The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • 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.

  • Of impeachments and dialectics

    The gale of impeachments hanging over the nation’s political space has attracted divergent reactions from a broad spectrum of the political class especially, the opposition. These reactions have brought to the fore, the dialectical relationship between theory and practice or precepts and their actual implementation.

    In contention is the proper application of the impeachment clause as a check against the excesses of elected public officers. Framers of modern constitutions, guided by the realisation that governance is a social contract between the rulers and the ruled, provided for such clauses as the recall process and impeachment as safeguards against abuse of power.

    The processes of impeachment and actions considered impeachable offences are also clearly itemized. Apart from securing a two-thirds majority of the legislature, impeachment is directed at such weighty offences as gross misconduct, mismanagement of public funds and similar serious financial infractions.

    With the impeachment of the governor of Adamawa State, Murtala Nyako and the serving of same processes on Governor Tanko Al-Makura of Nassarawa State, the opposition has cried out against what it called the abuse of the impeachment provision by the ruling party. It alleged political motive, getting even with opponents and financial inducement as the driving force for the impeachments even as it claimed three other governors have been marked for the same exercise.

    They contend that impeachments solely propelled by the expedience of settling political scores or procured through financial inducements detract essentially from the spirit guiding the impeachment clause as an integral part of modern governance.

    They warned, should this abuse continue unchecked, the ruling party should take responsibility for its negative outcome on the current democratic experiment.

    The federal government in reaction denied it has its fingers in the exercise. It says the powers of impeachment of a state governor rest squarely with the people of the affected state through their assembly-men. By this, it seems to be contending that it is the inalienable right of a state through extant legal procedures to determine what is good for them including when or not to apply the impeachment axe. Once this constitutional procedure has been adhered to, the PDP argues, it is meaningless for anybody to question or impute motives into the exercise.

    It went further to allege that the opposition also tried to financially induce some legislators to frustrate their pro-impeachment counterparts in the Adamawa case from securing the required majority. All these are allegations. No concrete evidence has so far been provided to prove their veracity.

    There are potent issues on both sides of the divide. We shall return to them shortly.

    The raging recrimination highlights the uncanny dialectics between legality and morality in the deployment of the impeachment clause.  It brings to the fore the conflict between constitutional principles and their actual application.

    The opposition’s main contention is not that due process was not followed. Neither is it exculpating those charged of the allegations. It is more concerned with issues of financial inducement and the alleged use of impeachment to settle political scores. These cannot be ruled out even as they do not suffice to invalidate the process.  Morality being essentially judgmental and value-laden cannot find serious accommodation in this matrix especially if extant legal rules have been complied. All depends on the political weight assigned to the matter by those who seek regime change through the impeachment process.

    Even then, it is no less worrisome why legislators easily give in to financial inducements to prosecute such a process if they do not believe in it. This raises questions as to whether principles play any role in the conduct of these lawmakers. So, in our assessment of the moral issues involved in these impeachments, the role of the legislators must be seriously re-examined.

    The federal government has been accused of vendetta against Nyako because he dumped the party under which he was elected. The acerbic memo he wrote to northern governors alleging sundry misdeeds against President Jonathan in the fight against terrorism is said to be another issue. They could as well be.

    As in the case of impeachments, it is hard to ignore the serious moral issues raised by the way some governors dumped the party that brought them into office. This could as well fit into the genesis of all we are now about to reap.

    This point may find further illustration from the case of Al-Makura who has been working well with a PDP majority that can impeach him if they so decide. Of a sudden, they have realized that the governor has committed impeachable offences and have moved to remove him. It is alleged that the prime motivation is to install more PDP governors and gain advantage as elections draw closer. This viewpoint cannot be ruled out.

    With the formation of the APC and the decamping of five PDP governors to it, the majority status which the PDP hitherto enjoyed was jolted. Matters were not helped by the high premium which the APC placed on attracting governors unto its fold. Then, the APC had even nursed the ambition of upstaging the house leadership. Things changed fast as the PDP moved to maintain its majority in the House of Representatives.

    It is not unlikely that the PDP may have resorted to self-help in the matter of impeachment to regain its control of more states. So if political motive is perceived in the current impeachments, the reason can be understood. Whether it is right or wrong in the circumstance will remain largely controversial.

    In this dialectical matrix, we are faced with the dissonance between our extant political culture and the culture of democracy which we purport to practice. Max Weber identified three variants – the parochial, subject and participant political cultures. For him, the political culture of democracy is the participant variant. But for a country as our, it vacillates between the parochial and the subject. What this means is that we are still lacking in the socialization processes that make for the sustenance of democracy. That is why impeachments can be deployed to settle scores. That is also why governors can easily dump their parties without hoot. It is a contradiction all parties must share responsibility.

    They highlight the incongruity in the awesome powers at the disposal of the central government such that it controls life and death. It is the disproportionate powers at the disposal of the centre that accentuates impeachments at its whims and caprices. It is for the same reason all parties seek control of it by all means. Ironically, when there are discussions on devolution of powers to dilute the overbearing influence of the central authority, some sections relapse into equivocation. These are the issues to ponder.

  • ‘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.

  • Madmen and specialists

    Madmen and specialists

    This is the season of Wole Soyinka, Nigeria’s master artist, whose works, whether as a playwright, a novelist, a poet or an essayist, have dramatised the Nigerian harried existence. He has poeticised Nigeria either in the mocking tones of comedy or in the depressing ether of tragedy. As we celebrate his 80th birthday, we also mourn the Nigerian season of anomie, as we have morphed into a nation on the edge of a precipice. His oeuvre broods over his country.

    Nothing demonstrates this atrophy of hope as the harmattan dust unleashed by the President Goodluck Jonathan administration in the name of democracy. It is the hobgoblin of impeachment. Ordinarily, we can say impeachment is a legitimate weapon of politics to oust any elected officer, whether governor or president, who has breached the moral code of office and drawn the cathedral aura of the people’s mandate into the cesspit. So, to impeach legitimately is to affirm the people’s will, but also to retrieve the high ideal of the vote. It is the re-legitimation of the people’s will and the sublimity of democracy as a popular revenge. It is a reminder to the incumbent that he is flesh and blood, human like all of us, and he cannot soar into tyranny or fall into contempt at will. It is a milder form of the Roman tradition where a slave lurked behind an emperor during a triumphal parade and whispered: “Remember, you are only human.”

    Yet, I can say that in this inchoate republic, we have had quite a few impeachments, and I can say we have never had any, no matter the political party, that actually carried the inviolate encasement of the people’s hurrah. It has always been politics as revenge, sometimes with the hue of atavistic butchery.

    But never before in our history has this weapon become so savage in its intent as the gale that the Jonathan administration is flinging open from his house of storms. The Acting Governor of Adamawa State, Ahmadu Fintiri, exemplified the low moral standard with his celebration when he arrived the national headquarters of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) in Abuja. “I have delivered,” he crooned with self-satisfaction. What did that mean? “As a loyal and obedient party member, I came on a courtesy call to my party and the National Working Committee as my first assignment after the battle to remove Governor Murtala Nyako, who had stolen the mandate of the PDP under which he was elected. I came here to bring back the mandate and I have handed over to them (party leaders) the mandate.”

    Clearly, the ouster had nothing to do with higher ideal of integrity in public office. It was just an act of partisan malice. For Governor Nyako had many sins before he defected from the PDP to the All Progressives Congress (APC), and they were legion. Yet, I cannot say all were unconstitutional sins. I found them very nauseating. How do you turn your office into a nepotistic fiefdom advertising your husbandry of wives by making them special advisers, or how do you turn fecund with about 1,000 special advisers in the name of stomach infrastructure? How do you turn your son into a political gladiator just because you have one, and you can flex any paternal muscle? Those were some of the things that the public detested about the man, and all of these permeated the Adamawa body politic as a PDP man. He was not impeachable then. Suddenly his sins as a PDP man were saintly until he became an APC man. He did not have body odour until he found another lover. The trial, like the trial in Soyinka’s best work, A Dance of the Forests, created optical illusion. Is Nyako being tried as the PDP sinner or as the APC defector? Who was innocent here, who was the madman? Was it the man who was tried, or the accuser? Or who was the specialist? Was it the person who claimed he had control of the judicial process and turned it upside down, or the man who fled because he knew justice had tumbled over? In Soyinka’s Madmen and Specialists, the border is nebulous. Was it not the same house that gave Nyako a vote of confidence in the halcyon, back-slapping days when he had committed the same offences over which he recently fell at the guillotine? By impeaching him, were they not carrying out the absurd theatre of self-impeachment, an act of legislative self-execution?

    So, what we are seeing, however, is a play of giants. Jonathan is the giant here, but not a giant of moral grandeur. He is a parody of the giant of the television advertisement standing him with Mandela, Obama, etc. But he is a giant, who Soyinka mocked in a play of that title. So, it was clear Fintiri was not acting for the Adamawa State people, but his party leaders in Abuja, and who is the helmsman of Abuja? Unless we lie to ourselves, it is President Jonathan. Was that not why Nyako scurried there, cap in hand, to see if he could save him? He forgot that nobody ever begs Jonathan in this matter. He, a snake with sly venom, never forgives and never takes responsibility. Fat with prey, he snorts quietly in his nest. Nyako just learned that lesson after wasting his pride in a servile visit to Aso Rock. If you knew brother Chume well, in Soyinka’s Jero Plays, you won’t have a doubt. He watches from the stealth of his abode his opera of Nigeria. He does not have to have wonyosi.

    So, why not Nasarawa, why not Edo, or Rivers, etc? But we forget that his first target has been Rivers State, but he has consistently failed. He is still hopeful. But what is at stake is not the party victory now, but the Nigerian democracy or our survival as a nation. Jonathan does not have a conscience for consequences or an acute sense of history. That would have subdued him to sobriety. If you succeed now, does democracy succeed? Politics is a contest for power, but malice and contempt for the dignity of the constitution are dangerous. They uphold the cynical high point of technicality over substance. You don’t win a people from above, but from below. Jonathan wants to conquer rather than win the hearts of Nigeria. You don’t know when a soup is over-burned by staring at the surface bubbling appetisingly. Any such strategy is superficial. It is flirtation with death for this democracy like the King’s horseman in Soyinka’s play of that title. It’s not the road for us.

  • Gambari’s five percent gambit

    When some weeks ago the National Conference arrived at consensus on some thorny issues of our federal order, many had heaved a heavy sigh of relief that we are about to make real progress as a people. This optimism should not surprise any keen watcher of contemporary events in the country especially since the idea of the conference came to public focus.

    Since then, we had been fed with scepticisms and outright doomsday predictions on the eventual outcome of that gathering. So when the news filtered that the conference had taken unanimous decisions on some of these vexatious issues of our corporate existence, not a few Nigerians were pleasantly surprised.

    Against all negative predictions, the conference agreed on rotational presidency between the North and the South and between the six geo-political zones of the country. It went further to approve same for the three senatorial zones of the states with respect to the governorship post. The various blocs or clearly identifiable cleavages in a local government are also to benefit from this rotation.

    As if these were not enough to rekindle hope on the good things to come, the conference went further and in unison, approved the creation of an additional state for the south-east zone specifically to bring it at bar with others and clean off years of marginalization and inequity in state structure. It also recommended the creation of additional 17 states across the country depending on their economic viability and population.

    The approval of an additional state for the South-east was very symbolic in more ways than one. By the language of the conference, it was certain it wanted the additional state in the region to be given utmost priority even if it happens to be the only created now. This was considered very patriotic and harbinger of a new beginning.

    It is more so given that when the idea of the new state was mooted earlier, no less a group than the Arewa Consultative Forum ACF had shown vehement opposition to it. The forum had in a very widely circulated memo selectively addressed to northern delegates directed them to oppose the idea of an additional state for the zone advancing its own reasons.

    Given this attempt at goading northern delegates to oppose the idea, it was refreshing that some of those who spoke very favourably for the envisaged state were from that zone. That was something to rekindle hope that we may perhaps be parting ways with our attachment to sectional predilections that have been in constant competition with the central authority for the loyalty of the citizens.

    But this optimism was not to endure. Hardly had the conclusions of the conference become public knowledge than signs of dissent began to rear their ugly heads. Some of the northern delegates, who were part and parcel of the decisions, curiously began to sing different tunes, apparently having come under heavy reprimand from vested interests from their zones.

    They began moves to upturn the decisions of the conference hiding under the cloak of non observance of the rules for decision making. But these could not go far for very obvious reasons. Not satisfied with the fate of their protests, especially against the backdrop that the conference was only left with one more committee report out of the 20, those members then hatched another plan.

    The report of the committee on devolution of powers was to provide the fulcrum for them to vent their spleen over their dissatisfaction with some of the earlier conclusions of the conference. Incidentally, that committee’s report contained such controversial matters as fiscal federalism, derivation principle and resource control. And with the demand by the oil bearing states for an upward review of the derivation revenue, the stage appeared set for a showdown.

    Discussions on these issues were explosive. The Elders Consensus Committee had to take some time off to allow tempers cool for a compromise position. When the consensus committee finally set out to address the plenary, it was the responsibility of Prof. Ibrahim Gambari to lead the presentation.

    His presentation embodied an increase in the derivation revenue from its current 13 per cent to 18. Gambari also spoke of a five per cent revenue allocation to be called “Fund for Stabilization, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction” principally for the North-east, North-west and North-central to be shared at the ratio of three per cent and one-one per cent respectively.

    Hardly had he finished his presentation than loud protests brought him down. While some argued that he betrayed the elders committee by inserting the northern zones as the only potential beneficiaries of the fund, others found the idea not only absurd but unjustifiable. The conference which was winding down before this incident had to adjourn abruptly. And as things stand, it is not clear whether that is the end of the deliberations of the conference. If that is the end, then the status quo remains on the issue of fiscal federalism and the awesome powers at the disposal of the central government that have been largely responsible for the bitter competition for power.

    But beyond this, questions have been raised regarding the propriety of setting out five per cent of the nation’s revenue for the three northern zones. The idea the elders had was that such a fund is to be applied to any part of the country confronted by the peculiar challenges envisaged in the proposal. But this has been trivialized by the way Gambari went about it.

    Ostensibly, the only reason for Gambari’s limiting of the fund to the northern states is the current insecurity in that part of the country wrought by the Boko Haram insurgency. Given that the insecurity is more pronounced in the North-east with Borno as the epicentre, it remains a puzzle why Gambari thought other northern zones should benefit from the fund to the exclusion of the zones in the south.

    It would appear that the so-called stabilization fund was a clever way to scuttle the demand for an upward review of the derivation principle.

    Not unexpectedly, there have been protests from both the South-east and South-south against the idea as these zones have suffered worse devastation when it comes to the physical harm done to their people on account of civil war or military invasion. There was the 30-month pogrom that left the former eastern region a ghost of itself. There were also the Odi invasion in Bayelsa State and that of Zaki Biam in Benue State where entire villages were mowed down for small security infractions without any recompense. Why ignore these cases?

    Gambari’s gambit was inevitably bound to hit the rocks as it was not worth more than the piece of paper on which it was presented. It was nothing but a sectional agenda to scuttle discussions on fiscal federalism, derivation and resource control. He may have succeeded. But it is a pyrrhic victory the country will continue to pay dearly for.

  • Okorocha, Senate and Charly Boy

    Within the last two weeks or so, Governor Rochas Okorocha of Imo State has found himself embroiled in some controversy. During the burial church service of erudite legal icon, Justice Chukwudifu Oputa in his country home Oguta, the first son of the late Justice, Charles Oputa alias Charly Boy reportedly snatched the microphone from the officiating priest after he had called on Okorocha to speak thus preventing him from addressing the distinguished audience. Charly Boy rationalized his action on the grounds that he did not want his father’s burial to be politicized.

    A visibly enraged Okorocha was said to have maintained his cool and later left the church with his entourage. Charly Boy’s strange conduct no doubt, took the audience by surprise and adversely affected the entire burial arrangement as many of those in attendance did not bother to follow the corpse to its final resting place.

    Imo State government has since been griping over the incident. It did not only deprecate Charly Boy’s conduct but has gone ahead to adduce reasons why he acted the way he did. In a well publicized statement, the state government went at length to show that before the burial day, there was no misunderstanding between Charly Boy, the Imo State government or Governor Okorocha. The only matter, for which the government initially disagreed with the Oputa family they said, was the burial programme which the government considered lopsided and subsequently set up a new committee that came up with a more befitting programme.

    It therefore came to the seemingly inevitable conclusion that Charly Boy “acted out an ill-motivated script drafted by some politicians from the state, based in Abuja who have sworn to disturb the peace of the state”. For the government, those who sponsored this ‘coup’ inside a church were intimidated by the hilarious ovation that greeted the earlier introduction of the governor and they feared a repeat should Okorocha be allowed to speak.

    The state government is within its rights to view the matter the way it chooses. This is especially so given that the incident showed no respect for the office of the governor. If Okorocha is seriously piqued by that treatment, his feelings ought to be appreciated. He is the governor of the state and deserves all the respect that goes with that office. To have been publicly prevented from speaking at that occasion and inside the church, Charly Boy showed scant regard for his high office and should be condemned by all right thinking people. It was a bad example of how to pay last respect to his distinguished father.

    Yet, it is difficult to swallow hook, line and sinker the claim by the government that his conduct was the outcome of a script crafted for him by politicians from Imo State in Abuja. If Charly Boy could be so induced to sabotage the burial of his father, he should solely take the responsibility for his action.

    Before that day however, the state government had entered into an altercation with Charly Boy over its claim that it had doled out about N20million to the family for the burial. The issue was within the public domain.

    Since after that burial, Charly Boy has granted press interviews in which he made clear his grouse with the government. He told anybody who cared to hear that the family was angered by the manner the state government went public to announce its monetary contributions for the burial. He was also not enthused that the government never made any contact with him before Okorocha went to their family house in Oguta shortly after his father’s death and in his absence. All these are matters of public knowledge.

    If Charly Boy has given these as his reasons for the unruly conduct, simulating imaginary enemies writing a script for him to embarrass the governor strikes as a very cheap proposition. It is also curious why the state government ignored these grouses when it claimed it had no issue with Charly Boy prior to the incident. Yet, all these cannot justify the treatment he gave the governor at that church ceremony.

    That government is also mired in another controversy over its alleged plans to register and issue identity cards to northerners in the state to guarantee free movement. The matter came up in the senate with the upper chamber condemning the plan. It went ahead to call on security agencies not to cooperate with the Imo State government in this nebulous plan.

    The state government did not take kindly to the reprimand, contending that it came after it had refuted the existence of the plan. It asked for apology from the senate and accused political opponents of being the purveyors of the purported registration plan.

    But the senate rebuffed that idea of an apology with some of its members insisting there was sufficient evidence to show that such a policy was in the offing. Amidst this, there was the speculation that the plan to register northerners was at the instance of the northern community as part of their contributions to ensuring their ranks are not infiltrated by dangerous elements in the wake of heightened security concerns in the state.

    If this was so, the state government ought to have owned up to that reality. Had it done so, perhaps, the anger that attended the matter when it came up at the senate would have been considerably staved off. The state government would have saved itself the embarrassment of denying a plan which some of the senators said they had sufficient evidence of its existence. As things now stand, that government has not succeeded in disabusing the minds of the public that there was smoke in the matter without fire. Neither is it being implied that it had no plans to safeguard the state in the wake of the discovery of bombs planted within a church premises; the arrest 486 Boko Haram suspects in Abia State, among them, a wanted kingpin of the terrorist cell.

    There is everything to suggest that the state government, confronted with the new security challenge may have been tinkering with several safety options.  That may have included the idea mooted by the northern community. But as soon as it became a matter of public knowledge, it rushed into denying its very existence. That is where it got it wrong. It would have gone ahead to clarify the genesis of the idea which was yet to be adopted instead of out rightly denying it. It is the manner of denial rather than the idea itself that turned out the greatest undoing of that state government. As a government, it is bound to make mistakes. Not each and every of its policy will tally with public expectations. When the situation calls for it, the government should not run away from robust public debate on some of its policies.

    The Okorocha’s administration must cultivate the habit of standing by and defending its policy decisions instead of this quick resort to easy escape routes or heaping blames on phoney enemies when they run into problem. Not long ago, the same government had signed into law a bill from the state assembly which gave legal backing to aspects of abortion. The church kicked against the law. The next thing the governor did was to coax the House of Assembly to reverse itself as if that piece of legislation emerged from the blues bereft of the rigours that should usually go with it. Such hasty and temperamental reversals speak a lot of the depth of rigour that goes into policy formulation and implementation in that state.

  • Father and son

    Father and son

    Ayo Fayose seems a happy man these days. After a short spell of humility when the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) announced him as the governor-elect, he has cruised into a summer of blusters. He is not the sort of man that would heed the exhortation of former British Prime Minister, Winston Churchill, who said, among other things, “in victory, magnanimity.”

    He is not only posting himself as the new king of Ekiti State, he is posing as the generalissimo of the Southwest and has put his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), on notice.

    Any party wheel horse, who basked on the rooftops before fate unveiled his new rise, should understand that he can pull them down. Inside his exultant soul, he is swooning with the quote of the buoyant actor, Al Pacino, that “vanity is my favourite sin.”

    He has not even spared the Owu chief, Olusegun Obasanjo, his barb. And I know the second coming of Fayose is part revenge, part Oedipal vindication.  Hear him: “This is the last time I would sound this note of warning to those people who want to disparage the party to stop. If you want to disparage the party, whether you are a former president, senator, irrespective of your position, we will sack you. When I fought with the party, I left the party, I did not stay in the party. You are free to go to any party you want, but don’t stay in the party and disparage it.”

    Not even when the military gave us parties did we hear such peremptory orders. As Americans would say, come over IBB. Stay humble in the grave, Abacha. Fayose acted not like a politician but an emperor. He has not even become a governor yet. He is a governor-elect, yet all over him he is preening with the feathers of an impresario. The alawada potential of his governorship era of the second coming promises us some excitement, to say the least.

    For me, it is the parable of the godfather and godson in a skein never before written in the Nigerian politics of prebendal deviance.

    When he was a governor in his first advent, he was the son as loyalist to Obasanjo. Fayose was the crony as point man, sometimes his Rottweiler. He had stood as the party stalwart. He did his biddings, as a humble servant. But this was the son in whom Obj was well pleased.

    But the story went sour. Fayose became the prodigal son, but in this case, the son wanted to return home to a big and lavish party. The father, now unhappy with the son with a vindictive fury, did not want the son under his eaves. Rather he heaved him out in the throes of impeachment. He was accused of thieving felony and that he was cat among the Ekiti chickens.

    The florid son turned philosophical as the unflinching father set the machinery of the state House of Assembly in motion. In one interview that must pinch anyone’s tender parts, he referred to a Yoruba proverb: anyone who sleeps in a mattress should have a mat around him, because he may need it someday. He left the soft, dream-suffused majesty of the mattress and was on the mat in the past half decade. Now, he is approaching the saddle, while his godfather is in his party’s wilderness.

    Power has changed hands. He now must wait to daze and to dream in the mattress of power. Hence he shouted to the rafters to an Obasanjo, whom he was referring to as former president.

    Obasanjo in his era had the power to give Fayose power, keep him there, and order him out in a fleeting hurry. Obj exercised that power then not to a few sons of his party. Former Bayelsa State Governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha was one of them. He organised his exit. The thickset man who oiled over with dollar pride cascaded down the power trolley before the eyes of all. The Ijaw chief is undergoing a sort of renaissance of pride as the beneficiary of his political son who jumped from obscurity to presidency. He, at least, has the humility to abandon his fatherhood the way Esau did to Jacob. As Tolstoy noted in War and Peace, “it is better to bow too low than not low enough.”

    What is the meaning of Fayose’s boast? Is he going to trek out of his Ekiti precinct to preen even in the vaporous vipers of Owu waters? It is common knowledge that Fayose has openly defied the man who gave him bread in the morning and vinegar at night. Now, he has woken the next morning with the power of dew and due for battle.

    What is going on in Baba’s mind, and is he saying to himself, “I should have thought differently when I supported that boy to be governor and kept him there long enough to insult his father’s age mate.”

    Or is he telling himself, “what do I expect when you put someone in office? He grows into his own, and I should have left him there. I should not have impeached him. Now, it seems he is the winner and I the loser.”

    Could Baba have that sort of soul-searching candour, a brutal introspection of self- accusation?

    When he played godfather, he wallowed in the illusion that he would be father forever. A mistake indeed. Even natural fathers are not fathers forever. Sometimes, the sons become fathers, an idea that Russian novelist Ivan Turgenev played with when he examined the concept of nihilism in his classic, Fathers and Sons. But poet William Wordsworth’s immortal lines, the “child is the father of the man,” is the sort that a bloating Fayose would really love now, especially since he is the one issuing the orders. He is not interested in giving a bash even if the father- now-turned-son returns in his septuagenarian penitence. Knowing the Owu chief, penitence is not in the cards. So Fayose can keep his forgiveness.

    Obj may also have thought that a day like this could never come. He never knew about the transience of power. Few who are there think of the transience of power. After all he once sought a third term. No one ruminated on the transience of power more than the Nobel laureate, Garcia Marquez, in his novel, One Hundred Years of Solitude. In one of the passages, an old man who held sway over a community declared in a moment of hallucinated lucidity: “I have found immortality.” When he died by drowning, his main follower says he is not dead, but preserves his body as it decays in pestilential odours for long. The era is gone; the denial, however, has morbid consequences.

    Few leaders in history are like Charles de Gaulle, who did not want pomp or ceremony when he died, and visits from other leaders. Just him quiescent in his casket. He knew the time was up when he went down.

    That is the nature of power. Fayose also does not appreciate this, and that is why rather than release a blueprint to raise Ekiti lifestyle that no one heard in his campaign, he is flush with self-promotion, strutting like a peacock.

  • 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

  • Kashim Shettima’s burden

    Kashim Shettima, Governor of Borno State does not fit into the profile of someone that should be envied. Not with the Boko Haram insurgency that has left his state despoiled and devastated. Not with the controversies that have surrounded events emanating from his state in the last couple of months.

    By the same twist of circumstance, it has also become very difficult to assess his government in terms of how far he has been able to keep faith with his electoral promises.

    It is also possible that for the same predictable reasons, he may get away with some of his actions or inactions if they do not tally with the expectations of the people. He could as well take cover in the dire security situation in his state to justify his inability to perform very optimally. To that extent, he may be taking advantage of the good, the bad and the ugly on account of the delicate nature of events in his state.

    Borno State has been in a very precarious security situation since Shettima assumed office in 2011. Either by error of omission or commission, the state has since then come to carve out an unenviable record for itself as the lynchpin of the Boko Haram insurgency.

    But the phenomenon predated his regime as its foundation was laid during the regime of his immediate predecessor, Ali Modu Sheriff. It was during Sheriff’s regime that the original spiritual head of the group made his initial devious appearances that left in their wake, the destruction of lives and property of inestimable value.

    Events that then followed, controversial as they were, culminated in the killing of Mohammed Yusuf who was the rallying point of the radical Islamic sect. That is now history.

    Opinions are divided as to the reasons behind the escalation of the activities of the insurgency group since the death of its spiritual head. There are those quick to locate the upsurge in the untidy manner Yusuf was extra-judiciously executed. Others blame it on the abysmal living conditions of the people. Yet, some others are wont to heap the blame on partisan politics.

    From whatever prism one views the issue; it is trite that Shettima inherited the fallouts of the controversial handling of the uprising by Yusuf and his sect. He may not have had anything to do with the sect prior to his becoming the governor. He may have found himself a victim of circumstance thereafter. But he cannot run away from vicarious responsibility being the chief security officer of a state where the insurgents have left no one in doubt that they are largely in control. Shettima has by this twist of fate found himself between the devil and deep blue sea. And with every devastating move by the group, his predicament is even more compounded. Such has been the situation and frustrations of the governor.

    It was perhaps a mark of this frustration that a couple of months back, he had cried out that the Boko Haram insurgents are better motivated and better armed than our own troops. Hear him, “believe me, I am an eternal optimist. But I am also a realist. Given the current state of affairs, it is absolutely impossible to defeat Boko Haram. Have we ever succeeded in thwarting their plans?” he queried.

    His comments drew serious criticisms from the military, the federal government and the larger public. They saw such outbursts as an attempt to embolden the insurgents and dampen the morale of the military that have been making serious sacrifices fighting an asymmetrical war. Shettima also came under heavy fire for not appreciating the delicate nature of the war and for relapsing into self-pity instead of assisting the government to win it.

    He made efforts to rationalize his views but the harm had already been done. His motive became suspect because of the three states under a state of emergency; Borno has been the most problematic. It hosts a disproportionate percentage of the escapades and murderous activities of the sect. Matters were not helped by revelations that in some local governments, Boko Haram had been in charge replacing the Nigerian Flag with theirs. All these are bound to arouse suspicion around the leadership of that state.

    When last week Shettima alleged that a cabal was working hard to create disunity between the federal government, the military and the Borno State government in resolving the Boko Haram crisis ravaging the state, he must have been outpouring his frustrations on the dilemma he found himself in this senseless war. He had in the statement, accused the cabal of deploying all possible means to “accuse the state government of so many wrongdoings that include unimaginable financial misappropriation that is beyond the income of the government, making efforts for personal contacts with a section of the military and other security agencies in Abuja and to feed them with falsehoods aimed at creating an impression that the state governor and his administration were funding insurgents”. These are very weighty issues.

    There was no indication who the cabal are or from where they are operating. But it does appear from the way the statement was framed, the alleged cabal must be operating from within Borno State or somewhere around there. But that is beside the issue.

    The moot point here is the perception of Shettima’s role in the battle against Boko Haram. He has drawn public attention to alleged attempts by the cabal to create the impression that the governor and his administration are funding the insurgents. That is the real delicate issue to contend with. As canvassed earlier, the Boko Haram insurgency predated his regime. But it has since then assumed a very dangerous dimension such that is bound to raise questions about the role of the state government in the matter. It is possible Shettima is just a victim of circumstance. It is also not a remote possibility that he may have been handicapped by the situation he found on assuming office. He may also have been doing his humanly best to tame the situation. All these are possibilities.

    Yet, by the circumstance of his office and unenviable niche the insurgents have carved out in that state, Shettima undoubtedly, carries a heavy burden on why his state should be the epicentre of the Boko Haram insurgency. He bears the burden of the killing and maiming of his people. He bears the burden of the constant sacking and razing down of villages. He cannot sleep with the constant invasion of communities by the insurgents. And when the Chibok girls were abducted in very cloudy circumstances, his travails knew no bounds.

    Matters were not remedied by the relative ease with which such a huge number of girls were ferried out into the unknown. Questions are bound to be raised and the chief security officer of the state may have to provide answers to some of them.

    It is in the nature of the office he occupies and he must come to terms with that reality. He has made references to partisan politics as part of the reasons the cabal are on him. That could as well be. But there is also the feeling that Boko Haram in its present form is nothing but political grievance masquerading under a religious garb. Whatever it is, there is the urgent need for all to close ranks and save the nation from this madness. The Borno State government and its various elite must do more to resolve the dilemma posed by the obdurate dimension of the Boko Haram insurgency in that state.

  • 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.