant coincidence, on the very day of the double bombings in Kaduna, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt Gen. Kenneth Minimah, expressed the force’s helplessness while addressing some soldiers at the 9 Brigade, Ikeja Cantonment, Lagos, during a familiarisation tour. He rationalised the army’s failure, saying, “Boko Haram terrorists come to die not fight. It is a new warfare which military personnel are not trained in. They carry explosives to blow up anyone around. They load Hilux with bombs and run into troops with them. It is not a conventional war. You do not see nor know the enemy you are fighting.”

    Minimah’s sob-story is inexcusable, considering the fact that this guerilla force has been terrorising the country since 2009 with escalating hardheartedness. It rings hollow, this repetitive definition of the battle as unconventional. It is worth reflecting on the training the soldiers get, whether it lacks content relating to guerilla warfare; and if so, whether it should.  What wonders can PR achieve in the context?  It must be the height of wishful thinking to imagine that foreign soldiers would be willing to die for the country when its own soldiers are busy making excuses.

    On the scale of absurdity, the public relations goal of earning public respect for the Jonathan administration based on perceived transparency, democratic practice and adherence to the rule of law must be the most ridiculous. There is an elementary lesson provided by bestselling authors and PR strategists Al and Laura Ries in their insightful 2002 book, The Fall of Advertising and the Rise of PR, which is instructive in appreciating the fundamental flaw in the campaign. Central to successful PR, the experts argue, is the idea that “publicity possibilities” should be fully exploited. The question is: where are the “publicity possibilities” that the administration can effectively take advantage of?

    Let the truth be told: The history of the administration is a concatenation of minuses, including unconscionable official corruption, bare-faced anti-democratic tendencies and abysmal disrespect for the law. Certainly, these can offer no helpful promotional material; and it remains to be seen how well PR can work as a redemption tool for a change-resistant government.

  • ‘I was just angry that day’

    No leap of the imagination can conclusively clarify the mind-boggling assault perpetrated by 21-year-old Tolani Ajayi against his 64-year-old father.  It is enlightening that even Tolani himself is unable to fully illuminate his dark atrocity.   The 300-level student of History and International Relations at the faith-based Redeemer’s University (RUN), Ogun State, has been arrested by the police for the self-confessed murder of his dad, Mr. Charles Ajayi, a lawyer who had been decorated as a Senior Advocate of Nigeria (SAN); and, whatever happens, his history has been fundamentally marred by his unacceptably poor management of the son-father relationship.

    Perhaps wise after the fact of his scandalous act, he was quoted as saying, “He was a good father and actually took care of us well. I never lacked anything. I was just angry that day.” He also said: “I have prayed since I killed my dad and asked God for forgiveness because I actually regret that I killed him.” It was terrible enough that Tolani killed his father, but even more repugnant was the manner of the murder. By his account, “I used normal small kitchen knife. Later, I used a cutlass to attack him.”  He dismembered his father’s body and dumped the pieces in a bush. Just a thought: What if the butchered body was never discovered, and Tolani correctly linked with the killing?

    Ironically, these evils happened within the expansive Redemption Camp of the Redeemed Christian Church of God (RCCG) on the Lagos-Ibadan Expressway.  Remarkably, only father and son can tell the sequence of events that culminated in the shocking death; and since dead men tell no tales, Tolani would want the world to believe his own version.  His narrative: “The incident happened around 1.00am…There was an argument between us and I stood up to him. He beat me with a stick and bit me with his teeth. Just the two us were at home…My father went to the kitchen and fetched a wooden spoon. He just used it to beat me repeatedly and I tried to defend myself. Then he bit me on the shoulder and I got angry.”  Faith may have been at the centre of the clash as Tolani reportedly elaborated that his father attacked him because he was allegedly cold during a prayer session on the fateful night.

    However, it is intriguing that Tolani said his father was not in the habit of beating him or biting him before that time, which seems to contradict the dramatic picture of beating and biting that he had painted; but this is not to deny the possibility altogether. It is understandable, and perhaps to be expected, that the narrator-participant presented the story to reflect provocation, as if that could be redeeming.  “Drugs did not push me to kill my father,” he declared, possibly in an effort to promote something akin to self-defence. There is no doubt that his denial of the suggestion that he might have been under an abnormal influence further complicates the case. Against the background of his admitted romance with drugs, it would have been easy to link his violence to mind-bending substances had he not emphatically denied such connection.  Or was he living in denial?

    Logically, questions about parenting and socialisation will arise from Tolani’s extreme and excessive expression of anger.  But, at bottom, his murderous rage must be firmly analysed within the context of personal responsibility. The truth is that whatever the inadequacies of his upbringing and the defects of his social integration, it should be reasonably expected that with his education and implied exposure to civility, he ought not to be associated with patricide.

    Interestingly, he claimed to have a girlfriend and other friends in school, which should be unsurprising; the real surprise would be if his friends can understand or explain his crime.  Not only his friends. What about the entire university community?  Many observers are likely to wonder why the Christian orientation of his university turned out to be insufficient as a means of humanisation, which would amount to undervaluing, if not overlooking, the more important dimension of personal accountability.  It is instructive that, in a moment of introspective insight, Tolani himself was quoted as saying, “It is not about church, but only God knows why.”  It can only be imagined how the members of his family would interpret this double tragedy, the murder and the murderer.

    If, indeed, anger was the determining factor in this tragic manifestation of unrefined bestiality, then it is most apt to reflect on not only the psychology of anger, but also  the sociology of anger, particularly in the Nigerian context with all its anger-inducing realities. It is noteworthy that a specific individual in power, speaking of Delta State Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan, has focused his thoughts on this destructive phenomenon, which is generally understated until something as jolting as Tolani’s outrageousness surfaces. Uduaghan may be an unlikely source of a philosophically perceptive view on anger, particularly because of the political nuances of his position, with reference to the country’s ruling Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) where he belongs, and the rival All Progressives Congress (APC), but his perspective is nevertheless useful.

    In a recent interview, Uduaghan said: “Now I am trying to organise a workshop or summit on anger management. We are a country today and virtually everybody is angry with the other person. People are angry with the president, they are angry with PDP, angry with APC, one ethnic person is angry with the other ethnic person. You are driving on the road and one driver is angry with the other driver, okada rider is angry with the police and the police are angry.” He went on: “So we are a country where virtually every person is angry with the other person. So what is happening? We need to sit down and look at why people are angry. Why are we angry with each other? When you read 10 columnists, you will see that eight are writing out of anger. We just get angry with one another.”

    Tolani, clearly now clear-eyed, can see the futility of anger. Sadly, it took patricide, in which he was the protagonist, to open his eyes. “There is no way Nigerians can help me,” he said with touching stoicism. “I am going to face my judgment. I am meant to pay for what I have done. It is not as if I am ready. It is something that is inevitable; something that is going to happen. I am just waiting for the time.”  The enduring moral of this sad and saddening story is: Control your anger before it controls you.

  • Dr Walker’s example

    Beyond the ceremonialism that highlighted the sensational return of two Benin bronze works removed from the ancient kingdom over a century ago, a creative reading of the subtext could be eye-opening. Perhaps only Dr Adrian Walker, the Briton at the centre of the tale, could shed light on striking grey areas in his reported remarks at the event organised last month to celebrate the homecoming of the long-gone artefacts in Benin City, the Edo State Capital.  He was quoted as saying:  “It is morally wrong and unethical to hold on to works that do not belong to one legally. I was pleased to be in possession of them because they reminded me of my grandparents. I knew I had to do something to protect my children’s future and these artefacts.”  Just one question: Was his intention to protect his children’s future from these artefacts?

    Certainly, it is unclear what Walker meant by the reference to his “children’s future,” which was metaphysically suggestive.  However, he was possibly alluding to a sense of poetic justice by which wrongdoers are expected to get their comeuppance in due season.  Was his seeming anxiety or apprehension a consequence of a conscientious view of right and wrong? Or could it have been, more mysteriously, a function of the possible supernatural powers linked with the artefacts?

    It may not be exactly farfetched to consider the likely potencies of the artworks, especially given the fact that they were originally created to serve religious and ritualistic purposes.  Lost in the context of  the  historically famous Benin massacre following the 1897 invasion by  British expansionists, the two bronze works, the Ahianmwen-Oro and Egogo, also known as the Ibis and the Bell, had indisputably sacred qualities from the perspective of their provenance.  The description of the works and the inspiration that produced them must be enlightening.

    The narrative goes thus: “The Ahianmwen-Oro effigy was first cast during the reign of Oba Esigie after his victory against the people of Idah. It is said that Oba Esigie while in pursuit of Idah rested under an Iroko tree along with his fighters. He heard the bird cry ‘oya-o oya-o’, which sounded like ‘Oya’ in Edo language, meaning suffering and pains. Oba Esigie believed the bird was predicting doom for his army. He ordered the bird killed and proceeded to battle and was victorious.”

    The story continues: “He returned to Benin and ordered the Guild of Bronze casters to cast an effigy of the bird in bronze and introduced the Ugie Oro in which a participating chief holds a replica of the bird. The Egogo is used on shrine altars and is used to summon spirits to receive offerings. It is also worn by Benin warriors to keep them safe.”

    It is worth contemplating whether Walker was aware of these histories, which may possibly be the case and the calculation behind the apparent rethink of the import of keeping the works with him. He inherited them; his great grandfather, Captain Hubert Walker, was said to be a British spy who was on the punitive expedition that dishonoured the Benin kingdom.  Interestingly, he said of his ancestor, who reportedly kept a diary of events at the time, “The diary is in disrepair and I could not bring it. Other accounts written by white men used derogatory terms to describe the people of Benin but he did not. He described them as gentlemen. My great grandfather seemed to be ahead of his time.”  To go by this filial account, which is unsurprisingly charitable, the Captain may indeed not have been a Negrophobe; but we have only his great grandson’s words to go by.

    Still on the probable metaphysical dimension of this intriguing happening, it is remarkable that Walker gave a hint that could be understood outside a strictly physical context. He said: “I am pleased to say that I am here to return two bronzes taken away from Benin. Before my mother died I took the precaution of asking her if I could take care of them. I knew she would not consent to my returning them at that time. She was materialist.”

    It is a compelling consideration, the idea that Walker’s hi-tech western environment and its suggestion of spiritual exclusion could habour what the unenlightened may call a superstitious imagination, which is the larger implication of his definition of his mother as “materialist” as against his own possible non-materialism, or perhaps spiritualism.

    The fact that he took personal action that led to an internet research on Benin bronzes, which culminated in awareness gained from the Richard Lander website,  apparently demonstrates his conviction that the works were not only in a wrong place, they were in wrong hands as well. “I contacted them on the return of the bronzes,” he said. “They arranged for a visit to the Nigerian High Commission in London and we are here to return them to a place where they could be of great cultural and historical significance.”

    Perhaps regrettably, the artefacts were returned to a place that had evolved 117 years beyond the historic confrontation between the Benin warriors and the British invaders. Definitely, things are no longer the same, which may be a euphemistic way of saying that things have fallen apart; and despite the euphoric expressions on the receiving end, it is apt to wonder whether the entire episode could transcend ordinary symbolism.

    Ironically, in today’s  global village, against the background of western cultural dominance and the systematic loss of ethnic values across the country, and the serious complication arising from the pauperisation of the people, it does not require looters from foreign lands to carry away cultural treasures. For instance, men of the Nigeria Customs Service recently seized 18 artefacts from local smugglers at Seme, the country’s border with Benin Republic. It is easy to imagine that illegal trafficking of cultural objects by the natives themselves must be happening on an industrial scale.

    It is instructive that an art historian, Philip J. C. Dark, in his work titled, “Benin Bronze Heads: Styles and Chronology,” said that about 6, 500 Benin artefacts could be found in an estimated 77 places across the world.  Of this number, the British Museum is believed to be in possession of 700 while the Ethnology Museum in Berlin holds over 500.

    It would appear that the campaign to bring back these cultural gems, among others, may be no more than sentimentalism; and tragically, they may be better appreciated where they are. It is sad that they were lost in the first place, and even more pathetic that the loss is progressive. It might just be wishful thinking that more people in possession of such artefacts would learn positive lessons from Dr Walker’s example

  • King of cash

    Possibly the most thought-provoking definition of money can be found in the hot book, The Richest Man in Babylon,  by George Samuel Clason.  The author said, “Money is the medium by which earthly success is measured.” News that Forbes, the respected American business magazine, rated Oba Frederick EnitiOlorunda Akinruntan, the Olugbo of Ugbo land, Ondo State, as Nigeria’s richest monarch was food for thought, especially considering the fact  that his wealth was estimated to be $300 million. According to the recent ranking done by Contributor Mfonobong Nsehe, Oba Akinruntan is the second richest African king, ahead of fellow Nigerian Oba Okunade Sijuade, Olubuse II, the Ooni of Ife, Ile-Ife, Osun State, who is ranked third among the first five on the continent and said to be worth $75 million.

    These financial figures were not only revelatory; they were also eye-opening and eye-popping. It is remarkable that Akinruntan was quoted as saying that the magazine underestimated his personal wealth. “I know my worth,” he reportedly said in reaction to the publicity, “and I am not surprised to be referred to as a wealthy monarch, but the joy here is that good news is coming from Nigeria and I am sure this will also enhance the status of many monarchs in Nigeria at the international arena.”  He said further, “I didn’t know that any international organisation is conducting any research on my business profile, that’s why I was surprised when a top security officer invited me to his office in Abuja and broke the news. Immediately I entered all of them stood up and hailed me as the richest monarch in Nigeria.” He added, “I asked who did the ranking and the Forbes website was opened for me to see. I began to receive congratulatory messages from all over the world. I feel excited because of my humble beginning. God blessed me and made me a prosperous monarch today.”

    His thrill is stupefying, and he obviously considers it a big deal to be numbered among the affluent. He may likely be in the category of those whose goal in life is to be a billionaire, which he has achieved because his estimated fortune in US dollars puts him in the billionaire bracket in Nigeria. His billionaire status is illustrated by the fact that he has reportedly sunk N10 billion into the construction of a so-called ultra-modern palace in Ugbo, which is being built on over seven hectares of land and  ultimately expected to cost N30 billion. However, the absurdity of this particular project can be recognised from the fact that he is a mere mortal and cannot guarantee that he would be around for its completion. What is more, when his reign is over, will his successor be in a position to maintain the expensive white elephant?

    Perhaps Oba Akinruntan deserves a bonfire for his vanities; and he apparently has quite a few of them. His narrative about one of his large luxuries provided an enlightening evidence of  extravagant thinking, particularly his emphatic claim that he was the  next to own a Rolls Royce Bentley 2014 model after the Queen of England. He said: “I love Rolls Royce. It is a car for the royalty. Sometime in 2012, I was in England and I saw the latest Rolls Royce car drive pass and I went to the manufacturing company to make enquiries about it, they told me the one I saw belonged to the Queen and the model was to come out in 2014. I said I wanted it and we negotiated, that’s how I was using Bentley 2014 model as early as 2012. I remember when I drove it to the Presidential Villa in Abuja recently; many Presidency staff took photographs with it.”

    Again, it is easy to see that he is in seventh heaven over his prized earthly possessions and clearly ecstatic about the flattering attention he claimed to have been getting on account of his treasures.  Of course, there is a subtext to his tale, meaning that the overriding but unstated reason for buying the status symbol was to project his distinction, which represents vanity.

    According to Forbes, “Oba Akinruntan is also the founder of OBAT Oil, one of Nigeria’s largest privately-held oil trading companies. He founded the company in 1981 with a single gas station to meet the needs of his family and neighboring community. OBAT Oil now owns more than 50 gas stations across Nigeria as well as one of the largest tank farms in Africa- a modern storage facility that has the capacity to store 65 million liters of petroleum products. He also owns an extensive portfolio of prime commercial and residential real estate in London and Nigeria, including the landmark Febson Hotels and Mall in the Central Business District of Abuja.”

    Unquestionably, Oba Akinruntan, who was enthroned in 2009, is entitled to his riches as well as the adulation of people who cannot see beyond the glitter. However, it would be useful to have a comprehensive picture of how well he is giving back to his community from his mind-boggling resources. In other words, what percentage of his prosperity is invested in the lives of his subjects and the development of the community? It is unimpressive to present undetailed information about the extent of people-friendly and poverty-reducing efforts of Oba Akinruntan, which could suggest tokenism.

    It is worth stressing that demanding convincing demonstration of social responsibility from Oba Akinruntan is not necessarily to argue for social entitlement. Rather, the point is that his royal office, which implies rulership and governance, should be a fount of measurable communal progress and not meretricious insubstantiality.

    More importantly, it is not just about Oba Akinruntan. Individuals of his rank ought to be exposed to 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. The portrait of indigence is a tragic and inexcusable irony for an oil-rich country, and puts a huge question mark not only on the quality of governance at all political levels in the country, but also on the social conscience of the rich.

  • Fantabulous Fayose

    It is impossible to escape a superlative adjective for the emphatic success of Mr. Ayo Fayose of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in the Ekiti State governorship poll of June 21. By his spectacular emergence, the governor-elect has apparently demonstrated the actuality of his self-definition.  Days to the historic election, he said in an interview, “You cannot take away the fact that I am a recurring decimal in the political equation of Ekiti State. You can’t take that away from me. You cannot equally deny that I am a grassroots person.”

    His unqualified dominance, reflected in the accurate description of his victory as a landslide, has understandably continued to generate shock waves, especially in unbelieving quarters. Particularly remarkable is the fact that four days after Govenor Kayode Fayemi of the All Progressives Congress (APC) conceded defeat in a rare show of sportsmanship, and following a transition-related meeting between the two men, the incumbent’s party indicated its intention to legally protest against the loss. Strikingly, domestic observers and foreign monitors endorsed the election, employing terms that left little or no room for antagonism, such as “free”, “fair”, “transparent”, “peaceful” and “credible.”  However, from the APC’s point of view, expressed by its National Publicity Secretary, Lai Mohammed, “Election is a process, and whatever happens on the voting day is only an integral part of that process. What happens before, during and after the voting day complete the process.”

    There is no doubt that by the APC’s move, which is an obvious afterthought, Fayemi’s celebrated submission has been vitiated.  The regrettable picture of contradiction was avoidable. It is ridiculous, and reflects a laughable management structure, that the party and its candidate expressed inconsistent views. Did the candidate make his surrender broadcast without input from the party leadership?  It is pertinent to note that Fayemi said, “I have just spoken with my brother, Mr. Peter Ayodele Fayose, congratulating him on his victory.”

    Reinforcing the confusion, Fayose who initially commended Fayemi’s acceptance of defeat in flattering terms, has uncharitably labelled it as a publicity stunt, alleging that the governor is strangely not picking phone calls from him. According to him in an interview, “The governor said I am conceding defeat. Let me be realistic with you, there is a difference between propaganda and reality. I have been calling the governor since after our meeting, but he hasn’t picked the call.” Should this development be seen in the context of the APC’s opposition and interpreted to mean that Fayemi may be reviewing his capitulation?

    Indeed, there are understandable reasons for Fayemi not only to rethink the election, but perhaps more importantly, to also replay his tenure and its implications for the people of the state. Before the crushing electoral defeat, public perception of his administration, largely informed by media presentation, gave him good marks for good governance. Against the background of his unexpected loss, it is apt to wonder whether the media was faithful to its role in re-presenting reality. Or possibly, the people wanted, from their own perspective, something better than “good”.

    Evidently, this poll was an enlightening lesson on the fundamental distinction between appearance and realty. An apparently puzzled Fayemi correctly noted that his understanding of the people’s expectations may have been flawed. He said philosophically in his broadcast, “Indeed, a new sociology of the Ekiti people may have evolved. However, the task of understanding how the outcome of this election has defined us as a people will be that of scholars.” It is said that profound illumination is often accompanied by profound blindness.  Perhaps he was blind to the other side of the coin. In other words, it could be argued that the outcome of the election also defined Fayemi and his administration.

    It is worth mentioning that about one month to the election the publicised result of a poll released by ANAP Foundation indicated that Fayose, 53, a former governor of the state who held the reins of power from May 2003 to October 2006 when his four-year term was abbreviated by impeachment, had the support of 31 percent of the electorate, while Fayemi was backed by 29 percent, with 37 percent “yet to decide.”  The pollster portrayed the election as “a close race”. It is instructive that this particular poll, which expectedly attracted knocks from Fayemi’s camp, truly turned out to be wrong, but not to Fayemi’s advantage; worse still, the race was far from being “close.”

    Of course, this explains why quite a few in Fayemi’s circle are still in aftershock. It seems illogical that Fayose who conceded that he had a negative and unattractive track record in office without concrete evidence of reformation would gain acceptance so effortlessly. This is the character who said in a pre-election interview, in words directed at the electorate, “I am assuring them that the Fayose they were afraid of is a better Fayose. He is more mature and more responsive. If you say I’m a bad man, I say I’ve changed. I am appealing to them that I am a changed man.”  It is worth considering whether this appeal worked and resulted in the electorate having a change of heart. Did this, among other things, put Fayose in the good books of the Ekiti voting population against Fayemi’s supposedly persuasive governmental performance?

    Interestingly, it is a reflection of the stain on Fayose’s image, which he carried into the election, that the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) officially contradicted reports that that it would drop the corruption-related charges against him in connection with his previous tenure as governor and abort his ongoing trial at the Federal High Court, Ado-Ekiti, following his emergence as governor-elect. Is this case likely to be concluded before October when Fayose is expected to take over as Governor of Ekiti State, and therefore enjoy immunity as a sitting governor?

    Furthermore, it is curious that his 2006 impeachment, which he insists was politically motivated, was evidentially overlooked by the electorate. Is it possible that if the decision to remove him from office was left to the people rather than their representatives in the House of Assembly, he would not have been dethroned?

    Predictably, Fayose’s sucker punch, for that is what his election represents, will generate emotionally charged reactions from his supporters and opponents for quite some time; and it remains to be seen whether he would justify his victory by achieving greater political and governmental success than Fayemi.

     

  • Lagoonians of Lagos

    Perhaps it is unsurprising that an interest group called Lagoon State Movement is campaigning for the creation of Lagoon State out of Lagos State, considering the fact that the megacity wears the proud tag, “State of Aquatic Splendour”, in addition to priding itself on being supposedly the country’s “Centre of Excellence.”  The former federal capital in the country’s south-west region, created in 1967,  “occupies 3,345 square kilometers, 22% or 787sq. km of which consists of lagoons and creeks”; and “in the South it stretches for 180 kilometres along the coast of the Atlantic Ocean.”

    So, the champions of Lagoon State can be applauded for the choice of a name that mirrors reality. However, it is curious and ironic that the group projects itself as “non-political”, for the concept of state creation cannot be divorced from political business. Or maybe the self-description was intended to promote its non-affiliation to any political party, but that is neither here nor there. As for being “non-partisan” and non-sectarian”, attributes which the group also reportedly claims, the stated neutrality in these contexts may be ultimately inadequate without political content because what is desired is a political entity.

    It is food for thought that the group reenergised this advocacy at its recent 7th town hall meeting 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, known as Lagosians, at the federal level, imposition of heavy taxation on residents of the state and indigene welfare problems. Conversely, he argued that the creation of Lagoon State would result in substantial job openings, greater representation of Lagosians in the Senate and House of Representatives, and increased federal government funding which would facilitate grassroots development. There appears to be some confusion: Will people of Lagoon State still be Lagosians?

    Understandably, other high-profile members of the group advanced his position, bringing various shades of perspective to the basic viewpoint. Its vice-chairman, Alhaji Gani Bello, reportedly added that the population of Lagos State, currently estimated to be over 10 million, was too large for one governor.  Bello, a former provost of Federal College of Education, Osiele, Abeokuta, Ogun State, accused the state government of concentrating on urban areas occupied by non-indigenes at the expense of the indigenous rural population.  Sir Segun Keshinro, a retired Magistrate for England and Wales, who chaired the meeting, reportedly described the state creation promotion as a labour of passion, saying that a major objective was to have indigenes govern their land. Interestingly, Professor Kunle Ade Wahab, the chairman of Ikorodu Leaders, reportedly sought the backing of Lagos State residents.

    It is instructive that the proposed state is expected to include the following local government areas:  Ikorodu, Epe, Ibeju-Lekki, Apapa, Eti-Osa, Somolu and Kosofe. Expectedly, Benson made an argument for its viability, but the country’s state creation experience has proved that theoretical calculations cannot sustain a state. It is no news that quite a few of the country’s 36 states continue to face daunting developmental challenges not only on account of visionless leadership, which is bad enough,  but also because of  the sheer inadequacy of the wherewithal to pursue progress, which is a complicating factor.

    Indeed, the timing of the latest demand for Lagoon State may be tactical, given the fact that the ongoing National Conference is expected to address the incessant campaigns for new states across the country. There are reports that several of the confab delegates have spoken in favour of increasing the number of states in the country for the benefit of allegedly marginalised groups as well as ethnic minorities. It is worth mentioning that these states were all created under military rule.

    Possibly, the most laughable demand in recent times must be the one by Emmanuel Tsamdu from the Northeast who represents former local government chairman in the National Conference. He was quoted as saying, “I am from one of the most marginalised parts of this country. Our past leader and hero, late Sir Ahmadu Bello, the Sardauna of Sokoto,  promised that we would be treated equally with other provinces, such as Borno, Adamawa and Bauchi but today it is only my province that is not a state.”  He then proposed that minorities be bunched together in one state as a solution to marginalisation; and requested a new state to be called Amana and created out of Adamawa State.

    For a grasp of the depth of the cries for new states, it is noteworthy that two years ago Deputy President of the Senate, Senator Ike Ekweremadu, declared at a public lecture in Lagos that the National Assembly had received 45 memoranda requesting the creation of new states.  He pointed out that about 34 of such memoranda were intra-state demands, seven were inter-state, and four cut across geopolitical zones. His talk on “Constitution Amendment and State Creation” was enlightening for its perceptive observations, which remain critical in considering any demand for state creation at this juncture in the country’s evolution.

    In a chain of rhetorical questions, he asked, “Has the creation of more states allayed the fears of minorities and the feelings of marginalisation and domination? Has it resulted in good governance and speedier development at state levels than we had before? If it is meant to bring governance closer to the people, what then is the essence of the local government areas? Importantly too, is the proliferation of states and even the extant ones viable and self-sustainable? Again, at a time the global trend is aggressively moving towards the contraction of the size of government and cost of governance and at a time the nation is already sweating profusely under the yoke of unwieldy size of government at the federal, state, and local levels, can we really sustain the status quo let alone create new burdens?”

    The truth is that state creation is no silver bullet, and it probably would be more helpful if the various tiers of government were better focused on what may be regarded as the most effective guiding principle for power, which is Jeremy Bentham’s philosophy that stresses concentration on “the greatest happiness of the greatest number.”  Or to put it in a capsule, if power was guided by social conscience.

     

     

     

     

  • Poverty in the eyes of power

    Speaking about poverty is understandably easier than experiencing it, especially when the speaker is rich and powerful.  So, Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha may be forgiven for his apparent claim to knowledge of poverty at the fourth Nigeria Governors’ Forum (NGF) retreat in Port Harcourt, Rivers State on June 6. It was an appropriate platform to ponder poverty, particularly the pauperisation of the people, considering the fact that political governance should be concerned with the activation of “the Greatest Happiness Principle.”

    There is no doubt that the ethical principle of working for “the greatest happiness of the greatest number”,   promoted by Jeremy Bentham in his 1776 book, A Fragment on Government, is eternally relevant in the context of politics in particular; and it is lamentable that individuals in the country’s structures of power noticeably trivialise the significance of the pivotal principle in their governmental perspective.

    Interestingly, Okocha was quoted as saying that any governor shouldn’t be seen pretending to be poor since the position had nothing to do with poverty. He missed the point. Though it is correct that governorship is not a position of poverty, the status has everything to do with preventing poverty of the governed. According to him, “I was poor and I decided to fight against poverty and nothing will make me, my family and my generation to go back to poverty again. Poverty is worse than HIV. You can’t pretend to be poor.”

    It is uncertain how he arrived at the conclusion that poverty is more terrible, or more terrifying, than HIV; but it was insensitive and uncharitable to allude to people living with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), the virus that can lead to Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), described as “a disease in which there is a severe loss of the body’s cellular immunity, greatly lowering the resistance to infection and malignancy.”  It is worth mentioning that, according to current statistics, the population living with HIV/AIDS in Nigeria is 3.1 million out of the country’s estimated population of 140 million.

    It is this pitiable group that the governor flippantly compared with the poor; but there is no basis for such comparison because while HIV transmission is usually a result of specific high-risk behaviours or practices, the United Nations definition says, “Fundamentally, poverty is a denial of choices and opportunities, a violation of human dignity.” In other words, poverty has a deep political dimension, which is not necessarily the case with HIV transmission.

    For a picture of the political element, 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. 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.”

    The obvious implication of this clarity is that governments have an inescapable responsibility to address poverty in society, which is why Okorocha’s personalisation of the issue is not only misguided but also tragically disappointing. Congratulations to him on having risen far above the poverty line, which is implied by his argument against pretended poverty in political office. However, he needs to appreciate that the genuinely poor also deserve opportunities that would raise them above penury, and that is a major purpose of governance.

    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.

    The portrait of indigence is a tragic and inexcusable irony for an oil-rich country, and puts a huge question mark on the quality of governance at all political levels in the country. It goes without saying that the country’s poor deserve an urgent solution. Kim said, “It is imperative not just to lift people out of extreme poverty; it is also important to make sure that, in the long run, they do not get stuck just above the extreme poverty line due to a lack of opportunities that might impede progress toward better livelihoods.”  The overriding concern is whether the people in power are sufficiently interested in providing poverty-reducing opportunities, or even whether they care about anything beyond their pockets.

    Remarkably, the NGF event supplied useful insights into the poverty conundrum, especially through the contribution by a former two-term governor of Abia State, Dr. Orji Kalu, who was represented by the Managing Director and Editor-in-Chief of the New Telegraph, Mr. Gabriel Akinadewo. Kalu told the governors: “Know that the burden you will carry as a former governor is for life. Even if you leave office poorer than you went in, a cynical public would never believe you. They believe half of the public treasury is kept in your house.” According to him, “They will come daily to line up, telling one tale of woe after the other. If you give them, they will say they only came to collect what belongs to them. If you don’t give them, they will say you are selfish and stingy.”  In conclusion, Kalu said, “When you become poor, the same people will abuse you of being a foolish man. It is head, you lose; tail you lose.  Public service is truly a thankless job in Nigeria.”

    What a sob story! He missed the point pathetically. The questions are: What is responsible for the alleged public perception that political office holders deplete the public purse for personal prosperity? Is it not symptomatic of bad governance and progressive poverty that the people reportedly queue for financial assistance from past governors?

  • Fani-Kayode’s freedom of bondage

    Before the crucifixion of Chief Femi Fani-Kayode, a former Aviation Minister, ex-partisan of the All Progressives Congress (APC), and returnee devotee of the ruling  Peoples Democratic Party (PDP),  by observers who may consider his latest flip-flop as perhaps a reflection of his instability and  crass opportunism, it is important to point out that he is entitled to his freedoms. To start with, he has freedom of thought, also known as the freedom of conscience or ideas, meaning that he can hold an independent viewpoint. In addition, he has freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of association and freedom of religion or belief, among others.

    However, paradoxically, it is possible to be in bondage even while exercising freedom, on account of the fact that the thought could be thoughtless, the conscience could be confused, the association could be awry, and the religion could be religiosity.

    With the 2015 general elections in view and the escalation of rivalry between the country’s principal parties, it is logical to think that Fani-Kayode probably has his eyes on an attraction that he possibly reasoned was beyond his reach if he remained in the APC. So his apparent wander-lust can be appreciated in the context of personal ambition, and he unquestionably has a right to aspire to the ceiling of his dreams.  But it is possible to question his subservience to the ladder.

    To preceptive minds, the evidence of incompatibility was ever-present and only required time to attain maturity and full manifestation. His sensational April visit to President Goodluck Jonathan at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, about two months after formally joining the APC was a pointer that he might be rethinking his political association. Indeed, on the occasion he seemed to have been preparing people’s hearts and minds for a certain eventuality, which happened on June 2 with his publicised return to the PDP. At the time, in answer to curious reporters, he said: “The step I will take will be made known to Nigerians at the right time.”

    There is no doubt that the timing of his defection was well-calculated and strategic, coming a few days to the first APC National Convention, scheduled for June 13, where a substantive national leadership is expected to emerge and take the place of the Interim National Executive Committee that has managed the party’s affairs since last year following a multi-party merger. He said, in a loaded valedictory statement, “I was not only a member of the APC but I was also a leader of that party and a foundational member.”  He then followed with a declaration that was not exactly a sucker punch: “I have left the APC and gone back to the PDP. I wish the APC well in all their endeavours, but as at today, we have parted ways forever and my spirit has left them.”  It is enlightening that he sounded convinced about the irreversibility of his move; and it is apt to wonder whether his spirit was ever with the party, or even in the party.

    It may be premature to conclusively determine the damage his exit possibly inflicted on the party, but there is realistically likely to be a cost implication. Not surprisingly, the PDP is gloating, and has taken opportunistic advantage of the development, claiming that Fani-Kayode’s reasons for dissociation support its position that the APC is “averse to the unity of the country.” According to its National Publicity Secretary, Chief Olisa Metuh, “We have now been vindicated.  The truth may be hidden for sometime but it has a way of expressing itself. The world can now see that we do not speak for nothing.”

    Fani-Kayode’s disturbingly damning allegations certainly deserve contemplation, particularly because they were made by an individual who reasonably could be expected to have an insight into the management of the party. “I cannot remain in a party where a handful of people that have sympathies for Boko Haram and that have a clear Islamic agenda are playing a leading role,” he said, with alarming conviction. It is on record that he expressed opposition to an alleged plan by the party to present a Muslim/Muslim combination for next year’s presidential election. Even if this was true, and there is nothing fundamentally evil about the idea, it is a puzzle how such arrangement translates into having a soft spot for the Islamist militia that has terrorised the country since 2009.

    His reasoning betrayed a self-serving perspective that suggested he was possibly unhappy about his ranking in the party but employed the sentimental argument of religious discrimination to cover the bitterness of personal disappointment. According to him, “ I believe that religion ought to play no part in politics but a situation where members of the Christian faith are not treated as equals and where all substantive positions of the national executive of the party are made up of almost exclusively Muslims is unacceptable to me.”  It is unclear which “substantive positions” he was referring to, given the fact that the party convention to fill such positions was still ahead at the time he made his claim.  He also alleged that “a number of leading people” in the party “question the secularity of the state”, which is clearly far-fetched and probably designed to reinforce his allegation of “sympathies for Boko Haram.”

    For a self-characterised “servant of truth”, he has evidently been unfaithful to fact in these accusations, which gives him away as not only desperate to create a basis for disconnection but also anxious for acceptance. His resort to apparent untruths in order to advance his political career does not deserve compliments, just as his adoption of aggressive tactics which continues to distinguish him whenever he takes sides politically. Has the PDP forgotten so soon, in the euphoria of the moment, just how caustic and devastatingly pugilistic he could be? The party perhaps needs to be reminded of the ferocity of oppositional bashing that he gave Jonathan while he was outside. Or maybe that does not matter anymore; it must be a relief to have him back on their side.

    Interestingly, he provided proof of his self-description as “a lover of poetry” by his coinage of “Haramites” to refer to those who supposedly have a Boko Haram mentality. He declared, “I am not prepared to stay and fight from within because the presence of any closet Haramites on the same political platform as me is something that I find utterly repugnant.”

    Still on self-definition from his Twitter account where he also calls himself “a believer in God”, it is difficult to associate the divine with the opposite of truth, reliability and integrity; and the latest performance by Fani-Kayode certainly fell short of these values.