The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Adams: Yesterday and today

    Adams: Yesterday and today

    When does the past end?  When does the present begin? These posers are pertinent as the National Coordinator of the Oodua Peoples Congress (OPC), Chief Gani Adams, on January 13, stepped into a new role as Aare Ona Kakanfo of Yorubaland.  The new generalissimo of the Yoruba people was installed by the Alaafin of Oyo, Oba Lamidi Adeyemi, at an elaborate event at the Durbar Stadium, Oyo.   It was the climax of intense preparations that followed the choice of Adams for the centuries-old traditional title last October.

    There is no doubt that Adams comes to the position with a past. The ultimate challenge for him on the new stage must be how to make the present new.

    My enduring picture of Adams comes from August 21, 2015, when he made an ego-serving entrance at the finale of the Osun-Osogbo Festival in the Osun-Osogbo Grove, Osun State. When Adams arrived with his circle of boisterous followers, they caused quite a stir. Whip-wielding noisemakers disruptively created a path for Adams as he approached the sacred River Osun to announce his presence. He witnessed the unruliness of his men and encouraged it by his silence.  It was an unflattering drama.  His group was listed among “Partners” on the cover of the festival programme; the others were MTN, Goldberg, Seaman’s Royale, IOD, Kasapreko Alomo Bitters. The group’s emblem bore his name, suggesting that Gani Adams is OPC and OPC is Gani Adams.

    Another picture from March 16, 2015:  On that day, OPC stood for Operation Public Chaos as the self-identified defender and promoter of Yoruba interests demonstrated that it had not only sold its soul for filthy lucre but also lost its collective mind. Members of Adams’ OPC faction took their militancy to heights that mirrored a disturbing depth of degeneration.

    In an unprecedented demonstration of desperation ahead of the general election that year, members of the group terrorised Lagos disguised as political protesters. A report at the time said: “The two pamphlets distributed by the protesters had 7 reasons why President Goodluck Jonathan must continue in office and 7 reasons why Prof Attahiru Jega, the INEC boss, must go on terminal leave and be replaced with a credible administrator before the elections.”

    It was a message of force by forceful messengers. According to a report: “The protesters got traffic stuck for hours, smashed cars, harassed motorists and disrupted business in many parts of the city. They destroyed banners and campaign billboards of All Progressives Congress (APC) candidates.”

    Who was behind the bedlam? A subsequent eye-opening disclaimer said: “We, the members of the National Coordinating Council of the Oodua Peoples Congress, OPC, the highest ruling body of the organisation, wish to disassociate ourselves from the shameful, destructive, violent and reactionary activities of the Gani Adams-led team which occurred in Lagos today.” The statement added: “What was witnessed in Lagos was the highest level of political violence sponsored and funded by certain elements in the Jonathan government.”

    It is noteworthy that the police had declared Adams wanted in 2000 for his group’s alleged violent ways. He was arrested in August 2001 but released after detention in prisons in Lagos, Abeokuta and Abuja.

    The past remains the past. The question is whether the past will remain in the past.   It is interesting that Adams, 47, spoke with a sense of the present at his inauguration.   Adams said: “I want to assure everyone that as the 15th Aare Ona Kakanfo, I will use my position, God willing, to protect the interest of our land… The journey has started from here. And my first appeal goes to Yoruba sons and daughters who are outside the shores of the country not to forget that there is no place like home. This was what informed the formation of the Oodua Progressives Union, Gani Adams Foundation and Olokun Festival Foundation. Please, see Yorubaland as the place to be. Don’t give the race a bad name. Come home and invest.”

    Adams should heed his own advice. Hopefully, he will not give the race a bad name in his new position. He also said: “As the 15th Aare Ona Kakanafo, I consider myself lucky that there is no war at hand confronting the Yoruba race now. In other words, we are living in peace time. However, I am not pleased with the level of Yoruba unity today and I am very concerned. Therefore, my greatest priority is the unity of the Yoruba race at home and in the Diaspora. I will, therefore, spare no effort in ensuring the unity of Yoruba race within the contemporary Nigeria body polity.”

    It was a bubbly occasion, and Adams got enthusiastic.  He added: “To take the journey further, I will, after this inauguration, launch the Aare Ona Kakanfo Foundation. This will further promote the culture of the people and document the history of the Aare Ona Kakanfo title.” It is easy to talk about cultural promotion, but difficult to be a cultural ambassador.  The Aare Ona Kakanfo title is a cultural title, and it remains to be seen how Adams intends to launch a Foundation with this name without suggesting a personalisation of the title.

    It is easy to notice Adams’ sense of importance and influence based on his new title.  He is entitled to his illusions as well as his disillusionment.  He is likely to learn sooner rather than later that his title does not automatically make him relevant. He was quoted as saying:  “My second appeal as the Aare Ona Kakanfo goes to the Federal Government to attend to some of the major roads in Yorubaland that are critical to its citizens. These include Lagos-Ibadan, Oyo-Ilorin, Lagos-Badagry, Sagamu-Benin, Badagry-Lusada-Sokoto, Ibadan-Iwo-Osogbo, Osogbo-Ilesa, Ilesa-Akure-Owo-Lokoja and Lagos-Abeokuta. To our esteemed Governors in the South-West, I call for cooperation, no matter the party line. The Development Agenda for Western Nigeria Commission should be empowered. And I want you all to see me as a partner in progress. I offer myself for service once it is for the advancement of the Yoruba race. The various groups in the South-West should also resolve their crises.”

    After his inauguration, it is time for Adams to demonstrate that he appreciates the need to work on his public image. It is said that a leopard can’t change its spots. Can Adams prove this saying wrong?

  • Buhari’s systems and structures

    Buhari’s systems and structures

    President Buhari in his New Year message touched on a number of issues germane to the overall progress and development of the country. Apart from blaming fuel scarcity and the attendant hardship on some unidentified people, he promised to get at the root of the blackmail to ensure that those behind it are prevented from doing so again.

    The president also reeled out a plethora of measures his regime intends to take to address the huge infrastructural deficits across the country. This spans across power, works, housing and transport. The measures are ambitious and promising as they raised new hopes for a better future.

    Since these are largely statements of intent, the most we can do at this point is to cross our fingers in wait of the coming into fruition of the promised quantum leap in infrastructural development. No doubt, significant progress would have been made if these promises give practical expression in the delivery of public goods and services within the projected time frame.

    One is nonetheless not enthused by the president’s attempt to blame the devastating fuel scarcity and the attendant prohibitive cost of the commodity solely on some imaginary enemies bent on sabotaging and occasioning harm on the rest of us. There is obviously a government angle to the scarcity. The stock the NNPC claimed it sufficiently had to cushion the effect of the scarcity was of little or no help in the circumstance. Neither did the promise of price enforcement translate to anything.

    As I write, the price of the commodity still sells above N250 per litre in many parts of the country. The problem does not solely lie in the identification of the so-called saboteurs and preventing them from a repeat. It hinges inexorably on extant policies measures working to push up the price of the commodity to a level that is bound to make life unbearable for a majority of our people. That is the issue to contend with rather than the trending obsession with buck-passing.

    In an apparent reaction to rising criticisms on his claims to have defeated the Boko Haram insurgents in the face of escalating attacks on both soft and hard targets, the president sought to draw parallels with some advanced countries which he claimed are yet to overcome such unconventional warfare. He contends that even the best policed countries cannot prevent determined criminals from committing acts of terror as evident in Europe, Asia, Middle East, Africa and America.

    Whereas it is not possible to prevent determined criminals from committing occasional acts of terror, it is incongruent to liken the organized warfare going on in the north-east to isolated terror acts by criminals. They are not the same. What we are contending with is a full-fledged war that is taking a huge toll on human lives and property.

    As the president spoke, the military were celebrating their success in releasing 700 people held hostage by the insurgents. According to them, the captives who hitherto were forced to work in the farms of the insurgents got freed due to the impounding of their camps by the Nigeria Air force. If they were working on farms owned by the insurgents, it implies that they still have some territories in their control. So the attempt to reduce the serious warfare in the north-east to a similitude of occasional terror attacks in some countries is as laughable as it is ridiculous.

    By far, the most contentious and controversial of the president’s speech is his position on agitations for restructuring. His interpretation of the aggregate of opinions is that the nation’s problems have more to do with process than structure. “We tried the parliamentary system: we jettisoned it. Now there are shrill cries for a return to parliamentary structure”. He argued somehow correctly that in older democracies, these systems took centuries to evolve and we must give a long period of trial and improvement for the system to fit our purpose.

    The issue canvassed is not entirely out of place. But the first problem with it is the conceptual error in equating systems with structures.  His argument that “whatever structure we develop must periodically be perfected according circumstances” suffers this conceptual liability and therefore very confusing. A difference must be made between systems and structures. Systems are analytic constructs and in them are found structures. Whereas it can be admitted that systems (democracy or federalism for instance) need periods of trial and error to get attuned to the operating environment, that perfection is attained by adjusting their structures and processes in line with the dictates of the adopted paradigm.

    Again, each system has a set of supporting elements (structures) that must be in place for it to function optimally. When we take democracy for instance, the process Buhari talked about would manifest in terms of attitudinal support. In this wise, we are concerned with the orientations and dispositions of the people that are supportive of the thriving of democracy. Max Weber called them political culture and came out with three variants in terms of their dispositions and capacities to support and sustain democratic practice. They range from the parochial to subject and participant political cultures.

    For him, what you find in established democracies is the participant variant. So when Buhari talked about the process rather than the structure, he may have had system in mind. Yes, systems need adjustments; they need to be aligned to the environment in which they operate. But such alignments must come in the form of adjustments in processes and structures of the system. But whereas processes may have to do with the human element, structures are largely institutional. The latter does not require the long period of trial and error Buhari referenced upon.

    Those who canvass restructuring are of the opinion that the ingredients of a stable federal order are lacking in the contraption that we currently operate. Their contention is that what we call our federal system is an aberrant order. And for us to make reasonable progress, we must adjust to the true dictates of federalism. It did not take us donkey years to create states and local governments (structures of a federation). It does not require long period of time to devolve powers to gain the right balance.

    The argument that it took established democracies centuries to get where they are today is defeatist, stale and uninspiring. Those countries, as pioneers in the process, made mistakes and learnt from them. Those mistakes constitute the real issues to the agitations on restructuring. Or are we going to wait for centuries to address systemic challenges whose solutions are too well known and within our competence? We can as well go back to the atavism of the Hobbesian state of nature and wait for centuries before opting for either democracy or federalism. It is a sad commentary that a government confronted by emergent challenges is seeking to justify its inability to rise to the occasion by citing such trite and worn out arguments as the long period it took some other countries to get to where they are today. And we depend on the technology of those countries for most of our needs. We should have waited for more centuries for our whims and caprices to dictate the way forward.

    The real issue is that Buhari is averse to restructuring. So he must invent all manner of reasons to dampen and ridicule the momentum of the rising agitations. But his arguments are confusing because they lack clarity. The argument on restructuring has nothing with jettisoning either democracy or federalism. They relate in the main to genuine desires to perfect their structures so as to stave off their disruptive influences on our quest to enthrone a stable political order.

    In the political equation of this country, Buhari knows the interests the convoluted federal system serve best. So we must invent all manner of subterfuge to ensure such changes do not see the light of the day even when they can be ignored at a great risk to the progress and unity of the country. Ironically, this is a government that touts the change mantra.

  • Adesanya: Celebrating a giant

    Eleven years before his departure, Abraham Adesanya survived a gun attack that defined his importance as a progressive combatant. He was nearly 75 at the time.  Here, a picture of what happened: “On 14 January 1997, his uncompromising stance to the military misrule led to an attempt on his life at the behest of the then head of state, General Sanni Abacha. Adesanya had just left his law chambers on the fateful day sitting at the back of his car when an unknown team of assailants (later unveiled to be General Sanni Abacha’s killer squad) struck. The front and back screens of his Mercedes Benz car were shattered and the car seats perforated by bullets from the assailants’ guns but he escaped unhurt with his driver. The car was later transferred to a Lagos museum.”

    It was a dangerous time to be a pro-democracy fighter. Many of those who resisted the incumbent military dictator fled overseas and fought from there. Adesanya stayed in the country and weathered the storm. It was testimony to his courage and conviction. When democratic rule was restored in 1999 after a 16-year period of military domination, there was no doubt that Adesanya was qualified to be named among the heroes of democracy.

    It is good news that this year, a decade after his death in April 2008 at the age of 85, Adesanya will be celebrated as a giant who made a gigantic contribution to the efforts that won the battle for democracy.   The Publicity Committee promoting the Abraham Adesanya 10th Anniversary has announced that there will be “a series of events to mark the 10th anniversary of the translation to higher glory of the great Nigerian nationalist, exemplary Yoruba patriot and leader, statesman, philosopher, moral avatar and illustrious chairman of the Afenifere and National Democratic Coalition (NADECO), Senator Abraham Adesanya.”  The chairman of the committee, Prof Adebayo Williams, was quoted as saying that the celebration in May will feature a lecture on the state of the nation, the launching of a book of tributes and a memorial service.

    A statement said:”The publicity committee wishes to seize this opportunity to invite contributions to the book of tributes from the public as well as friends, associates, acquaintances, admirers, well-wishers and fellow travellers of Senator Abraham Adesanya. The contributions are to include but are not limited to the following: scholarly expositions, reminiscences, tributes, eulogies, poetry, memorabilia and rare pictures and other exotica. The contributions, which should not be less than 500 words but not more than 1,000 words, are expected to reach the committee not later than February 15.”

    It is thought-provoking that this celebration of Adesanya, his ideas and ideals, is coming at a time when the meaning of progressivism has been corrupted and the definition of a progressive has been degraded.  What would Adesanya have thought of today’s self-defined progressives who pay lip service to the noble pursuit of progress?

    Williams recalled:  “During his lifetime, the late Abraham Adesanya bestrode the Nigerian political scene like a colossus. He was a giant among giants…He was as principled as he was fanatically devoted to the fundamental tenets of progressive politics, often putting his life on the line in defence of these sacred ideals. For him, the unprincipled and amoral political life is not a life worth living, no matter the wealth and fame accruing…Fearless and unrelenting as a leader, forthright and uncompromising as a follower, you always knew where you stood with the late titan. Adesanya was a man totally without cant or seedy equivocations.”

    Adesanya played exemplary leadership roles in Afenifere and NADECO that should inspire the leaders of today. But the times have changed and things have changed. Afenifere, the Yoruba organisation that was known for its progressive essence, is essentially now a shadow of its former self. NADECO, the patriotic pro-democracy movement that was known for its punching power, was ironically a casualty of democracy and has failed to rise from the ashes.

    Adesanya studied Law in the UK at Holborn College of Law. On his return to Nigeria in 1959, he joined the Action Group led by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the progressive star who continues to shine decades after his death in 1987. Adesanya’s choice of a progressive political circle showed where he stood on the question of political progress.  It is a reflection of his capacity that “The same year, he was nominated and eventually elected to the defunct Western House of Assembly to represent Ijebu Igbo constituency in the 12 December 1959 House of Representatives Election.” He later became a senator in the Second Republic as a member of the Unity Party of Nigeria, which was an evolutionary extension of the Action Group.

    It is noteworthy that he showed a commendable consistency in his political trajectory, which is sadly missing in many political careers today with fair-weather politicians switching parties without a sense of consistency and a sense of what is honourable.

    When he achieved recognition as “Asiwaju of Yorubaland,” following the exits of Awolowo and Chief Adekunle Ajasin,  Adesanya’ s political voice became louder, more influential and deserving of greater attention. This information gives an insight into Adesanya’s performance on the big stage:    “Later, Adesanya under the auspices of Afenifere and the Yoruba Council of Elders, alongside others led a congress of Yoruba elder statesmen through a congress that rose to pronounce that the convocation of a constitutional conference, where new confederating terms would be determined for the country, was inevitable for the good of Nigerians.”

    Ten years after his death, Nigeria is still grappling with the national question and structural issues. The celebration of his life and times at this period should further promote the need to reimagine the country. It is expected that important political players will use the occasion of this anniversary to say positive things about Adesanya because he was indeed a positive factor in the country’s political progression. He has been immortalised in various ways, particularly in the Southwest, but the lessons of his life are of national significance.

    It is a tribute to the giant from Ijebu-Igbo that he is still remembered and respected for the progressive path he trod.

  • Process is restructuring

    Process is restructuring

    Then a year opens with sobriety, it sometimes portends a glum ending. But what a better way to start than with humour, and we had that with two important events. The first was the appointment of board chair persons and members. Those who flayed Buhari for being mister Go-slow had to shut their lips. The man delivered with over a thousand names.  They shut their lips with a sort of laughter leaking out like fart of the corner of their mouths.

    The critics had nothing to say except to thank him for also humouring them with significant features. One was good news. Some persons became chair persons of more than one board or even members of more than one board. This differentiates this government from that of Jonathan a few years ago. When Jonathan opened the year with double fuel price increase, some hailed it as double portion. It was snide humour. They rang up the Christian lingo. Everyting na double double. No one was laughing, except the marketers and insiders of the government on the take in the new largesse.

    It was back-handed humour, devastating, anti-democratic, cynical. Now, it is a different kind of double double. This time the people were spared that back-handed odium. The double portion belongs to a few, those on the board. The rest of us are not on board yet. Even though in democracy, all should benefit, at least some people are getting their double, double. The rest of us are awaiting the double, double, although we are seeing such in the cost of living.

    The other beneficiaries are the dead. Democracy is not only about the living. It is for everyone, whether alive or not, so we can embrace the dead as bosses. When Jesus was buried, some women went to the grave to look for him on the third day, and the angel appeared and asked: “why seek you the living among the dead?”

    Usually no one goes to the cemetery to wake up the dead, but to bury them. Except of course, we want to do some miracles. So, it has happened, we have not sought the dead among the living. We have actually woken them up. Senegalese Poet Leopold Senghor would be ashamed of his line, “O dead who have always refused to die.” In this case, they died and were spirited them out of their graves.

    The dead are always with us. The past is not past. This is a new version of zombie. Not the one Fela bequeathed. The Abami eda gave us a foolish, sheepish toady, following after every instruction. These ones heard the voice and they were going to be ogas.

    We should not pretend we have not had zombies in office. They are sometimes called ghosts, or ghost workers. They occupy positions, and only appear at the end of the month or other special occasions where largesse flows. They get salaries, allowances, even travel to the United States, even though no immigration documents embrace them. How can you document a ghost on an air plane. The government pays for the airfares and hotels, but that is it.

    It was so in Lagos until Asiwaju Bola Tinubu became governor and audited the system. When the government called for all the ghosts who did not come physically to get their salaries, the ghosts or the dead shrank back to their cemeteries.  So the living were found among the dead until the audit. Hence Buhari was angry and he wants the dead to be sent back to their graves. They have been in limbo.

    The last feature was an act of generosity. While party faithful were waiting to be appointed, the list contained some PDP chieftains and sympathisers. Loyalty is sometimes not as important as perfidy, especially if you like one or two of the outsiders. If you do good to those that are good to you, you don’t show love, said Jesus. May be that is why those who suffered for the party should take a back seat and let the enemies enjoy a little. That is the quality of mercy, which as Shakespeare said, “droppeth like a gentle rain upon the place beneath.”

    The other new year gift was the president’s speech. It said many things, but we must say from the tone that it appears he just was elected six months ago. I make that deduction from the way he started listing plans about railways and power and agriculture, etc. But the most important part was that we should focus on process rather than structure. I blame the speech writers only a little. No one should be too worried about those lines.

    The speech writers who wrote against restructuring did not understand the history of structure in politics and governance. So, I say, Nigerians should forgive the writers for they know not what they write.

    The idea of structure in political iconology became serious in middle 20th century with a term called structuralism, when French philosophers defined it as “structure is more important than function.” With Claude Levi- Straus leading the way, it became championed by what historians call the gang of four, Jacques Derida, Louis Althuser, Michel Foucault  and Roland Barthes. They showed so much fidelity to structure that they exposed the imperfection.  A new movement called Post-structuralism followed and it showed that even within a function – like a process – is a structure. That is, there are many structures as there are functions. A structure is not dead. A process is a function, so there can be many processes. Those familiar with Hegelian dialectics understand why even sociologists and political scientists believe that structuralism is now an intellectual dinosaur and anachronism. So, if the speech writers called for process then it means they are asking us to interrogate the structure.

    To call for process in that speech is to commit a contradiction of questioning the present structure. A process is dynamic. That means the structure is also dynamic.  Structuralism has been sentenced to death by intellectuals as rigid and ahistorical. Hence another French philosopher Jean Piaget said: “there exists no structure without construction.” Any structure that is experiencing construction is going through function or processes and is therefore being restructured. Without knowing it, the speech writers made the president to call for restructuring. Chikena.

     

     

    In Touch Awards concluded

                   Family of the Year

    That award goes to the presidency where the DSS and NIA did not see eye to eye in the homestead. The EFCC became the area of battle, and DSS called for Magu’s job not to be approved while the NIA wanted him. The president seemed unable to bring this disarray under control. The also-ran was the PDP, who fought a big fight between the Makarfi-led faction and that of Sheriff. Even when Sheriff lost the battle, the party turned on its own flesh during the convention and alienated the vital sector of the electorate: the southwest. A piggish fellow in a gubernatorial garb dismissed the southwest as a factor in the electoral sweepstakes.

                Fashionista of the year

    That goes to Senator Dino Melaye. In a bid to show he did not go to school without a certificate, he donned a graduation gown in a burlesque show as though a ceremony was on to now graduate him. This is apart from his various appearances as an internet impresario in lurid and other extravagant colours and combinations.

                 Town crier of the year

    The winner is Ayo Fayose, Governor of Ekiti State. He cried and many are surprised he did not get hoarse. His biggest threnody was when President Buhari was sick and he said so many unprintables. He even tried to invite himself to London not to see the queen but the President of Nigeria. He even claimed he had the medical report. He strangely was quiet when Buhari returned in a blaze of new health.

     

  • Imafidon and Unilorin

    Imafidon and Unilorin

    On October 19, 2017, the 33rd Convocation Lecture of the University of Ilorin (Unilorin), Kwara State, was delivered at the university’s Main Auditorium. The lecturer was introduced as “Professor Chris Imafidon, Chair and Founder, Excellence in Education Programme (Oxford, UK); Consultant to Presidents, European and American Governments, Monarchs and Corporate Leaders; Patriarch of “Britain’s brainiest or smartest family.” The title of the lecture was: The Genius in YOU – New Tools, Techniques and Technology for Developing the Individual and Institutional Greatness. This is how Unilorin presented Imafidon: “Professor Chris O. Imafidon is a Britain-based Nigerian renowned scholar and genius mentor par excellence. He is the Chair and Founder of the Excellence in Education programme in Oxford, United Kingdom. Prof. Imafidon is a consultant to Governments in Britian, United States of America, several other European and Asian countries, and corporate organisations globally. He has mentored, supervised and acted as Examiner for several Masters and Ph.D. students in various aspects of computer security and informatics at London School of Economics, Imperial College, University College London, and other leading institutions.

    “Prof. Chris Imafidon has won many awards, and his highly rated publications have served as benchmarks for policy development. He was nicknamed by Yahoo News (Finance) as “the author of the most anticipated bestsellers” on Brexit and Modern Monarchy. He has lectured on Human Capital Development under the auspices of the UNDP and other UN agencies. He has been a visiting professor to various American Universities namely Harvard, Cornell, Columbia, SUNY, Georgetown, Miami, and Louisiana State University and he collaborates with researchers at Yale University.

    “Professor Chris Imafidon has featured in several real time presentations in over 1,500 major media outlets. He has appeared on the Oprah Winfrey TV Show (USA) twice. His ubiquitous intellectual status has attracted rave comments from several global media outlets. He was described by Reuters News as “a legend”. CNN referred to him as an “intellectual icon”. He was described by the BBC and Sky News as the patriarch of the “world’s smartest family.”

    “Prof. Chris Imafidon is a man who walks the talk. He mentors several geniuses across the world and has demonstrated this within his family, thus the appellation: Patriarch of “Britain’s brainiest” or “smartest family.” The academic achievements of his children are eloquent testimonies to this epithet. They are truly chips off the old block. His daughter, Anne-Marie Imafidon who speaks six languages became the youngest person to pass the UK A-level computing examination at only 13 in 2003. She attended John Hopkins University in Baltimore for her first degree and later got her master’s degree with specialty in Mathematics and Computer Science, at the age of 19, from Oxford University. Another daughter, Christina Imafidon, was the youngest student in history to be accepted to study at the tender age of 11 at any British university. Samantha Imafidon, his third daughter, passed two high school-level Mathematics and Statistics examinations at age 6, and mentored her younger twin siblings, Peter and Paula (Wonder Twins), who at age 9 became the youngest children in British history to attend high school. Professor Imafidon and his family were invited to front row seats as guests at a special 90th birthday service held in Windsor castle for Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, in April 2016.

    “Also, Professor Imafidon has had the privilege of being one of the leaders who have hosted His Eminence, Martin Schulz, the President of the European parliament. Professor Chris Imafidon’s social media profiles on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and his Blog speak volumes about his achievements and activities.”

    On November 18, 2017, Saturday PUNCH published “an interview in which Imafidon claimed that he had overcome autism to achieve greatness and that no child was born with an inferior gene.”  The newspaper later said: “The interview went viral on the web, where his rich profile abounds and appears at every search of his name. Questions were raised by concerned members of the public after the publication of the interview.”

    On December 9, 2017, the newspaper published a story under the headline “Oxford University disowns Chris Imafidon.” The story said: “Over the last two weeks, Saturday PUNCH has then made several efforts to get Imafidon to substantiate his purported link with the Oxford University or Keble College. Saturday PUNCH, had, in a series of emails sent to the University of Oxford, requested to know Imafidon’s connection to the school. The school, in its response sent by Lanisha of its News and Information office, responded, saying: “Thank you for your email. Our records show that Chris Imafidon has no affiliation with Oxford University or any of its colleges or departments. I hope this information is what you are after; please let us know if we can be of any further help.”

    This curious story continued: “When Saturday PUNCH contacted Unilorin to find out how it arrived at the choice of Imafidon as its recent convocation lecturer and if it did any checks to confirm claims that he is affiliated with the Oxford University, its Deputy Director, Corporate Affairs, Mr. Kunle Akogun, said he could not comment on the issue.

    “I can’t answer that question; I don’t know why you are interested in that information. I have to consider the implications. Just Google his name, his information is on the Internet. Whatever you find there, that is it. His family is reputed to be the brainiest in the whole of the UK. I don’t know what could warrant people to doubt that,” he said. But when Saturday PUNCH informed Akogun that the Oxford University had said that it did not know Imafidon, he said: “They don’t know him? That is their own cup of tea (sic); I don’t know.”

    The story ended without an ending. The newspaper said: “Meanwhile, Saturday PUNCH has also sent emails to most of the numerous schools that Imafidon is said to have affiliations with, to confirm the veracity of the claims. These institutions include Yale University, Harvard University, Cornell University, University of Georgetown, University of Miami, Lousiana State University, Imperial College, Queen Mary University of London and Woodford County High School, but they had yet to respond as of the time of filing this report.”

    There are questions begging for answers. In particular, how did Unilorin decide on Imafidon to deliver its 2017 Convocation Lecture?

  • Celebration gone awry

    This Christmas and New Year celebrations will for a long time be remembered by Nigerians. Not only do they represent one of the worst in recent times in terms of the hardship people passed through, they were also marked by organized and despicable violence in some parts of the country.

    Innocent people who were on Christmas carol in Kaduna State were attacked by a lone gunman with many of them sent to their early graves for no just cause. Though the motive of the dastardly attack is yet to be established, the method of attack and the area where it happened leaves little room for imagination.

    And In Benue State, unidentified gunmen riding on several motorcycles reminiscent of the style of the Boko Haram insurgents, stormed a gathering killing and maiming those who were there to share meat for their Christmas celebrations. Not done, the bandits, wielding automatic guns, rode into the villages, attacked houses and killed all those at sight and vamoosed into the thin air.

    They left in their trail sorrow and awe. The motive is yet to be established but indications are that it was a reprisal attack allegedly by some Fulani herdsmen having lost two of their members around those villages not long ago. That was the Christmas gifts those innocent souls who may know nothing about the missing herdsmen got from the avengers. In all, the attacks were primed to coincide with the Christmas celebrations.

    Aside these premeditated acts of violence were the debilitating fuel scarcity and concomitant price hike that messed up the celebrations for many a family. When the development reared its ugly head a few weeks before the yuletide, government’s reaction was tepid. At the Federal Executive Council meeting, the minister of state for petroleum Ibe Kachikwu was mandated to take immediate steps to normalize the situation by that weekend.

    The impression we got was that government was on top of the situation as they usually claimed and within that weekend, the situation would normalize. But that became a tall order.  It soon became obvious that the government had no immediate solution to the problem as the issues that lead to the scarcity were much more fundamental than we were made to believe.

    It became obvious there were certain policy measures the government needed to implement if the return of long queues, hording and price hike is not to make a mess of the relative stability we hitherto enjoyed in the supply chain. Things really got out of order as the commodity became inaccessible even in the federal capital territory and Lagos- two cities that at the worst of times enjoy relative steady supply of fuel.

    The government began to change the narrative. They began to trade blames accusing independent marketers of sabotage, hoarding and all manner of malfeasance. The story was no longer that the government had enough supply to run through the New Year. They now invented new enemies of the people in the marketers.

    The matter was so bad that both the president and his vice could no longer cover up. And in places where the commodity was available especially in the states, they sold at very exorbitant prices. The price of a litre of fuel went haywire. Those who planned to travel for the celebrations but could not afford the now jerked up transport fares had no other option than to shelve their journeys.

    Apparently piqued by the scandalous level the fuel situation had degenerated, the NNPC came out with another narrative that the landing cost of a litre of imported fuel now stands at N171 as the product sells for N145 per litre. What that implied was that government is still subsidizing the product by N26 per litre. But NNPC Managing Director Baru Maikanti carefully avoided the word subsidy for fear of running into some contradictions. That disclosure suggests that for the product to be readily available, some form of upward price adjustment may have to be effected. But the government avoided saying that explicitly.

    Even with that reluctance, the stark reality of the increase is already with us as people now pay more than double the pump price except in some petrol stations owned by major independent marketers especially in Lagos and Abuja. It is not difficult to fathom why the government is reluctant to go into the issue of increase in the pump price of fuel. In 2016, it had against all expectations, jerked up the price of the commodity from 87 per litre to N145.

    Then, it had contended among others that one of the reasons for the price increase was to ensure regular supply. That logic has been shattered by the turn of events even as citizens are yet to recover from the chain of events unleashed on the nation by that increase and the subsequent down turn in the nation’s economy.

    To contemplate another increase would amount to adding salt to injury. Moreover elections are around the corner. And further increases could become a major issue in the campaigns. As things stand, the prospect of the government being put to task on this is still there. Not with the hardship currently being experienced in the country. Not with the high cost of the commodity where it is available and the general increase in prices of goods and services given the centrality of fuel to economic activities.

    When the last regime attempted to effect marginal increase in the price of fuel, those with the technology in organizing mass protests stoutly resisted it. And some key players in this administration were among the unseen hands that opposed that increase. And the question that is now being asked is, if the last government could afford to sell fuel at N87 per litre, why are we being told now that the landing cost equates to N171 per litre?

    The answer you are likely to get will lie in disparities in the foreign exchange rate of the two regimes. But then, that would throw up another question as to the factors responsible for the foreign exchange rate disparities. The answer will inexorably hinge in the way and manner both regimes managed the economy. Could it then imply that the former administration managed the economy better than the current one irrespective of the quick resort of the latter to blame the former for all the ills of this nation? That is the question that may form the central thrust of the coming campaigns.

    In all, it is important government takes immediate steps to address the debilitating fuel scarcity and the prohibitive cost of obtaining the commodity.  With the biting effects of the economic recession still with us, the current situation is bound to compound the suffering of the common people if it is allowed the way it is.

    The government has blamed marketers for sundry misdeeds that culminated in the scarcity. But the fact of the matter is that at the root of it all is the policy of the government on fuel importation. It needs to take another look at the suffocating corruption in the sourcing of foreign exchange by marketers. There is a lot going on among officials at the apex bank that add up to this sordid pass.

    It must act fast to save the toiling people of this country the suffocating impact of having to source fuel at the prevailing prices especially in the New Year. If it amount to bending the rules, it should do so in the overall interest of the people. The welfare of the people is the very essence of governance.

  • Ghost of the year

    Ghost of the year

    The year never ends until we chronicle its kingpins of comedy, those who unveil its underbellies of humour. The real humourists, though, are not persons who go out of their ways to crack our ribs. They make us laugh just by being themselves in the routine glories of their days. And they could even be genuinely appalled at our amusements. They are not I go dye O, or that tribe of humanity who write out skits or jokes with a view to the punch line. Anything they do is a kaboom of laughter. They take themselves seriously while we keel over. But we never cheer them on, and they hate us if we do. The stages are not artificial. There are no paid audiences, or advertisement jingles to invite us to their acts. Ironically, they are funny because they are sad. The best comedies, whether it is Shakespeare’s AS You Like it or Soyinka’s Jero Plays, hint at the visceral pain inside us. Through them, we mock ourselves.

     

    Ghost of the Year

    The winner is Ben Murray Bruce. This was a year we neither heard from him nor saw him. He was like Ralph Ellison’s The Invisible Man. When he became senator, we did not hear enough of the oyibo media mogul. His debut act was the Silver Birds Awards in Eko Hotel. He decorated himself as the common-sense commoner. He would disinfect Nigerian politics and governance of its grand follies. He had come that we may have senses and have them more abundantly.

    In line with his cult of common sense, he would pooh-pooh first class flights, forgo the fancy craze of luxury hotels, patronise the local humility of Innoson-made cars. In a flourish of the lowly, an Innoson car sat without proclaiming itself in the hall in a parody of a dealership. He sported a face of mock gravity that hardly concealed his cheerful vanity, as a revolutionary recruit of the Nigerian political elite.

    But he had a giddy fall from his common-sense horse when AMCON revealed that his Silver Birds had been one of Nigeria’s whited sepulchres, a phony, slivery shine over a cadaver of debt, other people’s money. So, the bluster about injecting sanity in a body politic adrift was all a lie. At the Silver Birds Award night, then Governor Emmanuel Uduaghan of Delta State saw perfidy in his claims and wondered if Murray-Bruce would muster the guts to make such a bluster half-way through his tenure. Uduaghan did not even know that the man would be a ghost. Silence, they say, is golden. His is ghostly.

     

    Artist of the year

    He is an orator with a supernova smile, but the man beat any contender as the artist of choice. With his statue of another comedian from another part of the world, Rochas Okorocha, sometimes described as Owelle, is our artist of the year. He gave us a statue of Jacob Zuma, the dancing ecstasy of a politician and parody of a leader of South Africa. Okorocha’s imagination tucked away the bust of the Madiba or locals like Achebe, or Azikiwe or Ojukwu because the Imo State governor wanted to amuse us. No ribs would stir at sculptural tributes to those men. He made his point, and the headlines bustled across the country. No less inspired was this from the bowel of Sigmund Freud: “Zuma’s erection, Okorocha’s pains.” If the Freudian power is hard to miss about a man who wanted his people to be so happy, he appointed his sister to promote its ministry.

     

    Worshippers of the year

    During the Middle Ages, a cleric and intellectual Peter Abelard asked the question, “when did God become man?” You only had to watch the video of celebrants when our dear president Muhammadu Buhari emerged after months away to take care of his health. The streets in some parts of the country erupted in raptures with adorers for his return in good health. The videos were unmistakable in their pious adoration. Men and women were flailing in worshipful reverie. On a roadside, a woman fell to her knees in rhapsodies. Not just that, she bowed many times with her forehead pasted with dust from its trip up and down the ground. Another person poured water on the ground and drank it. It did not matter if a person had defecated or urinated there before, or any other sort of impurity.

    This was worship that trumped any in the church or mosque in the whole year. They were answering Abelard’s question over 500 years later. They were saying that in 2017 God became man in their president.

     

    Dancer of the year

    A tragedy foreshadowed it. His feet must have wobbled and collapsed when his brother, the charismatic Isiaka Adeleke, passed on.  But he was asked to fill his brother’s shoes in the Senate. To do that, he found his dancing shoes. On soap boxes, his dance moves prophesied the thrills to come. But polls were serious, and he had to win first. Win he did. And the dance floor was never the same again. From the victory stage in Osun State to the church in Atlanta, Demola Adeleke, the roundish, pot-bellied happy senator was at it. He stole the show anytime and every time, and he found many times to dance. He made law-making into choreography. His heavy frame yielded to the nimble flow of his rhythms, sometimes led by his paunch, or head or even feet, his face lit up as the crowd allowed him room to roam. As a metaphor for his colleagues, he had no rhythms in ideas on the Senate floor, where even his waist did not spin. His nephew, the well-known singer Davido, waded in and described the thespian senator as Nigeria’s Michael Jackson. He probably has a point because the senator’s middle name is Jackson.

     

    General of the year

    Nnamdi Kanu had his secret service. He had his soldiers. Earlier in the year, he declared that he was going to war. No compromise to Nigeria that he described as a zoo. He was an Igbo general, he told himself, although he wore a cap that was a phony version of a man he would not brook: Obafemi Awolowo. Maybe because he envied him since Awo also went behind bars for treasonable felony. Kanu was that megalomaniac. He also had a sort of spectacle that had the rims that mimicked the Ikenne sage – sort of. But no matter. Kanu was pictured mounting a guard of honour. He played host to some mighty men of the east, and he began to see himself brushing shoulders with Buhari, his gaoler, in short order. Not until Buhari ordered the routing of his men, who had no resistance or a whimper of a prayer or even a war plan. The worst of it was the disappearance of Kanu. No one knows where he went, or how. The general even has no troops to remind us he once swayed in the east. What a war commander!

     

    Banker of the year

    He did not need a licence. He had no banking hall. He had no interest rates. Neither did he have a staff nor attend weekly meeting with other banks. Neither the CBN nor the President nor finance minister knew about him. Yet he had enough to float many a start-up, inspire a school project or even change a town in Nigeria. The bank had no name. Unlike others, the bank did not welcome anybody except the owner. It was perhaps the first secret bank known in Nigerian history. Under the control of Ayo Oke, and his wife, it had $43.4 million, 27 thousand pounds, and N23.2 million. It makes Ayo Oke, the former DG of the National Intelligence Agency, the banker of the year. It makes where the money was domiciled the apartment of the year. That is apartment 7b of Osborne Towers, Ikoyi. It was so important that a governor accused a minister of stealing the state’s money. No evidence. But it was good theatre.

  • Jerusalem, Jerusalem

    Jerusalem, Jerusalem

    Donald Trump knows how to rouse his base, and I thought he did not attract hallelujahs outside of his American stronghold until his Jerusalem decision. Nigerians, many of whom instinctively loath the toupee-crowned phony of the United States, have managed to embrace his Jerusalem bear.

    When he decided that the U.S. was going to recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, I began to hear Christians applaud him. Some saw Trump as a godsend, fulfilling the destiny of prophesy. So, suddenly the man who loathes other creatures of God, who believes only whites matter in the divine system, who does not read the Bible, has become a vessel of God?

    The Christian right in the United States agree with him. But they have no reason other than that Jerusalem belongs to the Jews and that it is their home.

    They ignore the bloody consequences of moving the headquarters from Tel Aviv, where most countries domicile their embassies. Jerusalem is under dispute because it berths the temple of the Jews and mosque of Muslims, both Palestinians and Israelis lay claim to the place. To reach an agreement has been impossible.

    The last time hope rose above rabbinical malice was under President Bill Clinton when he parleyed with Prime Minister Ehud Barack and the late Yasser Arafat. It was a high-octane summit. The eyes of both men oiled with peace while at home war loomed. In the end, Barack’s concessions were not enough for peace with the Palestinians. Barack lost his elections that paved the way for the hawk-eyed Netanyahu, who has not seen a Palestinian he does not hate.

    Since then, tension has become the normal between them. Firestorms of rage have never ceased. The belief among Christians that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel has nothing to do with the scheme of the Christian God. It is only those who do not understand the scriptures that pay homage to the illusion of a Jerusalem of a sacred book.

    True, Jesus rode on a donkey to Jerusalem. But it does not in any way mean it is the kingdom of the future. His death and crucifixion mean he has transcended Jerusalem the earthly. The focus of Christians is Jerusalem the heavenly.

    Hence Jesus himself cast woe on Jerusalem in his prophetic outpouring: “O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee; how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathered her chickens under her wings, and ye would not. Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, ye shall not see me henceforth until thou shall say, blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.”

    In AD 70, the prophesy fulfilled. Jerusalem fell after a heady siege from the Romans under Emperor Titus. The Jews were slaughtered. Christians had left town from Jewish persecution. So, Jerusalem does not hold any romantic allure for the Christian of knowledge.

    The question is, has Jerusalem said, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord? NO. So why are Christians quick to embrace her as a Christian project?

    For the Christian, Jerusalem is not natural but spiritual. Apostle Paul noted that “Jerusalem, which is now, and is in bondage. But Jerusalem which is above is free, and is mother of us all.”

    There is a reason the Bible talks of heavenly Jerusalem. Paul explained that all Christians are Jews in a spiritual sense. A Jew is one inwardly, as he clarified, not outwardly.we are Abraham’s children by faith. If the Christian soul is Jewish spiritually, why should they respond to the earthly home? It is contradiction. Flesh and spirit do not concur. If you live in the spirit, wrote Paul, you will not fulfil the lust of the flesh. The attachment to Jerusalem is the (political) lust of the flesh.

    It is ultimately cynical politics. It has no bearing with the faith. The Jews in Jerusalem still regard Christians with contempt. We don’t have to pay them back in their own pride, but we should not flow with their bigotry. What we need in that part of the world is peace. Reconciliation should supervene primordial bile that neither God nor the scriptures sanction.

    What we know as West Bank and Gaza Strip today were in the Bible known as Judea and Samaria. Golda Mier, former prime minister and Netanyahu’s ancestor of hate, loved to call them by the biblical names. But Christianity is not about Israel anymore. It is about the faith of people anywhere in the world. If we understand that, a Trump will not hoodwink us into wild temper and blood.

     

    To tithe or not

    I decided to wade into the debate over tithing because this is December and Christmas season. I want to say that those who condemn or refrain from tithing, do so for the following reasons. One they are genuinely ignorant. Two, they are looking for an excuse not to spend. Three, they are put off by the extravagance and seedy lifestyle of the pastors.

    I will say the last reason may have unconsciously inspired the other explanations. Those who refrain from tithing on the ground that it is an Old Testament law have not read the Bible. Jesus in Matthew 23: 23, made it clear that while tithe is important, it is not as important as justice, mercy and judgment. But he noted that it should not be “left undone.” One word from the master should have been enough.

    Paul referred to Abraham paying tithe to Melchizedek, who was Christ who appeared to him after the Slaughter of Kings. Jesus recalled that encounter in his heated exchange with the Pharisees when he said, “Abraham rejoiced to see my day. He saw it, and he was glad.” He was glad to see him and pay him tithe. Now, Melchizedek represented the transition from the old order under Aaronic Priesthood to the priesthood after the order of Melchizedek. So, the payment of Tithe to Melchizedek means tithing transcended old testament. Because as the Psalmist noted in prophesy, “Thou are a priest forever after the order of Melchizedek.”

    Paul clarified it later when he wrote that tithing is now the province of the Lord, not priests who received them. It is now an eternal offering. “And here men that die receive tithes: But there he receiveth them, of whom it is witnessed that he liveth.” Abraham tithe not to a levite but to Melchizedek signifies the permanence of the practice.

    The pastors pass away, but Christ lives. Now, some have said why 10 percent, is it not legalism? All law is legalism. When Christ came, he said he did not come to destroy the law, but to fulfil it. John wrote that the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. But that grace and truth turns out to be that we apply the law not in the letter but in the spirit. Hence, he enunciated laws like adultery which are even more stringent.

    Those who say, well, they give offering, and they do well. They are right. God loves a cheerful giver. A liberal soul shall be made fat. He that gives bountifully shall reap bountifully. Can you give bountifully when it is, say, eight percent? In fact, 10 percent may not even be bountiful if you are sincere. So, those who want to be “flexible” should know that they are even bound to give more than 10 percent. Ten percent as I see it is a sort of minimal template of expressing gratitude. If you don’t give, are you cursed? Of course not. The Christ has nailed the curse. Let no one deceive you.

    Do we have to pay all the tithe to the church? Deut 26 explains that it is for the Levite, the stranger, the fatherless and widows. Pastors don’t say this but you should split it between the church and the needy. Hence Jesus said, “if you have done this (good ) to any of my fellows you have done it for me.”

    When a pastor lives lavish lifestyle, rides jet and builds schools that only the rich can afford, they send the wrong signals. Jesus could have entered Jerusalem with the best horse, but he entered with donkey. But when people needed, he gave them fishes and bread and turned water into wine. Pastors deserve double honour not double colour or flamboyance. As Paul said, let your moderation be known to all.

  • $1billion insurgency fund

    $1billion insurgency fund

    The politics of Boko Haram insurgency was again brought to the fore by the $1 billion approved by governors from the Excess Crude Account to fight the seemingly degraded war. At the centre of the altercation have been the PDP and APC with the former accusing the government of secret plans to deploy the funds to unwholesome means.

    It alleged the funds are for the funding of the 2019 elections since President Buhari claimed his government had technically defeated Boko Haram. Some other groups have also criticized the approval on the grounds of the purpose for which the funds are to be deployed.  There are also issues with whether the governors have the powers to give the approval without recourse to their state houses of assembly.

    Regime apologists have entered defence. They accuse the PDP of bad faith. Bolaji Abdullahi, APC’s publicity scribe captured the central thrust of the government’s position. For him, the PDP is scared because it diverted funds meant for weapons’ purchase for the war on insurgency ahead of the 2015 general election. Given that experience and revelations on how humongous sums of money were allegedly diverted, Abdullahi is not surprised PDP would be quick to smell a rat in the instant case.

    But he cited the integrity of the president and his aversion to corruption as a safeguard against the manner of malfeasance that allegedly took place when the PDP held sway. He would want us to believe that any money meant for the fight against insurgency would be dutifully deployed to the objective for which it was appropriated. It is left for us to believe this rationalization.

    Even if we accept Buhari is unlikely to divert the funds to some other purposes, the same cannot be said of his key functionaries. The diversion of funds meant for internally displaced peoples IDPs to frivolous and questionable contracts as was evident in the sacking of the former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Babachir Lawal puts a lie to such optimism. Neither do recurring cases of diversion of relief materials for the displaced in the north-east give cause for optimism.

    For Abdullahi, it was wrong for the PDP to base its criticism on the claim that Boko Haram had been technically defeated because winning the peace is more vital than winning the war. By this, he contends, winning the war does not preclude the government from voting substantial funds for the security of that region. Borno State governor, Kashim Shettima argued along similar lines when he drew analogy with countries that have low security threats but vote handsomely for national defence.

    By interpolation, Shettima contends that voting huge amounts of money to fight insurgency does not in any way, vitiate the claim that the war has been won. But there is difference here. The difference is between national defence budgets and intervention funds. The 2018 appropriation bill made generous provisions for defence just as the examples Shettima cited.

    We are not concerned with national defence budgets here. The money in question we were told, is to fight Boko Haram, except now Vice President Yemi Osinbajo has added a new dimension to the matter. We shall return to this shortly. And if technically, we defeated the scourge two years back, setting aside such huge amount for the same purpose without due process is bound to raise suspicion.

    Those who query the approval on this ground are on strong rational foundation. Even then, the fact of our past experience where such funds were allegedly diverted to ends other than that for which they were meant, as the APC pointed out, is serious justification for suspicion. So it is not enough to malign those who raise doubts on the propriety of the fund especially given the information we had been fed with regarding the state of the war. If blames must be apportioned for this controversy, it should be placed at the doorsteps of those who claimed the war had since been won.

    It is not enough to bandy the credibility of the president as sufficient guarantee that whatever funds appropriated would be dutifully deployed. If anything, the case of Lawal and similar instances of corruption allegation even with the touted war against corruption, do not imbue confidence that we have parted ways with our decadent past.

    During the regime of Jonathan, he sought and obtained Senate approval to borrow $1 billion to prosecute the same war. The facility was for the supply of military hardware to be paid across seven years. It has also been said $2 billion were also approved for that regime from the same account to prosecute the same war without much ado.

    When the loan was being debated, at least, two APC senators- George Akume and Olubunmi Adetumbi questioned the procedure on the ground that it had consequences for extant Appropriation Act but were overruled with the Senate approving the loan. Also, the $2 billion approval given to Jonathan from the Excess Crude Account was heavily criticized by the opposition.

    The issues canvassed are not entirely new given that we had gone through this path before. If the approvals attracted stringent criticisms and opposition during the last regime, there are serious grounds to raise dust for the appropriation of funds to fight a war that had been declared won. So reservations on the governors’ action are not out of place.

    Some of the governors who were said to have consented to the approval on behalf of their states have raised issues. While Ayo Fayose of Ekiti queried the approval, Nyesom Wike of Rivers asked for similar funds for the Niger Delta to tackle its numerous challenges including insecurity and environmental degradation. Curiously, local government chairmen in Ekiti State have gone steps further to institute legal action to restrain the federal government from tampering with the said amount. As it stands, the government cannot tamper with the money until the case has run full cycle. Ironically, whatever security challenges in the north-east that warranted the approval may have to wait until all the issues to it are thrashed out.

    Osinbajo added a new dimension to the controversy when he said the money is not meant to fight insurgency alone but for security challenges being experienced in all states of the federation including community policing. The claim though belated, runs contrary to the brief Edo State governor, Godwin Obaseki gave reporters on the issue. He did not leave any one in doubt that the fund was to fight insurgency. He said the amount will include but not limited to the “purchase of equipment, procuring intelligence and logistics to ensure we finally put an end to the scourge of insurgency”.

    Those who argued on behalf of the government defended the fund on the ground that it is vital to finally secure the gains made in the insurgency war. That is the interpretation of the conversation by the APC publicity secretary. That is also the summation of the intervention of Shettima when he drew comparison with countries with low security threats but still vote hugely for national defence. The purport of their argument is, technically defeating Boko Haram is the more reason we should commit more funds to the project to sustain the gains.

    It was therefore a big surprise when Osinbajo came in the midst of the controversy to claim that the fund was for sundry security challenges across the country. That clarification came too late and did not tally with what those who spoke on behalf of the government understood of it. If the explanation of Osinbajo is to be believed, how come Wike was demanding that the same measure should be applied to the security and environmental challenges that inundate the Niger Delta?

    Beyond this, it is sad Boko Haram insurgency has been a victim of undue politicization since it reared its ugly head. Overtime, this has complicated calculations in the handling of the war. Not only have we been unable to figure out its local sponsors, it is increasingly getting difficult to fathom which interest it serves. The current controversy mirrors the enigma the scourge has become.

  • Plenty parties, plenty problems

    Plenty parties, plenty problems

    Paradoxically, political parties are causing problems for the country when they should bring solutions. With a confounding multiplicity of parties, the country’s political landscape reflects a poverty of plenty.  There are so many parties but so little political progress.

    The Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), Prof Mahmood Yakubu, highlighted this problem of unproductive plenty at a National Stakeholders’ Forum on Elections in Abuja on December 19.  The event followed INEC’s announcement of general election schedules:  February 16, 2019, for the Presidential and National Assembly elections and March 2, 2019, for the Governorship, State Assembly and the Area Council elections in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    Yakubu, who was represented at the forum by INEC’s National Commissioner Adekunle Ogunmola, said: “We will continue to register parties as long as they comply with the legal requirements. Our hands are tied. There is no way we can stop registering parties. We will continue to register them until the time stipulated in the constitution. By the time the issue of independent candidate takes off, there will be more problem for INEC. The highest number we have done in governorship election is in Anambra State, with 27 parties.”

    As things stand, there will certainly be more problems. A startling December 15 report said:  ”Nigeria now has 67 political parties.” This new figure is a result of the registration of 21 new parties by INEC. If INEC properly followed the registration process and the new parties satisfied the registration conditions, it does not make the number of existing parties less problematic.

    Now, let’s check out the names of the latest additions to the list of parties.  According to a  report: “The 21 newly registered parties are: All Blending Party, All Grassroots Alliance, Alliance for New Nigeria, Abundant Nigeria Renewal Party, Coalition for Change, Freedom and Justice Party, Grassroots Development Party of Nigeria, Justice Must Prevail Party, Mass Action Joint Alliance, Legacy Party of Nigeria, Mass Action Joint Alliance, Modern Democratic Party, National Interest Party, National Rescue Mission, New Progressive Movement, Nigeria Democratic Congress Party, People’s Alliance for National Development and Liberty, People’s Trust, Providence People’s Congress, Re-Build Nigeria Party, Restoration Party of Nigeria and Sustainable National Party.”

    It is unclear how these new parties formed their names, and what factors and influences prevailed at the stage of name formation.  But some of these names are curious, suggesting that they are creations of curious minds. Some of these names are clearly fanciful, suggesting attention to form over substance.  It is worth pondering on this question: What should be the important considerations when creating a party name?

    But a name is not enough, no matter how it sounds and what it is meant to say to the public. A political party will not be rated according to what its name says.  For example, the former federal ruling party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), was not progressive and could even be said to have been ironically anti-people. It is easier to give a party a progressive-sounding name than to ensure that the party is progressive-minded.

    These questions are unavoidable: Does Nigeria need 67 parties?  Does the number of parties mean that they are so different from one another?  Why do more and more people think they must form parties?  How many of these 67 parties are parties properly so called? How many of these parties are sustainable?  Further questions: What will happen in the 2019 general election?  How many of these parties are strong enough to compete for power? Additional questions: Will more parties be registered? Are more associations seeking registration?

    Even INEC is uneasy and reportedly seeking the intervention of the National Assembly to enable it control the number of political parties through an enabling law. An INEC National Commissioner was quoted as saying:  ”From the way we are going, we need to apply legal control on the formation and registration of political parties in this country. We should think outside the box for the way out. So far, INEC has registered 67 parties. This number is unwieldy for general election… we cannot afford the luxury of having uncontrolled number of parties.”

    If nothing is done, it is likely the number of parties will continue to rise. The official gave an insight into the situation:  “And the law is fluid; INEC is mandated to register parties at least six months to the general election. As an electoral agency, you may base your projection on a number of parties and new registration can alter your plans.”

    He added: “We have about 94 pending applications from associations seeking to be political parties. By implication, we may still register more parties before the 2019 general election. The latest 21 registered parties were among the 115 pending applications before INEC. We are hamstrung by the law; we cannot reject the applications of associations seeking to be parties as long as they have met the basic requirements.” For manageability of the party system, he called on the National Assembly “to revisit the laws on party registration for a tidier electoral system guided by the Electoral Act.”

    Perhaps it is too easy to register a political party in Nigeria.  Before the 21 new parties, there were 46 parties, and there are applicants expecting to be registered. It is true that democracy encourages diversity, but it is also true that diversity can be difficult.

    Interestingly, every party claims to be interested in progress, but not every party is progressive. Indeed, it may be said that not all progress is progressive. Tragically, the scramble for party registration may well be a self-serving project for many of those involved. The history of the party system in Nigeria has several examples of parties formed by self-absorbed individuals for self-centred purposes.

    It is easy to see that the country’s undesirable level of development easily creates room for the formation of new parties. There is room for the promoters of new parties because there is room for progress. After the failure and fall of the PDP, which ruled from 1999 to 2015, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) is struggling to show that it is positively different.

    In the final analysis, the problem with Nigeria is not a shortage of political parties, but a shortage of progressive politicians who can work for progress.