The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Ilerika, Messi and success

    Ilerika, Messi and success

    No one epitomises this era of soccer like the Argentine with fleet foot. He is a throwback to a Nigerian hero and maestro of the 1970’s. Like the late Haruna Ilerika, Lionel Messi gives us a diminutive frame, a celerity of dribble runs, an omen of the left foot, the rhythmic tear through any defence, precision passes, imaginative free kicks and an entertainment at once envied and feared by the opponent. Ilerika and Messi are kin in bravura and charisma, even though alien in generation and continent.

    These two stars should concentrate our minds in this season of the World Cup. The Nigerian team, the Super Eagles, crashed out in the second round, and stopped the heart of many Nigerians who thought the team could fly. Some hoped for a quarter-final berth, a few, semi-final. Some very audacious fantasists even dreamed of a Nigerian team hoisting the trophy after slaying a world giant like Brazil, Germany, or Argentina.

    That is the lazy optimism of the average Nigerian of this generation. We want to reap where we did not sow. It is the story that pervades every sector of our lives, whether it is the politician who wants to win an election on false popularity or rigging, or the student who romps from a miracle centre, or the contractor who inflates a job and does not deliver even after reviewing the same contract, or the pastor who flatters a flock with a phantom miracle, or the under 17 player who had started juggling the ball when his counterpart from Belgium or England was slobbering over his mother’s breast.

    Both Ilerika and Messi worked for their genius. Genius is a long patience, or to quote Michael Angelo, “eternal patience.” What did we put in place as a system in soccer that we expect to best France or tackle Argentina and bask in glory afterwards? These countries have developed a strong tradition of hard work and organisation for their soccer. They have a great farm system. Players bloom from childhood, not out of accident. They have a structure that eyes and nurtures the talent from childhood and they naturally develop self-confidence and institutional support as they grow. Messi went through that path. He burst on the scene at the same time with Mikel Obi, in the junior category.

    When Messi won the prime prize of the tournament, some described it as judgment of racial prejudice. They may be right. But Messi is an enduring genius today. Even though still young, Mikel is fading early. He slides while Messi shines. That is the story of Nigeria. Messi has exercised all the discipline and exposure necessary to sustain his glory. Mikel is going the other way.

    Ilerika though was not like that. He played at a time of conscious appreciation of talent and development. He played in what used to be called the Principal’s Cup in Lagos. It was a special thrill for the locals at that time. Ilerika played for lowbrow secondary schools, but he displayed share dexterity with his left foot. He was recruited by the Stationery Stores, and became the best forward we ever had. In an era of global television and Internet, Ilerika would have enjoyed comparable plaudits with Messi today.

    But that was a Nigeria, in spite of its imperfections, that worked. Today, we do not have a thriving secondary school system. In Lagos, Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola gave us an example with the revival of the Principal’s Cup. Though still in infancy, its products won the male and female categories in the National Sports Festival in 2012. It needs to grow, not only in Lagos but nationwide. We live in a country where we learn of most of our players when they dazzle Europe.

    If we lack a cohesive high school policy, our league is a shadow of the past where the Enugu Rangers, IICC Shooting Stars, Bendel Insurance, Mighty Jets of Jos turned the green turf into a carnival of talent and contention for glory. Globalisation has a role in this, but it does not explain it all. Can we not take advantage of globalisation to showcase our league and talent? But what is there to display? England has not won the World Cup since it hosted it in 1966. However, its league is the best in the world both in thrill and profit. But the country is now complaining that the league is its albatross. It solders foreign talents but smothers local ‘latents.’ It is a challenge it has identified and is foraging for formula out of the quagmire. They gave the world the game, but it is shame every four years.

    In Nigeria, we think we can just finagle our way into top glory. What sometimes lures us to hope is the circle of individual stars like Onyeama, Babatunde, Musa. That helps us in the younger stage when not system or pattern or strategy is important, but raw energy. One of our all-time greats and our best ever right winger, Segun Odegbami, has repeatedly made this point. But the big stage calls for big thinking, big organising and big system. We only decide to pick the big talent from abroad with a sprinkling of local names, and poise for the world. We want short-cuts to glory. We also think we can solve anything simply by throwing money at it.

    It is the same challenge of values that stalks our every step as a nation. In the past few weeks, the word infrastructure has fallen into infamy. We need infrastructure to develop. All the countries shining in the World Cup are thriving on soccer infrastructure built over generations. Every nation’s success is predicated on the efficiencies of its infrastructure from education, to power, to business, to roads. The new fad called stomach infrastructure hinges on the same sort of fairy tale faith that the Super Eagles would soar. You cannot soar without wings. Infrastructure is the wing of success.

    We must note that the people are not all that foolish. Sometimes when they cavil at the infrastructure of the stomach, it is because of two things. One, they believe that infrastructure is a stylised form of money laundering and corruption. The bigger the contract, the bigger the kickbacks. While the politicians and contractors gloat over their loots, the people groan in their roosts. Before, Nigerians used to say, “leave am make e chop, at least e dey work. See all the roads and bridges.” Now, with poverty deepening in the land, patience belongs to another time. They want to impregnate a woman today and deliver the child next week. Our political elite must be careful to communicate and connect, so that this sort of cynicism does not make sinner of a saint of infrastructure. The danger is that leaders may inherit the popular cynicism and decide not to work but bribe the people to popularity and sweep to electoral fortune.

    Two, the people do not value infrastructure as in the past. That is why people say “I no come here to look bridge or fine road.”

    This calls for a great introspection by our political class. The poorer the people, the more cynical they are, and the more disconnected from the idea of government.

    Doubt is the major crime of this generation. We do not believe anything, anyone, any move. We only believe in miracles. We think everyone else is out to con us. The job of leadership today is first to keep faith, then the people can believe.

  • Fantabulous Fayose

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

  • Lagoonians of Lagos

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

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

    It is food for thought that the group reenergised this advocacy at its recent 7th town hall meeting at the Awolowo Institute for Government and Public Policy and Museum, Lekki, Lagos. According to reports, its leader, Chief Babatunde Olusola Benson (SAN), claimed that the consequences of preserving the status quo include overpopulation, inadequate representation of the state’s indigenes, known as Lagosians, at the federal level, imposition of heavy taxation on residents of the state and indigene welfare problems. Conversely, he argued that the creation of Lagoon State would result in substantial job openings, greater representation of Lagosians in the Senate and House of Representatives, and increased federal government funding which would facilitate grassroots development. There appears to be some confusion: Will people of Lagoon State still be Lagosians?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

     

     

     

     

  • Of pro-Biafra agitators

    One key challenge of the Nigerian state since the return of democracy in 1998 has been the resurgence of ethnic militancy and separatist tendencies. From the South-south to the South-west, South-east to the northern zones, the same phenomenon has been evident. These are coming more than 50 years of our independence when national integration ought to have melted perceived differences inculcating in all, the culture of common belonging and identity.

    It is due to the failure of this socialization process that rather than wane, these parochial tendencies are being reinforced in the most dangerous ways. Issues of equity, justice, fairness and the inability of the various groups to realize their full potentials within the federation constitute irreducible decimals that accentuate these irredentist feelings.

    The ongoing national conference is in the main, aimed at redressing these systemic dysfunctions so that we can have the peace badly needed for any meaningful development to take root. But feelers emanating from there do not give sufficient comfort that we are prepared to part ways with our decadent past. That is the tragedy of a nation that has identified what it needed to do to make progress but for some self-serving considerations prefers to live on borrowed time.

    It is perhaps this prevarication on matters of our national existence especially those dealing with our common ownership of this unity in diversity that accentuates separatist feelings. As things stand, the central authority is constantly in competition with primordial interests for the loyalty of the citizens. One of the groups that have been protesting the inequities of the Nigerian state has been the Movement for the Actualization of the Sovereign State of Biafra MASSOB. Its leader Ralph Uwazuruike said it is a peaceful group aimed at securing the resurgence of the defunct state of Biafra through the principles of non-violence as espoused by Mahatma Gandhi.

    The group has so far lived up to its non-violent approach to its mission though its leader Uwazuruike has been severally arrested by law enforcement agencies and charged for treason. For the most part, the group has remained law abiding even as the task it set out to achieve has at best, remained largely controversial.

    Of late, we have started hearing of another separatist group that goes by the name Biafra Zionist Movement BZM. It is led by a United Kingdom (UK) based lawyer Benjamin Igwe Onwuka with aims and objectives similar to that of MASSOB.

    This group came into limelight in March this year when the Enugu police command announced the invasion of the Enugu State government house by hoodlums whose mission was not precisely known. But a few days later, Onwuka addressed the press claiming responsibility for the action. He claimed the BZM effectively occupied the government house for hours to underscore the point that they had taken over the former headquarters of the defunct Biafra. He was subsequently declared wanted by the police.

    The same group was again in the news last week. This time, the police said they invaded the Enugu State Broadcasting Station with the primary objective of making a live broadcast to declare the republic of Biafra. They had invaded the broadcasting house and were frantically making efforts to come up with the live broadcast when they were dislodged by the police. A police sergeant and one of their members were said to have died in the ensuing melee.

    The Police successfully arrested Onwuka and 12 others. And from what one gleaned from television footages and photographs, those arrested are very mature people some of them with grey hairs. The fact of this brings to question what the suspects wanted to achieve by embarking on the hazardous venture of making a broadcast on a television station that is hardly received even within the city. This is more so given that the area the group purports to be speaking for is made up of at least five states. What then is the value in broadcasting to those who will not get to hear the message? That is the big puzzle and it is at the heart of the folly in that mortal engagement.

    By police account of the BZM broadcast message, they intended to call on locals such as residents of “Obiagu, Ogui, operators of KEKE NAPEP, students and all residents of Enugu to come out. All schools, markets, offices to be closed and all elected government officials to surrender all government property in their possession. The people went there in a sense to overturn the government”.

    We are yet to hear from the suspects as the police that paraded them before newsmen did no allow them to speak.

    Be that as it may, it remains illusory what these messages were intended to achieve except to create some confusion in the minds of those who may manage to hear them. Even then, whatever successes they may have achieved through their action was going to be short-lived as they were bound to be dislodged by the law enforcement agents. So where is the sense in an action whose outcome was destined to fail? What is the gain in calling out residents and for what purpose? At any rate, who will honour such calls in such a foreboding circumstance? Therefore it is either the group is not certain what it intends to achieve and therefore confused or their strategy as portrayed by the police did no tally with their real intentions. That is why the police that paraded them should have allowed their leader to speak at that occasion.

    Without hearing from them, it may be safer to presume that what we have been told is the police angle of the story. We need to hear their own side of the story, the circumstances leading to their arrest and whether they carried arms and ammunitions with the intent to burn down the broadcast station as alleged by the police. We need to find out what circumstances led to the death of the police sergeant and their dead member as well.

    But if the story told by the police is true, then some weird indoctrination would have played a bad role. For it is inconceivable that the calibre of matured men that were paraded can be easily lured into such a hazardous and suicidal mission if they were in the right frame of mind. It remains curious how they were goaded into believing that making a broadcast in that station was all it takes to give legitimacy to their dream or that all elected people will surrender power to them.

    Governors of the South-east and other interest groups in the zone have condemned their action. This is without prejudice to their freedom of association, right to expression and protest against perceived wrongs in the society. But resort to lawlessness will defeat whatever case they may have.

  • Burden of legacy

    Burden of legacy

    Everyone has an eye on the time after him or her. No matter our cynicism, posterity haunts us, whether we are principals of schools, paterfamilias, mothers, kings, queens, governors or presidents. We love to be loved, even if such flattery comes from our enemies.

    Those who ignore it in language do so only from the vanity of false self-esteem. President Ronald Reagan of the United States often said before he receded into Alzheimer’s disease that he did not care what history wrote of him. But he worked hard on his legacy. Winston Churchill had an activist view of his own vanity. “History,” he crooned, “will be kind to me for I will write it.” He did but could not stop the censorious eyes of others who wrote about his times. Emperor Nero, the tyrant of Ancient Rome, hid his anxiety about the judgment of history. After making waste of the Christians, he said that by the time he had expunged the adherents from Rome, history would not be sure that the followers of Jesus ever existed.

    But two recent developments compel reflections on legacy in our country. The one was the decision by Lagos State Governor Babatunde Raji Fashola, SAN, to cut down the controversial school fees for students of the Lagos State University. The second was the decision by Governor Godswill Akpabio to exercise a pirouette on the pension law for governors and deputies and their spouses in Akwa Ibom State.

    Both governors decided on their steps for two reasons. One, a mass clamour for reversal. Two, a consideration of the impact on posterity. Both have been praised for the courage to look at the policy in the eye and effect a turn to the old ways of safety. But what is instructive is that that singular step to impose high fees and enjoy high pension bore the mischief of defining all they did for their states for eight years.

    It is the malevolent scorn of history. It is the burden of legacy. Both men thought their decisions were right for their states. But when public outcry dwarfed soft voices of their logic, they yielded. So, for the governor of example, the issue at stake was the odium of a generation. How could all he has accomplished in infrastructure, environment, security, be defined by a generation of young men by a decision to bar them from an education. They would write the history of his time, and they could seal it with an epitaph: he ran an elitist regime. Example: impossible fees.

    The ebullient Akpabio may have done what many who visit his state see as massive infrastructural development as well as the nail he dealt the house boy and house girl syndrome. Yet they would seal his glorious epitaph as governor with a single line: he gave himself N100 million pension. The details do not matter.

    That is the tyranny of history. The LASU fees have been seen as high and they were. Given the rampant poverty in our society and desperation of the average student to afford the constancy of a meal and nourishment of mind through accessible books, the school fees soared out of their ken.

    That is the sentimental reason. But as Oscar Wilde said, human beings are not rational beings but sentimental. Whether in callow or advanced democracy, experiencetrumps reason. While the LASU fees go down, we still seek a good education. A good education is the root of a prosperous society. Do we want a cheap education that overshadows progress or an expensive education that restricts access? That is the dilemma of tertiary education in Nigeria. All the great universities in the world are not cheap. But there is a reason why it is accessible to the brilliant and ambitious. The government invests, but the society plays partner with the plenty of its riches and the liberality of its hope. I know a Nigerian whose two sons are in upscale universities in the United States, but they pay a fraction of the fees that amount to about $40,000 a year. They pay less that $5000 a year, and even that is paid all year long. They are not enjoying government scholarships. They are bright students who feed from plenitude of corporate investment in the university. Whether it is Harvard or Princeton or Yale, students benefit from the money of business. In Nigeria, the rich are not invested in our education because they have no stakes. Their children school in Harvard and Yale and Imperial College and Cambridge and they can afford to pay the fees without a drip of sweat. Many American students have access to loans. President Obama paid off his loans when he was a senator.

    But government cannot spend all of its resources on one part of a sector, important as universities are. The LASU strike, like the strike of polytechnics and other ASUU institutions, is an indictment of our cancerous philistinism. Yet the students cannot bear the burden of running a university. School fees are never enough to run a university. It is the wasteful folly of this generation that is ravaging our educational system. A generation ago we competed with the best in the world. Today can we swagger to our neighbour, Ghana, where our students flock giddily?

    This is an important battle to fight, but no governor can change this mindset in a generation that would build an entertainment centre rather than a laboratory, sponsor a reality show rather than a readers’ club. That is the dilemma that could force a Fashola to save his legacy of a stouter character than the image of sterilising the dreams of the young.

    By whatever standard, N100 million as pension for any public servant for medical care is stunning. But it stumbled as a reaction to a political class of footloose largesse and extravagance. For me, no public servant should be entitled to any care unless the illness is extraordinary. Public service is sacrifice. But the retirees have been taking advantage of open-ended pension arrangements as though medical care was an ATM to draw money from government. An ex-governor can force any bill on government on the grounds that they have bellyache. Hence Akpabio placed a cap that turned out to be more controversial than the system in place. Rather than carry the albatross of the N100 million man, he yielded. His more enduring legacies beat out his meddling in medical pensions.

    This lesson in legacy has history. Nixon is sullied by Watergate in spite of his stellar achievements in foreign affairs. Clinton gave America its greatest economic expansion in history, but is that as sexy as Monica Lewinsky? Lyndon Johnson could not run for another term because of Vietnam, even though he gave America civil rights law and the war on poverty. De Gaulle fretted over the youth revolts of the 1960’s. Poet William Blake wrote, “to see a world in a grain of sand.” One decision, like a grain of sand in a person’s bloodstream, could overwhelm a legacy.

    Fashola and Akpabio are probably aware that they may be defined by the wrong image as their tenures turn the corner to the last year. Wrote Victor Hugo in his Les Miserables, a novel of legacy; “Woe to the man who leaves behind a shadow that bears his form.” Better the form of achievements than the shadow.

  • Poverty in the eyes of power

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • The state of Boro

    The state of Boro

    Isaac Adaka Boro is not lying in state. He is haunting a state of lies. When his folks in the Niger Delta exhumed and re-interred him, they only performed a ritual that mocked reality. Adaka Boro, a name that rhymes in poems, fulminates in books and essays, chimes in songs and rollicks on dance floors, has never passed away. Boro has burrowed our lives and unearthed all our hypocrisies as a nation.

    Nigeria’s best musician ever, Rex Lawson, paid tributes to his vision and valour. But the recent account of him came from the masterpiece of that carnage, written by General Alabi Isama. He told the story about how he was killed in the uniform, ironically not of Biafra but of Nigeria. In the damp and ominous atmosphere of the Niger Delta, Boro was searching a building for Biafran stragglers. But he did not know that an Igbo soldier stalked in the shadows, positioned himself and blasted the Ijaw hero to death. No one has contradicted Isama’s account. In the book, The Tragedy of Victory, Isama portrayed Boro as one of the valuable hands of the Third Marine Commander, under the feisty zeal and predatory cunning of the diminutive Adekunle. Isama was the chief of staff.

    Boro represented a contradiction. He fought to excise his people out of Nigeria. Eventually, he exerted his soldiery in cementing the survival of that same entity he despised. A soldier from Biafra that tried to fulfil his subversive fantasy gunned him down. He became the distorted vision of sacrifice but not the sacrifice of his own vision.

    The contradiction was typically Nigerian. It is the soul of Nigeria, a rabid show of togetherness only exhibited by a zest to undermine that togetherness. We call one Nigeria, but we worship tribe and disdain Nigeria. The American poet of democracy wrote, “Do I contradict myself? Yes I contradict myself. I am large. I contain multitudes.” Walt Whitman was emphasising the American obsession with itself, its self-renewing energy, its desire to melt together its various peoples and races in spite of its yawning differences. We can see the United States confront its turbulent divergences, its compulsion to morph from a mosaic to a melting pot. It is an imperfect attempt. It has shed blood, ruined families, but wrought a Michael Jordan, a Tiger Woods, and hoisted a Barack Obama.

    Boro died in flesh that day the Biafran soldier extinguished him. But he regenerated powerfully. He abandoned the dust of nothingness. He came alive, and he became Ojukwu and his generals who gave the federal soldiers and Yakubu Gowon blood for every blood, flesh for every flesh, bone for every bone. For 30 months, the spirit of Boro hewed down the Nigerian tree.

    When the war ended, we thought we were done. The ghost gave a reprieve, but he walked the night of Nigeria and allowed a honeymoon of illusion. We cannot, however, forget that Orkar and his fellow coupist plotted with Boro when they wanted to slice off Arewa in a fumbling fiasco. Boro also wanted it to fail, so the nation could look at itself and ponder its tragic hypocrisies. We tagged along shamelessly.

    So, today, we know he was not killed that hapless noon of the civil war. He said to Nigeria, “I was he that was alive, and was dead. Behold I am alive till the end of time. I hold the keys to Nigeria’s hell and death.”

    So we see it today. Why is it that we did not see the Niger Delta folks perform a ceremony of reburial in the past? Why today? It is because it is now that he cannot be buried. Today he is more alive. He is telling us he is alive and well and portentously so. He is alive in the Enugu State House. He growled with the subversives of Biafran dreams who attacked the government house. He chanted with them when they disdained Nigeria and brandished Biafra. They want back not just Biafra, but the shimmering beard of the Ikemba, his glistening pate and also the glittering dame, the svelte Bianca.

    He is with Boko Haram, the young and virulent bigots who slit throats, burn down houses, waylay emirs, despise books and western education, kidnap Chibok girls, and loft high a leader online who celebrates his barbarities. He abides the contradiction of a body that despises books but uses the same literacy to propagate its sovereignty.

    He spoke inelegantly with the Adamawa fellow in the sham of a national confab, who threatened to go away with northern Nigeria to join his neighbours. Boro took him seriously because he appeared to him in his dream.

    Did we not see Boro when Yar’Adua was sick? Boro thwacked and flared all over Abuja and ignited the nation to give the top seat to an Ijaw son. Once he got there, he made sure the Ijaw son would not be a tower of grace. Rather he planted a seed like Boko Haram to germinate and sprout into a monstrous bower. Under the same son, we know that it is not about differing tongues alone that we bicker but also over differing gods. One God is better than the other, and it does not matter the humanity, the wisdom of their worshippers.

    But then, we have seen Boro in the land of Oduduwa. They now call for regionalism. They want to be their own law and their own grace. Boro is holding sway. His is arming Boko Haram as he armed the militants of Niger Delta and the OPC and the MASSOB. No one should wonder how the arms get into the country. They come in spirit.

    Boro may be no one’s hero. He did not walk his talk. But he is us, groveling in self-deceit today. We abide the lies. That is why he is not lying in state. He is flying in our face and instructing us. He is like the ghost in Shakespeare’s Hamlet, who says, “I am thy father’s spirit, Doomed for a certain term to walk the night, And for the day confined to fast in fires, Till the foul crimes done in my days of nature, Are burnt and purged away. But that I am forbid, To tell the secrets of my prison house, I could a tale unfold whose lightest word, Would harrow up thy soul, freeze thy young blood…”

    Boro’s prison house is us, and we must shed ourselves of the hypocrisy before we can fly out of the cage. Then he can truly be buried and forgotten.

  • Violence in Ekiti

    After a Fayose rally in Ado-Ekiti that featured a buy-me-a-crowd enthusiasm, some APC folks followed a gestural tradition of sweeping the debris of their campaign out of town. But the folks were turned into targets of violence, aiming at injuries and death. They even attacked the governor, Dr Kayode Fayemi. The Ekiti election is not only important for Ekiti but for 2015 and Nigeria. The news is rife that the PDP, in spite of President Jonathan’s claim for a fair poll, is plotting to turn the election into a referendum of violence rather than popularity. We want peace, but they should realise in the upper echelons of the PDP that the people of Ekiti will not accept any rigging, for the sake of all. They should not take the people for granted.

  • Of Chibok girls’ protests’ ban

    If one finds himself commenting fairly regularly on events surrounding the raging insecurity in this country, it is dictated by the current mood of the nation. Hardly does a day pass by without fresh dimensions to the terrorism scourge that has held this country on the throat in the past couple of years now.

    With heightened local and international attention and efforts to facilitate the release of the abducted Chibok girls and possibly end the reign of terror, it is not out of place that other issues of our national being seem to have taken the back seat. Even the wheel of government has been considerably slowed down by the development. The situation is likely to remain so until substantial progress has been made on these daunting tasks.

    That largely accounted for the resentment that greeted the purported banning of the free the Chibok girls’ protests in the Federal Capital Territory FCT by the commissioner of police Mr. Joseph Mbu.  Mbu had at a press conference announced the banning of all forms of demonstrations on the Chibok girls in and around the FCT on account of the current insecurity. He rationalized the order on the fear that such demonstrations were loaded with the frightening prospects of hijack by terrorists and other evil minded people to wreak havoc by detonating bombs within the FCT.

    As should be expected, the ban generated wide criticisms because it infringed on the constitutional rights of the citizenry to freedom of association and expression as amply guaranteed in a democracy. Apparently sensing the contradiction in the ban especially with the serious interest the Chibok girls’ abduction had garnered, the Inspector- General of Police IGP, Muhammed Abubakar came out the next day to clarify that such a ban was not in force. He said the statement by Mbu was an advisory notice enjoining citizens to apply caution in the said rallies particularly in the FCT and its environs. The IGP made references to the same intelligence reports on the possibility of the protests being hijacked and advised citizens against protests and rallies until existing threats are neutralized.

    The intervention by Abubakar has been interpreted variously. There are those who see it as a vote of no confidence on Mbu and have therefore called for his sack. Others view the clarification as soft landing for an errant police commissioner who issued an order without the authority of his superiors.

    Yet there are some others who find it difficult to discern any fundamental difference between Mbu’s order and the clarification from the IGP, except the latter avoided the word ban. This is because, the IGP, apart from reaffirming extant order that such demonstrations will have to be under police permission, did not leave anyone with any shred of doubt on the risk which such protesters face. That is the purport of the warning that those planning such rallies should seek proper guidance and advice from the police ‘to avoid unpleasant circumstances’.

    They also did not vary from Mbu’s reasons for limiting such rallies. The same fear of possible infiltration and hijack by terrorist elements featured in their clarification. It would therefore seem that Mbu was not actually on his own when he issued the initial statement. He could not have possibly been.

    What played out was that the police authorities ran into the contradiction of having to ban rallies in a democracy and moved quickly to save the situation. It is also not unlikely they must have come under intense pressure from their foreign partners in the Chibok girls’ release engagement.

    Even then, Mbu had in his initial outing raised issues on the propriety of the persisting protests by the release the Chibok girls group. Hear him, when you continue to do it (protests) persistently, it becomes a nuisance to the government. People have been protesting for over a month now. It is the issue of terrorism it is not solved in one day”

    That is the moot point that must come into focus in any assessment of the continued desirability of the protests. Yes, the importance of keeping the predicament of the poor girls within the public domain cannot be discountenanced. By drawing government attention to the dangers inherent in the continued incarceration of the girls and their possible abuse in the hands of their abductors, the protests would ensure that the government gives the matter the right attention it deserves. This was especially the case within the first few weeks of the abduction when there were doubts regarding the responses of the government to the matter.

    But that is not the situation now. Having amassed a formidable coalition of super powers to secure the release of the girls and tame the scourge of terrorism, the response of the government is no longer in doubt. Its commitment to that objective is a matter of public knowledge.

    It is then curious what persistent protests can achieve at this point in time. If it is to raise the consciousness of the authorities to the matter and the concomitant imperative for quick action, that objective has already been achieved. If the objective is to get the girls released with great speed and at all costs, one is afraid this option has been flawed by the peculiar nature of the engagement.

    The military high command has told who cares to hear that they have an idea of where the girls are. They have also said they are constrained in applying full force because they fear their abductors will harm the girls in the event of such a confrontation. We have also heard of backdoor negotiations and other efforts. These are matters of public knowledge.

    The leader of the protesting group, Oby Ezekwesili seemed to have come to terms with this reality when she modified their slogan to ‘Bring Back Our Girls Now and Alive’.  The need for the girls to come back alive does not permit the mob action which the persisting demonstrations seem to suggest.

    With the formidable coalition that has been put in place, sitting out at one corner in Abuja in the name of protests may not add much in the current efforts by the military. The predicament of the Chibok girls though devastating and chilling is not all there is to the current insurgency in the country. Since that unfortunate incident, hundreds of people including soldiers have lost their lives to the festering terrorism. The lives of these people are as equally important as those of the young girls who are still hopefully alive. These are the issues to contend with and they are not unconnected with the position of the police on the matter.

    The right thing to do is to build a formidable partnership with the relevant civil society groups and other bodies in the states very prone to insurgency to denounce the evil which terrorism is. We must fight terrorism with all the resources available. Even if we succeed in securing the release of the Chibok girls today, a new set of girls may become victims tomorrow. That is the dilemma in singling out the girls’ fate as if it is all there is to the debilitating insurgency. The demonstrators need a more holistic perspective to their campaigns.

  • Fani-Kayode’s freedom of bondage

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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