The Nation Newspaper

Category: Monday

  • Juju Priest

    Juju Priest

    Sam Omatseye

     

    AFRICANS are looking at Donald Trump, but they are seeing a black man. It is as though the American President is the incarnation, the biological certainty, the fulfillment in flesh and soul of Frantz Fanon’s language, Black Skin, White Masks. In an astral act, providence transfigured the gene of the African despot into a hulk of a bully in the White House.

    It is a transcontinental, trans-racial and trans-cultural moment in civilization. A new oeuvre on the concept of otherness. How can one culture, or one race, or one tribe, or one continent understand, empathise or embody another?  Africans are looking at the leader of the so-called free world and their eyes blink. Is it Mobutu or Mugabe hectoring at his party hierarchs, capsizing the numbers, reinventing electoral reality? It is a white man as juju priest using the power of suggestion to tell followers what they must believe, how they must act, and what they must reject. It is not only what he says, but what he does not say. His silences intoxicate. They stir the pot of the rabble. They make orators of dissent when he wants. They would shed blood, shed tears, rage and spill over to the streets of protest even if all he does is swing a golf club in Mar-a-Lago.

    We can see the small Trumps here even in the local government polls. It is not the numbers that matter. It is the will of the leader. If mister A is to win the election, it does not matter if Mister A is the enemy of the people. It does not matter if he scores 30 percent of the votes and the other gulps 70 percent. Math collapses. It is like Dostoevsky’s smirk in his novel, The Man from the Underground, in which he opines that one plus one is no longer two. Even Einstein, the master of science, knew the abracadabra of math: “Not everything that can be counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted.” Stalin, another juju priest, may have said or may have not said it, but the following quote is part of his fable: “It is not the people who vote that count, it’s the people who count the vote.” Some big men of republics in the past have said votes should not be about the majority. John C. Calhoun, former US vice president, sneered at the popular vote with an eye to the rural south. Former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli also said votes should not be “counted but weighed.” But who makes the scales?

    This is the mind of the African democrat. This is the spirit of Trump. I quipped to a few colleagues the other day that Trump has not perfected the African style of rigging. He might have come to Africa for consultancy. We rig before the fact. He is trying to rig after the fact. The African makes sure the results are not announced until the numbers “make sense.” But he still wants to do it before certification. It is his own way of rigging before the fact.

    Not long ago, the United States blacklisted Nigerians who rigged. What shall the world do to the oga at the top of democracy? If correction lies in the hand that committed wrong, to whom shall we complain? That is a moral question the American conscience will face in the coming months.

    But America is now dealing with the limits of constitutional democracy, and the failings of law. In spite of the vision and moral grandeur of the American founding fathers, never once did they anticipate that a man would rise in their history like Trump, a loser who would not concede a loss.  Benjamin Franklyn may have had his doubt when a reporter asked him about the quality of their constitution. “A republic,” he quipped, “if you can keep it.” The constitution has been tested by a secessionist impulse, squeaked under Andrew Jackson’s trail of tears, adapted the shrills of the women’s suffrage, survived the ravages of world wars,  refined with the civil rights maelstrom, progressed with the disruptions of technology,  gasped at the vista of a black president.  Can the US keep it today?

    But, at bottom, is the whole human subservience to document as salvation, for sustaining or growing a society, or nation or even a club. Hilla Liman, a former Ghanaian leader, once warned, “No constitution, no document can save a nation if it is not ready to save itself.” It seems to upend what John Adams said, that the US is a “nation of laws and not of men.” This is an idealist notion. As Jesus said, the Sabbath is made for man and not man for the Sabbath. The law is of no effect if the people are not ready to make it work. A society works by faith, not by sight of the constitution.

    United States historians have not found a parallel to Trump, and do not know the way out other than an appeal to decency. Scholars often talk of the clash between institutions and rational choice. Today, we are seeing that the work of the institution lies in the hands of the rational choice of humans.

    On the cusp of the industrial age, the US elected Rutherford Hayes as president in a contentious poll. Just like today, they disputed the counts. It was in a pre-computer era. His opponents called him “His Fraudulency.” Nixon in his memoirs referred to the 1960 polls with Kennedy and said he did not want to disrupt the American democracy by endless challenges over Ohio. Al Gore’s was over Florida. He too relented. But Trump is different. All facts lead to his defeat, except his own manufactured reality. So what we are witnessing is a potential historic implosion of the American system or the triumph of the American spirit.

    It is not just about the law. It is the spirit of the law. As the Bible says, the letter of the law killeth, but the spirit giveth life. Even for prophets, the Bible says the spirit of the prophet is subject to the prophet. In the end, a system is not about the document but about what Edmund Burke calls the “moral majority.” It is the same concept that empowers novelist and thinker James Fenimore Cooper to call for a republic of gentlemen. Democracy relies on the decency of democrats. In Poland, Hungary, Turkey, Russia et al, democracy is breeding autocrats. The irony? Their cheerleaders are the people. Madmen have become specialists of the people, a la Soyinka.

    Now, the founding fathers tried to prevent a demagogue or populist by instituting the Electoral College. Yet a Trump lost both popular votes and Electoral College. It shows that no checks are enough for the human beast. The Oyo Empire worked under checks and balances until the age of Aole. Ibadan was an experiment in diversity but it did not last forever.

    Laws are good, and they are efforts for freedom and equality. But laws have limitation. Our call for restructuring in Nigeria has been seen as the solution of all problems. But while it is good, it will not work if suspicions of ethnic and religious characters continue to fester. In fact, philosopher Michel Foucault warned in his Madness and Civilisation, that the more laws we have, the less the freedom. The laws may seed the soil for revolt. Laws are good, men are better when they follow the angels of our nature, not the beast. Hence systems after systems have failed us. Some are today calling for Westminster system for us again, even though we rode it to a 30-month bloodbath in this land.

    The laws are made to prevent anarchy. The human spirit is made to save the law. The noble human refines the law. It is better to save the human spirit than the law. It is a tension of when to keep the Rottweiler in the cage and when to unlatch the door. While the Trump drama is another chapter in the decline of the USA, we should learn a lesson that our salvation is not in playing copycats of systems but to look inward into the Nigerian soul. Our problems here are in our character, in the pursuit of an ethical republic rather than clutching at technicalities and laws.

    Juju priests are everywhere. Only the sick consult them.

     

    • For comments, send SMS to 08111813080

  • Umahi’s linkage politics

    Umahi’s linkage politics

    By Emeka Omeihe

    Governor David Umahi of Ebonyi State acted out a version of James Rosenau’s linkage politics when he gave the zoning of the 2023 presidential ticket of the Peoples Democratic Party PDP to Southeast as a condition for not defecting to the All Progressives Congress APC.

    And like in all situations of this nature, his conditionality contained elements of coercion and threat inducement. But he was severely constrained in extracting from the party, the commitment required because he was bargaining from a point of weakness as the option available to him was clear.

    The governor predictably defected to the ruling APC last week and justified his action on what he called the injustice being done by the PDP against the Southeast. He said, since 1998, the southeast people have supported PDP in all elections and “it is absurd that since 1998 going to 2023 that the southeast will never be considered to run for the president under the ticket of the PDP”.

    Perhaps, Umahi offered the greatest insight for his action, when he further said that the APC is “amenable and is working for the interest of the southeast”.

    This confers credence to earlier claims by the PDP that Umahi had in a meeting with its leadership demanded the zoning of its 2023 presidential ticket to the southeast as a precondition for remaining within their fold. Then, also the party had said it was premature to allot its ticket to any of the six geo-political zones as it needed extensive consultations with its critical stakeholders to arrive at such decision.

    It was therefore little surprising that when Umahi made good his threat, the party was quick to accuse him of  defecting because he nursed a personal ambition to contest for the presidency come 2023. That immediately suggests that his new party will either offer him the presidential ticket come 2023 or someone from his zone. But the balance tilts more in his favour than any other person from the zone since he is the one at the centre of the storm.

    However, Umahi got somehow confused as to whether he will be the direct beneficiary of that threat-induced concession or someone else from the southeast geo-political zone. His apparent confusion arose as he strove to stave off insinuations that personal ambition was behind his defection. And in his defence, he said no one had promised him a presidential ticket in 2023. But he failed to say whether any one has offered the southeast on whose behalf he is protesting the ticket in 2023. The situation became further confusing when he said “in 2023, if God permits, I will be quitting politics, and I’ m very satisfied,” adding he would be going back to his business.

    That is where some of us get more confused on the campaign the Ebonyi State governor took upon himself to mount at the behest of the southeast. There is nothing wrong with him defecting if he feels so strongly either for the reasons adduced or on personal grounds. But if he has taken up the challenge to fight perceived injustice against his zone, the issues he is canvassing should not only have clarity of purpose but supported by verifiable and credible evidence.

    As raised earlier, he had given a condition for his party to fulfill or he defects to the ruling party. The party rebuffed the conditionality on the grounds that it is premature. Having failed to accede to his demand, the man giving the condition made good his threat, hence the defection.

    This at once, presupposes that he has chances of realizing that desire in his new party. Umahi gave that indication when he claimed that the APC is amenable and is working for the interest of the southeast. What can be deduced from that is that the APC is likely more disposed to offering its presidential ticket to the southeast and his defection is to enhance the chances of the zone.  If that is the case, one can then understand.

    But he left every one perplexed when he said he has not been promised anything and he would be quitting politics in 2023. What is all the noise about the marginalization of the southeast in the PDP; its denial of the presidency since 1998 if he is unable to extract any commitment from his new party? What value does the membership of his new party add to his zone if all it takes is for him to resign from partisan politics after 2023?

    These posers cast serious slur on some of the issues on which he sought to justify his claims of ill-treatment of the southeast by the PDP. Even then, the type of campaign Umahi embarked upon, though not out of place, is better approximated through a group level engagement. Because linkage politics involves coercion, threats and pressure, its value is highly diminished when it involves an individual against a group.

    Umahi was in a very weak position to extract the condition he required of the PDP. This is evident from the position of the PDP National Assembly caucus from his state dissociating itself from his move. Even as they conceded him the right to join any party of his choice, they described his reasons for defecting as untenable. They faulted him on his umbrage against the PDP contending he has been one of the greatest beneficiaries of the party with two of his younger brothers respectively ‘elected’ as national vice chairman (south east) and deputy state chairman of the party in his state.

    Even then, Umahi had about a year ago, publicly confessed he had immensely benefitted from the PDP when faced with allegations that he was planning to jump ship. Some of the negative things he said about APC members in his state for which he cannot cohabit in the same party with them are still fresh in the public domain.  So who is really fooling and marginalizing who?

    The position of the National Assembly caucus from his state leaves Umahi a commander without soldiers. It further gives credence to the accusation that he is propelled by self-serving reasons but chose to hide under questionable southeast interest possibly to gain undeserved sympathy. If he could not even carry the leadership of his state along as a sitting governor, it remains to be conjectured what value and impact he will make in his new party in getting the presidential ticket zoned to the southeast.

    That is in no way to diminish the case for the presidency to naturally devolve to the southeast given that it is the only zone in the south that has not taken a shot at it since 1999. But that is not all there is to it. It is a complex matrix that will unfold with time.

    However, there is the risk of trivializing that project going by the positioning of certain characters from the zone. It is true that the southeast has been complaining against marginalization right from the return of democracy.  But whatever complaints that were made in the past, pale into insignificance in the face of the deliberate exclusion of the zone since the Buhari regime came on board. The facts are there to countermand Umahi’s claims. But that is beside the point. The real issue is that even as the case of the southeast for a shot at the presidency cannot be faulted, that project stands being imperiled by some of the actions and inactions of some political actors from the zone.

    The unanimity of purpose and collective action required to push that project through cannot be achieved by the singular action of an individual no matter how powerful. That appears the weakness of the campaign Umahi presumably set out to prosecute. It would have been a good development if his new party had promised him or his zone that ticket. Who knows? But since he said no such promise has been made, his campaign appears full of sound and fury but practically signifying nothing.

    It is difficult to fathom how such a commitment could have been made when the matter is yet to come up for discussion in the major political parties. As an issue whose time is yet to mature, Umahi’s stand on conceding the presidential slot to the southeast now, amounts to a trivialization of that project. He would have made better sense if he had defected on personal grounds.

     

     

  • Dialectics of ENDSARS

    Dialectics of ENDSARS

    By Emeka Omeihe

    A teacher, Yusuf Jimoh (not real names) was overheard in a discussion with some of his colleagues lamenting he has never in his life, witnessed the kind of things that happened during the ENDSARS protests. Asked whether that was the first time he was seeing organized protests in such a large scale, he said no.

    Hear him: “I was privy to the prolonged June 12 nationwide protests in 1993 and the 2014 one following fuel price increase by the regime of President Jonathan. I am also aware that the #ENDSARS campaign started sometime around 2017 but could not gather momentum”.

    For him, the last protests against the dreaded police unit came out with striking features creating impressions that will live with him for the rest of his life. Even as he regretted the deaths of both police officers and civilians, he could not imagine hoodlums or whatever name they are called could one day, take up arms and unleash mayhem of the magnitude inflicted on police formations across the country and loot COVID-19 palliatives in the manner witnessed.

    That such deadly attacks could be launched against the police establishment resulting to deaths, serious injuries, burning and looting of their arms and ammunitions, were things really beyond his conjecture. He never imagined the reality of a foreboding situation where the police would suddenly become a common enemy to be subjected to selective onslaught. That was the uncanny predicament Jimoh found himself. And we saw how policemen disappeared from public view for a couple of weeks for fear of being attacked by the so-called hoodlums.

    Jimoh is not alone in this entanglement. I am sure those of us living today have never come across an occasion where hoodlums took up arms unleashing collateral damage on police formations across the country in such a coordinated manner as witnessed during the last protests. It is also a remote possibility that we have had an instance where police officers were so intimidated by the volume and spontaneity of such attacks that they scurried for safety with their overall morale standing at an all time low. What is even more surprising is how the said hoodlums were able to spread across the country with a good measure of success in their devious agenda suggesting they have a ‘standing army’ under their command and control. The level of moral damage the attacks inflicted on the police establishment is evident from efforts by its leadership to persuade officers and men to return to their duty posts or face disciplinary measures.

    The Nigerian Police may not have given a thought to the reality that a day could come when some members of the public would turn against them either in sustained peaceful nationwide protests against their excesses or by way of violent attacks as evident from the onslaughts of the hoodlums. But all this came to pass.

    So, Jimoh was speaking the minds of many when he said the outcome of the ENDSARS protests will for a long time, linger in his memory. Its memory will not only linger for a long time but also serve as a veritable source of research for students of politics, history, military and strategic studies. It is not just a mere happenstance. It touches on the real foundation of governance- the location of ultimate power between the leaders and those they govern. We shall return to this.

    By the accounts of the Inspector-General of Police, Mohammed Adamu, a total of 22 policemen were gruesomely murdered with 26 others injured by the protesters while 205 critical national security assets, corporate facilities and private property were attacked,      burnt or vandalized.

    Adamu further disclosed that 10 firearms including eight AK-47 rifles were carted away during the attacks on police stations even as 1,596 suspects were arrested in connection with the violence and widespread looting across the country.

    That is the account of the police. Probably, when the civilian casualty level is added up, the weight of human loss will become clearer. But if accounts from the social media and other independent sources are anything to repose confidence on, civilian casualties are bound to be much higher. But that is beside the issue now.

    Of relevance is the emerging dialectics in which some members of the society found themselves taking up arms against a government agency that exists primarily to protect their lives and property. Is it a case of failure of the social contract between the government and the governed, a measure of loss of confidence or crisis of relevance? If it is a case of any of these situations or all of them, what does it say of the type of government we run in this country?

    What seems to have emerged from all this, is the picture of a dysfunctional police institution; an institution that rather than serve the people and seen to be serving them, had metamorphosed into an unmitigated liability to those it is paid to serve. It evokes the image of an agency that had become law unto itself (instead of law enforcing) where arbitrariness, extra-judicial killings and all manner of infractions held sway.

    It paints the picture of public disenchantment with an agency that is not in tune with its mandate; an agency that fails to appreciate that it exists at the behest of the people and they (the people) have a say in the way it should perform its functions. If this reality had been appreciated and internalized, statements as “I waste you and nothing will happen” would not have been a recurring decimal in SARS lexicon as copiously reported. Such callous terms as ‘human abattoir’ would not have had any appeal to SARS operatives.

    Sadly and implicit in the mindset captured by the above statement is the feeling that policemen can do anything including extra-judicial killings and get away with them. Who told them nothing could happen when they kill innocent souls recklessly? What gave them the impression that they are above those they are paid to protect and they could trample on their rights and get away with it? These are the issues to ponder and they speak much about the limits of state power and the level of supervision that is brought to bear in the daily activities of public functionaries.

    That was the contradiction at play and the main grouse of the protesters against the SARS unit. But that the hoodlums failed to make a distinction between SARS operatives and other police departments meant they did not really see any difference between and among them. That may have accounted for the indiscriminate attacks on police formations across the country.

    But the protests brought in their wake, the disbandment of SARS and the setting up of judicial panels of inquiry into mounting human rights’ abuse allegations against some operatives of that outfit. So, it is not true they can do anything and get away with them including extrajudicial killing and robbing helpless citizens of their hard-earned monies under all manner of guises. It is not true that police operatives are above the law only accountable to themselves and their supervisors for their actions. They still have the larger society that is the custodian of real political power to contend with. That was the social dynamics that was activated and there are lessons to learn.

    We are concerned with the heuristics of this contradiction especially now the government has accepted the desideratum of police reforms. The reforms must be all embracing and far-reaching, touching both the psychological disposition of policemen vis-à-vis their relationship with the public, recruitment process, salaries, allowances and the conditions under which they perform their work. The police that will emerge from the reforms should be a highly reformed and motivated outfit; one that is seen as a friend rather than a foe and sufficiently groomed to function effectively in a democratic setting.

    Its overall outcome should be a synthesis of the contradiction between thesis and antithesis- one that turns out of immense benefit to the larger society.

  • Anti-Babalakin report questionable

    Anti-Babalakin report questionable

    By Femi Macaulay

    It started as a self-defeating intervention and ended in failure. Ironically, the seven-man special visitation panel set up by the Federal Government to review some particular actions of the governing council of the University of Lagos (UNILAG) under the then Pro-Chancellor, Dr. Wale Babalakin (SAN), didn’t help matters.

    The panel’s report submitted on September 17 lacked credibility because  its chairman, Prof. Hamman Tukur Saad, dissociated himself from the report after it had been submitted, saying he regretted signing it. Two letters in the public domain exposed the conflict between his views and the report of the panel he had chaired.

    ”As Chairman, I didn’t want to sign the final report but I felt that would be a slap on the face of the government and it would generate so much bad publicity in the public domain, that I would rather sign on the understanding that the matter would be referred to the Shehu of Borno as the Chancellor,” Prof. Saad said in a letter to the Chief of Staff to the President, Prof. Ibrahim Agboola Gambari, dated November 10.

    According to him, the panel had an understanding with the Federal Ministry of Education which the other party dishonoured. “Final recommendation of the panel was that the matter should be referred back to the Chancellor, irrespective of what the panel recommended,” he said. This was a strange agreement that reflected the confusion of members of the panel

    Contrary to the said agreement, President Muhammadu Buhari, Visitor to the university, approved all the recommendations of the panel.  Consequently, Prof. Oluwatoyin Ogundipe was reinstated as Vice Chancellor of the university; and the governing council chaired by Babalakin was dissolved.

    Prof. Saad’s role in the drama deserves attention. He had also written a letter to the Minister of Education, Mallam Adamu Adamu, dated October 7, saying the panel’s report was “very one-sided” and “contained half-truth in order to protect one party and magnified the facts from the other party by pushing the blame to one side, omitting what could have balanced the report.”

    He said: “As far as the majority of the team was concerned they would like to save the VC who was presented as a victim, having been sacked by the Council and no effort was spared in minimising his faults, which were often obvious.”

    He mentioned instances of the VC’s “faults.” An example will suffice. “Take the issue of splitting contracts so that the figures would be within his approval limits,” Prof. Saad said,  ”in the renovation of his house and that of some Principal officers the evidence was clear, one Contractor would be given four contracts on the same project on the same day each packaged to be within VC’s approval limit. A number of such cases were evident, but the only way the Chairman could get that in the report was to compromise by rendering such as “Contracts were packaged in a way that bordered on contract splitting, in order to keep them within approval limits.”

    The panel merely recommended that the “VC should be cautioned against contract splitting,” he revealed, adding, “To me, this was enough for the Government to reject this recommendation and subject the culprit to the consequences…There are a number of other issues that may have been glossed over in the report to save the VC but this is not the time to delve into them.”

    According to him, “The recommendation that the VC should be reinstated was limited to the procedure of his termination. It did not mean he should be absolved of all wrongdoing. If among the faults enumerated in the report the Government believes he should be sacked, that does not contradict our recommendations.”

    It is worth mentioning that Prof. Ogundipe has returned to his position at the university, and has resumed business as usual as if nothing had happened.

    Babalakin foresaw the panel’s credibility problem. In his letter of resignation to the Minister of Education, dated September 15, he had described the panel as “inappropriate for the assignment,” saying he had appeared before it “in protest” and only out of respect for the minister. He added that the panel’s terms of reference “clearly indicated to any discerning person” that it was “empanelled to exonerate the Vice-Chancellor and implicate the Pro-Chancellor.”

    Prof. Ogundipe’s removal  from office and  Prof. Omololu Soyombo’ s appointment  as Acting Vice-Chancellor of the university by the governing council,  which the panel was set up to probe, “deal with the interpretation of the laws of the land,” Babalakin said in his resignation letter. “The appropriate forum to determine the laws of the land is a court of law or a judicial tribunal. It cannot be determined by academics of a different discipline no matter how distinguished. These terms of reference are ultra-vires the visitation panel as constituted,” he argued.

    Interestingly, Prof. Saad admitted in his letter to the minister that he “could not follow” Babalakin’s “complicated legal arguments” to justify the governing council’s actions concerning Ogundipe and Soyombo. “Even the lawyers among us were at a loss. So we were unanimous that the removal of VC and appointment of Ag VC did not comply with due process, “he said.

    This exposed the panel’s deficiencies. The failure of its members to grasp Babalakin’s arguments should not be a reason to decide the matter in Ogundipe’s favour. The panel also had its prejudices. Prof. Saad said:    ”Government by nullifying the appointment of acting VC by the Council has shown where it stood.”

    Prof. Saad acknowledged that there were “a number of memoranda sympathetic to the Chairman of Council for the good work he was doing and for his being above board when it came to financial probity,” but said these positives were not reflected in the report because “it appears three of the terms of reference were targeted at the Chairman in his role of removing a VC and appointing an Ag VC.”

    He faulted his panel’s recommendation that the governing council be dissolved, saying he preferred “settlement through the office of the Chancellor.” The truth is his preferred approach cannot resolve the questions of law and interpretation central to the matter.

    His most significant point in the letter to Prof. Gambari was that “It will be impossible for any Council to manage a university in this country if the recommendations of the panel are implemented in a Whitepaper.” Is this the result the presidency wants?

    If the panel’s chair contradicted its report, it called into question not only the integrity of the report but also the integrity of the panel. By accepting a report that lacked integrity, the Federal Government opposed integrity.

  • Endsars, interrupted

    Endsars, interrupted

    Sam Omatseye

     

    Sometimes when a news story erupts, this essayist denies it and calls it a rumour. It is my own attitude to the im    probable. Until, of course, I accept that it is no lie. I approached the news of the so-called EndSars# bank accounts and the CBN in that fashion. But as Shakespeare said: “Against my soul’s pure truth why labour you.”

    So, why would the CBN become an interlocutor of subversion? The top bank froze the accounts of 19 persons and a firm. They froze first and obtained permission later from the court. They deployed what lawyers call ex parte, which is a carte blanche to hold the accounts of the citizens for six months. Normally it is two weeks. They say it is so because the youths supped with the devil.

    They imply what lawyers call a prima facie case for terrorism charge against the fellows. This is no small matter. A charge of terror against youth cannot be a flaky affair. If it is true, it abolishes their future. They cannot have a career, a public life, a professional assiduity, or family tranquility. They cannot see the world and the world cannot see them except as pariah. The worst of all, they will spend the sap of their lives in jail.

    That is why what the CBN has done must attract everyone’s attention. It is not just about the EndSars fellows. It burrows the root of the concept of democracy and free speech. Banks often freeze accounts if they suspect an underhand breach. But this case is different. When such things happen, they resolve them in short order. They don’t often take six months. If it is a case of terror, then it is extraordinary and the CBN has a right to flag the accounts.

    But they have no right to put the cart before the horse. They should not freeze for six months and ask the court for leave afterward. It is disobedience before obedience. That flouts the concept of the rule of law.

    Two, if the CBN is sure of its case, we have the right to know what they know. To freeze accounts in that manner and keep silent runs counter to the democratic norm. We want to know who funneled money into what accounts, when did they funnel it? What the money was spent on? We want to know the biographies of the benefactors or donors, and show that they paid the cash to perpetrate terror.

    In a military dictatorship, such things happen without explanation. But in this case, we must hold the nation’s top bank to account in a democracy. Information is the lifeblood of a democracy. It oxygenates its dynamics. It is a republic of facts, not fiction. When facts fade, the state fills in its chronicles. It decides what is and what is not. It can suffocate dissent, and inflate error. That is why some philosophers have opined that without information, we lose the system to an Orwellian coven. With knowledge vacuum, tyrants control space and time. Sentiments rise, cults fester, the innocent end up in cells and a cabal prospers. Like in Soyinka’s play, madmen become specialists and specialists become madmen.

    The CBN again is supposed to be an independent unit, why is the CBN doing the job of the DSS by going to court? I suppose that if the CBN sees a terror leak, it freezes the account and notifies the federal government. When did the top bank become a sleuth, while the DSS, the statutory sleuth, snoozes on? Is the CBN working on behalf of the DSS? The DSS has said nothing at the time of writing. Reports say CBN acted on DSS orders. So, where is the independence of the CBN? Lai Mohammed has kept mum. Emefiele is the fall guy.

    The other point is the allegation of revenge. The widespread suspicion is that the government is after the promoters of the recent protests because they embarrassed the state. If that is not the case, they owe us an explanation to delineate the truth in public. We don’t have to wait for the courts to know these facts. We know the rigmarole of the judges, and this matter can outlast even the Buhari administration. In the meantime, stains on the names of the accused may have turned from innocuous ink into Kandahar. The persons may have to spend the rest of their lives explaining their innocence.

    Again, this essayist hopes they are not conflating donations for the peaceful protests to the vandalism and self-serving anarchism that hijacked the protests. They will have to prove that the donations are not for peaceful protests but to subvert the state. Facts, only facts, to parody Charles Dickens’s opening lines in his novel Hard Times. If the money they are flagging were donations for peaceful protests, it implies that the CBN is subverting democracy. It is within any citizen’s rights to collect money to pursue democratic rights. Just as everyone in government today lifted Ghana Must Go bags for elections, so too the civil society can fund its affairs.

    The peaceful protests openly called for donations, and we are all aware of them. Did they cross the line? They drew up their demands and the President appended them.  We now know them as “five for five” when the presidency acceded. If they collected money for their activity, freezing the accounts would be an extraordinary act of democratic self-immolation, of the leaders of a democracy undermining democratic norms. That is the closest to a self-coup. That is why we want to know the real truth.

    The fellows have also gone to court to challenge the freezing. That is not enough. We want the accused to also tell us who donated the money, how much, and why. Their accounts are now like a fish bowl. They, like the CBN, have the public ear to answer to. We want the equilibrium of public hearing in the civil tribunal or what Jefferson called the “tribunal of the world,” a balancing of facts, a reckoning of conscience. All sides work their angles for the public good. I suspect they will have to do so when the courts wheel into an eternity of procrastination. Patience will give way to confessions.

    I am still wondering why the names of the accused only come from one part of the country, whereas vandals went to work around the country, including in Kaduna, Abuja, Kano, Adamawa, Jos, Taraba, etc. Is theirs a geography of guilt? Did the 20 sponsor the vandals around the country?

    When vandals took over the protests, the Endsars# fellows lost their battle, if not the war. Their inability to coalesce into a concrete body with leaders was their undoing. They fell on their own swords. It is a generational statement of failure, if for the moment. This column warned them of the trap fall of idealism. Their icons retreated. They could not lead. They were decapitated without a head. They were in the skies for too long. Like the Greek myth of Icarus, they flew high only to crash at the sun of reality. Because of their naivety, they might have frozen street protests for a long time as a legitimate platform of dissent. But they can innovate and rejuvenate. It is a challenge to their imagination. In his great novel Father Goriot, the French novelist Balzac noted that a city goes through three phases: obedience, struggle and revolt. The youths jolted our cities out of its obedience. After all the ruin and clamour, we are where we were. Hence conservatives like Edmund Burke railed against the French Revolution, and many say reforms refine societies rather than the upheavals of change. That view is not nuanced.

    The CBN action is a challenge from a failed generation to a flailing generation. How the youths handle it will show how wise and prepared they are for the next era.

     

  • Widening fault lines

    Widening fault lines

    By Emeka Omeihe

    If last week’s northern leaders’ meeting in Kaduna State was meant to douse the tension arising from the #ENDSARS protests, it miserably ended up producing direct opposite results.

    From the list made public, the meeting was attended by the Senate President, Deputy Speaker, House of Representatives, Chief of Staff to the president, governors and their deputies. Also in attendance were members of the National Assembly, ministers, the Inspector-General of Police, Sultan of Sokoto, emirs and chiefs all from the northern part of the country. The agenda focused largely on events of the #ENDSARS protests.

    This may not be the first of such meetings neither is there anything inherently wrong with regional gatherings. But the circumstance of this particular meeting and issues arising from it raise serious questions as to whether it was necessary in the first instance and if yes, whether its outcome is in the overall best interest of this unity in diversity?

    Perhaps, a perusal of the resolutions of that meeting will open up further insights as to whether it served the collective interests and aspirations of the peoples of this country or drifted them further apart.  If the first item in the resolutions appreciating the roles of the traditional rulers in containing the menace of the ENDSARS protests in the north is not an indication of a tilt along regional lines, its commendation of efforts of northern governors in proactively addressing the ENDSARS protests in the country and the north in particular says it all.

    For, whatever roles ascribed to northern traditional rules and their governors were also played in varying degrees by their southern counterparts.  Here, the intervention of southern governors, traditional rulers and socio-cultural groups in diffusing the ethnic poison which some unscrupulous elements sought to inject into the protests comes handy.

    The failure of this role is evident from events in Oyigbo Local Government Area of Rivers state where Governor Nyesom Wike pointedly accused the proscribed IPOB of killing some soldiers and carting away their riffles. Wike may have his suspicion but the problem with such blanket accusations lie in the difficulty in distinguishing between the so-called IPOB members and other members of the society except the dominant ethnic group from which it draws considerable sympathy.

    Knowing the temperament of soldiers when one of theirs is killed, it is not surprising that allegations of ethnic profiling and extrajudicial killings have been freely traded.  The social media has also been awash with video clips of all manner of inhuman treatment to young men from the ethnic group where the IPOB has large following. Many of their shops were destroyed and looted. But the fear is that many innocent ones would have suffered for things they know nothing about just because of their ethnicity.

    That is the tragedy of Wike’s act of indiscretion. The killing of soldiers, policemen and protesting youths stands seriously condemned. So also is the wanton destruction and looting of public and private property.  But in no instance of those acts of lawlessness was a particular group pointedly held solely culpable even when investigations are still ongoing except in the Oyigbo case.

    Even with recorded pictorials of men in military uniform shooting armless protesters at the Lekki tollgate in Lagos, there is still a great deal of caution in categorically saying that soldiers did the killings. Elsewhere, such lawlessness was blamed on hoodlums and miscreants who hijacked the protests. I brought this in to underscore the inherent dangers in viewing national events from sectional and narrow confines.

    Ordinarily, there shouldn’t be anything inherently wrong in northern traditional rulers taking measures to ensure that the ENDSARS protests were not hijacked by hoodlums. But the recurring emphasis on the north gives the unmistakable impression of an ‘US versus Them’ or north and south syndrome in the overall assessment of the youth protests.

    Such a sectional slant especially given the times we are in, ended up widening the fault lines of our federal existence. A good measure of this is evident from the statement by southern and middle belt leaders deprecating some of the conclusions of the northern leaders’ meeting. It would have served the cause of this country better to have taken a national perspective of an event that brought youths from diverse shades to speak with one voice on issues concerning their future.

    There is also the impression that the infractions associated with the disbanded outfit are largely a southern challenge. If that conclusion is right, it also speaks volumes on extant disparities in the country. But this stands contradicted in another breadth by their resolution supporting police reforms, including statement credited to Kaduna State governor, Nasir El’Rufai that the protests have further reinforced the need for state police.

    The fact of this and the acceptance of all the demands of the protesters by President Buhari indicate there are merits in those demands. Then, it is hard to factor in regime change outside the ballot box as the motivation for the protests. Sentiments on the indivisibility, indissolubility and oneness of the country only reinforce the suspicion that some sections benefit from the status quo more than others. We have heard such sentiments time without number. Each time they are traded, the feelings they evoke is that of a country under threat of disintegration. That does not help matters either.

    But the solution to whatever that constantly evokes fear about Nigeria’s shaky unity does not as much hinge in its constant regurgitation as in the practical and proactive steps to address the systemic dysfunctions that have kept them a recurring decimal. The solution lies in ‘working the talk’.  We can achieve those high-minded goals by identifying the lingering questions of our national existence and taking deliberate and realistic steps to address them in a manner that is acceptable to all the constituents. We can achieve national unity; accelerate the momentum of nation building through the institutionalization of a governance framework where justice, equity and fairness to all will hold sway.

    When we have a social system that gives adequate protection to all irrespective of race, creed, ethnicity and religion; a system that unleashes the creative energies of the constituents to the fullest, then we would have watered the ground for the indivisibility, unity and progress of the country to endure. Then also, mouthing those national ideals at the slightest chance of systemic stress would have become patently redundant.

    And that is the essence of extant agitations for true federalism through restructuring. So those yearning for restructuring are by no means less patriotic than those mouthing the indivisibility of the country while opposing the political re-engineering process that will bring it to fruition. What was expected of the northern leaders is to have been working towards national elite consensus on some of the nagging issues of our federal order. Narrow or sectional perspective of the slightest national challenge portends more harm than good because it further ruptures the fault lines.

    The outcome of the virtual meeting of former heads of state called by President Buhari showed the issues are not as narrow as northern leaders saw them. Presidential aide, Femi Adesina recorded among others that the former leaders raised issues ranging from the quality of intelligence available to our security agencies; inter-agency cooperation, preventive measures and admission of the rights of the people to peaceful protests.  Adesina further reported that President Jonathan asked pertinent questions: What led to the crisis? How do we stop such in the future even after Buhari’s administration?

    Jonathan further said “the root cause of the crisis had been with us far beyond the advent of the current administration and that it may last into future governments except some immediate steps were taken”. “He (Jonathan) enumerated them” referring to the immediate steps to forestall future occurrence. Nothing more to add!

  • From Don to Done

    From Don to Done

    Sam Omatseye

    It was a rollercoaster without a timeline. Ups and downs, hope and despair, high pulse and pause. It thrilled minute after minute, but it gave no joy. When will it end? Today? Next hour? Or tomorrow? Toilet breaks. Meals were part of the menu. Seat on edge. Heartbeats. Bleary eyes. Deferred appointments. Stolen family hours. No second chance for bed time. Insomnia.

    At long last, the elephant staggered and fell. Trump, the Don, came down with a thud. He had finally worn clay feet. What is intriguing is not that he was defeated. The man still has the great following that brought him to power four years ago. It tells us that democracy is not a guarantee in this age or any. We have to fight to keep a freedom.  The only people who deserve freedom must fight for it every day, wrote German writer Heinrich Heine.

    It was an election  as democratic correction. The people voted against indecency. They chose truth over lies, range over rage, solidarity over solitude, propriety over profanity. They pushed against a President that hailed white supremacists, that called a set of humans Shithole, that classified some nationals as rapists. The people rejected Christian hypocrites and a God its prophets had overthrown on issues of abortion, race, gays, et al. It was a victory over vitriol.

    Joe Biden’s victory is a statement for commonwealth, for a new attempt at humanity, at a handshake. A time to rescue the climate, to re-energise a world of siblings, to nip bluster, to hit the pause button on the hawks, to remember that we, as a race, gave history the holocaust, carted humans as chattels across oceans, that we groan under income inequality.

    The paradox is that some people want him today. They love the demagogue, the temper of hate and division. They love the ‘us versus them’ rhetoric. It shows that democracy is a big tent, and can absorb the bad, and the bad can loom so large that it takes over. Awo fought to save the AG’s big tent from the forces of the right. What Trump did recalls what Winston Churchill said of democracy: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect but all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” It shows democracy is a dilemma for civilization. Ancient Greece abandoned it for tyranny. Germany, Spain, Italy were democracies before they embraced despots in the 20th century. Today, Putin cons his people to make himself a de facto monarch. In the Philippines,  Turkey, Poland, we see the rebirth of the strongman after the vote.

    Trump worked his crowd into a populist frenzy. He stoked hate. He spoke bile. He cursed. He gloated over losers. He demonised others, tossed about the rule of law, pockmarked institutions; put a soiled finger on sanctuaries of state. No one heard him laugh. His scowls seduced his adherents. His smiles were folksy to his followers. He was a pig grunting triumphantly in a sty. Yet, he was legitimate. He was going to win a re-election if not for the fervour and vigilance of the other side, of the decent quarter on the democratic block.

    We must not forget the big chunk of his followers: the evangelicals. But they are the great hypocritical followers. Without them, Trump is no president. These are people who pledge loyalty to the Bible. They say Jesus is love. They say peace is better than war. But they supported a man who abandoned about 500 children on the Mexican border without their parents. They support children unborn but give sacraments to the born ones to hunger and die. They watch blacks suffer and look the other way.

    What concerns me more is that they support a bigot like Trump at home and come over to Africa to preach the love of Christ. They are hypocrites of the first order. They are not the prophets of God. They are the pharisaic bunch. They are turning their tradition into tenets of faith. They are appropriating the Holy Spirit. They were not always appendages of the Republican Party, but it started when a few evangelicals launched the Moral Majority, and this was exploited by men like President Nixon, who developed what became known as the “southern strategy.” They summed up the idea in three words: God, Guns and Gays. They knew they would blend the faith and culture of southern whites. They fought over school prayers, abortion, and gays. Rather than work to make conditions to prevent abortion or preach to gays, they build the Trumpian wall. This negates the words of Christ that says, “I come not for the righteous but for sinners to repentance.”

    Hence Jesus came a humble God. He did not look down on the poor. Unlike John the Baptist, he embraced grace. While the former was always fasting in an ascetic remove, Jesus was often dining with sinners. The US evangelicals are a shrinking race. They are alienating others. Their lights are not shining. Hence they are no longer appendages to the Party but part of the mainstay. Christian values are not upstream in their agenda. They are now clutching at straws to justify a man who lies, who cloaks murders under the law, glorifies race haters, etc. Trump’s religious adviser Paula White invoked angels in Africa to fight for Trump. Some have wondered where she found the concept of angels from continents. Nowhere in the Bible are angels assigned to countries or continent. Each year the evangelicals come here and are given pride of place by our pastors. But do they ask them why they stand against abortion and not for the love of the living who are not white in their homeland?

    They would want to justify their argument that Trump is modern-day Jehu in the Old testament who ousted Jezebel, who they likened inelegantly to Hilary Clinton the feminist. Now that Trump is defeated, I want to know how they could stretch that comparison. Did Jezebel come back as Kamala Harris under the shadow of Biden. What evil man will they compare Biden with. When Obama won, they said he was the anti-Christ. The Bible did not say the anti-Christ would follow redemptive liar like Trump. They are using the word of God with craftiness, privileging culture over scriptures. That is the nature of false prophets. They have negated what French philosopher Blaise Pascal warned against in religion: “There are two equally dangerous extremes: to shut reason out, and to let nothing else in.”

    Trump wanted to be king. Americans just reminded him they don’t want monarchs in a democracy. Their first president George Washington warned against such temptations over 200 years ago. Last week, the American people echoed their first leader.

     

  • Poor police

    Poor police

    When the widespread non-violent #EndSARS protests degenerated into destructive actions that overwhelmed the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), the anarchy showed that the country needs revolutionary change, including the police.

    The National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) 2019 report on Poverty and Inequality in Nigeria gives an idea of the country’s revolutionary conditions. More than 83 million Nigerians are living below the national poverty line, according to figures released by NBS this year. Nigeria’s population is about 206 million.

    President Muhammadu Buhari, in September, inaugurated a National Steering Committee to oversee the development of the ‘Nigeria Agenda 2050 and Medium-Term National Development Plan (MTNDP),’ which succeeds ‘Vision 20:2020 and the Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP) 2017 – 2020.’

    Buhari said: “The main objectives of these successor plans are to lift 100 million Nigerians out of poverty within the next 10 years, particularly given the World Bank projection that Nigeria will become the world’s third most populous country by 2050 with over 400 million people.”

    It is useful to have a long-term plan. But it is important to have a short-term plan as well, and to ensure that it works. In other words, the Buhari administration may just be building castles in the air if there are no immediate signs to show that it is serious about its dream to lift 100 million Nigerians out of poverty within the next 10 years.

    Obviously, the Buhari administration will not be in power beyond 2023 when President Buhari’s second four-year term will end. How many Nigerians will his presidency lift out of poverty before then?

    Buhari listed his achievements in his Democracy Day speech this year, flaunting the results of his administration’s social investment programmes aimed at reducing social and economic inequality.

    President Buhari should understand that he is expected to significantly reduce the number of poor Nigerians within his remaining period in office, which is about three years. That is, to borrow the words of Martin Luther King Jr., “the fierce urgency of now.”

    “No Nigerian Government in the past has methodically and seriously approached poverty-alleviation like we have done,” President Buhari boasted in his national address following the #EndSARS protests and the resulting anarchy. The large number of poor Nigerians suggests that his administration has not done enough, and needs to do much more, to tackle mass poverty.

    It is easy to see the connection between widespread poverty and widespread protests against pervasive poverty.  Ultimately, the protests that prompted the disbandment of the Federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the NPF, known as SARS, were not only against police brutality but also the brutality of poverty.

    It is tragic that the protests went awry to the extent that the police expected to maintain law and order became victims of lawlessness and disorder.  In Lagos State, which was the hardest-hit, for instance, 16 police stations were burnt by rampaging mobs across the state, and 13 police formations were vandalised as well as police posts in four areas. Law and order broke down.

    Police Service Commission (PSC) spokesman Ikechukwu Ani condemned “the killing of police officers on legitimate duties,” adding that the commission “can only plead with the officers to in the spirit of nationalism return to work while the government works out enough protective programmes for them.”

    This sounds like an admission that the police lacked adequate protection, which made them vulnerable to attacks during the #EndSARS protests. The losses suffered by the police may well be due to their lack of capacity.  They simply couldn’t fight back when the mobs struck. Why were they so powerless?

    It is noteworthy that Inspector-General of Police (IGP) Mohammed Adamu listed the requirements of the police at a public hearing organised in February by the House of Representatives Committee on Police Affairs. The focus was ‘Repositioning the Nigeria Police for an Enhanced Service Delivery.’

    The IGP, who was represented at the event by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police (Operations), Abdulmajid Ali, said the NPF needed more personnel, not less than 1,000 Armoured Personnel Carriers, and 250,000 assault rifles with corresponding ammunition, to effectively police the country.

    He also said the police needed 2,000,000 tear gas canisters and smoke grenades, 200,000 riot gunners and smoke pistols, 1,000 tracking devices, and 774 operational drones, among others.

    These requirements will cost money, almost N1tn, the police boss said. The police authorities had asked for N944, 856,416,800 to combat rising insecurity across the country.

    Also, there is no doubt that Nigeria needs more policemen. The United Nations (UN) standard of policing is one policeman to 400 citizens, but Nigeria is said to have one policeman to 600 citizens.

    An ill-equipped police force cannot be expected to effectively maintain law and order.  The police are licking their wounds, and it will take some time for them to get over their humiliation during the #EndSARS protests.  It is clear that the police need to be strengthened and well equipped to face the challenges of their work.  Powerless police are an aberration.

    Low morale, due to poor working conditions, has always been a major challenge facing the police. This worsened following the #EndSARS –related nationwide chaos that culminated in the looting and burning of police stations, and killing of police officers.

    Interestingly, the #EndSARS protesters, among their five demands, asked the government to “increase police salary so that they are adequately compensated for protecting lives and property of citizens.”

    The Federal Government’s move to improve the working conditions of the police in response to their humiliation is a long-overdue action. Buhari said in his address:  “With regard to the welfare of police personnel, the National Salaries, Income and Wages Commission has been directed to expedite action on the finalization of the new salary structure of members of the Nigeria Police Force.”

    The approach to police improvement should be holistic. Improved salaries without improved equipment and improved professionalism cannot bring about improved performance.

    It is unsurprising that the unresolved question of state police came up again during the #EndSARS protests. This question will not go away, and will have to be resolved at some point. It is illogical that the country’s federalism does not accommodate the logic of state police.

  • A king and a mob

    A king and a mob

    By Femi Macaulay

    OF all the places attacked by mobs during the #EndSARS–related mayhem in Lagos State, the palace of Oba of Lagos Rilwan Akiolu at Isale Eko, Lagos Island, was the most striking. Known as Iga Idunganran, it is the official residence of Oba Akiolu, the most important traditional ruler in the country’s economic and commercial capital.

    His palace is a place of traditional power and may be likened to a government house, the official residence of a governor.  In a sense, the attack on the palace was like an attack on a government house. It is ironic that the palace was attacked by locals expected to be loyal to the king. The attack suggested that the king was unpopular. A popular king should have more friends than enemies in his kingdom.

    There was an ugly twist to the widespread #EndSARS non-violent protests against police brutality and abuse of power in the country when other elements introduced disorder and destruction. The protests that prompted the disbandment of the Federal Special Anti-Robbery Squad of the Nigeria Police Force (NPF), known as SARS, did not justify wanton destruction. It is tragic that things went awry not only in Lagos, the hardest-hit state, but across the country.

    It is unclear whether Oba Akiolu’s police background counted against him.  Before he became king, he had served in the police force. He spent 32 years in the police force and became assistant inspector-general of police in 1999. He retired in 2002.

    Lagos Police Commissioner Hakeem Odumosu announced that “a total of 520 suspects” were arrested for various offences including “arson, robbery, murder, rioting, malicious damage, and unlawful possession of firearms.”

    The list of destroyed public assets in Lagos includes the High Court complex, Igbosere; Lagos State DNA and Forensic Centre, Broad Street; Ejigbo LCDA secretariat; City Hall, Lagos Island; COVID-19 warehouse at Monkey Village; Ajeromi Ifelodun LG secretariat; and NPA head office, Marina.

    It is disturbing that 16 police stations were burnt by rampaging mobs across the state, and 13 police formations were vandalised as well as police posts at Mowo, Morogbo, Ikota and Mawa, symbolising a breakdown of law and order.

    Odumosu said:  “Some private facilities, as well as other investments that were partly torched and vandalised/looted, include the Oba of Lagos’ Palace; Television Continental (TVC) at Ikosi-Ketu; Access Bank, GTBank and Ebeano Supermarket at Victoria Island; The Nation office at Fatai Atere Street, Mushin; Shoprite Malls at Ajah; LTV 8, Alausa, Ikeja; Samsung outlet at Apple Roundabout, Festac; Shoprite at Festac; and Samsung Office, Oyingbo.”

    It is thought-provoking that Oba Akiolu’s palace was among the casualties. The king had to be evacuated from the palace by military protectors who saved him from becoming a casualty as well. Oba Akiolu’s personal assistant, Prince Deoye Olumegbon, was reported saying, “Kabiyesi is safe. Soldiers came to rescue him. But thugs have vandalised and looted the palace. No one is dead but they carted away valuable properties.”

    Dramatically, those who invaded and looted the palace stole Oba Akiolu’s staff of office and displayed it as they marched through the streets. It suggested that the mob had dethroned the king, if only temporarily.  It is significant that his staff of office was said to have been recovered, and rites were performed to welcome the king back to his palace.

    A prominent Lagos royal, Princess Abiola Dosunmu, the Erelu Kuti of Lagos, explained that the stolen staff of office “is a ceremonial one and we have dozens of such staff.” She added: “It’s the one they take to parties, public functions and so on. It doesn’t have that serious significance. Of course, it’s wrong that anyone should take it; it’s still the property of the palace.”

    Oba Akiolu  was crowned in 2003, 17 years ago,  but his kingship was challenged by royal rivals, resulting in a long-drawn-out legal battle that ended in his favour in 2019, 16 years after he ascended the throne. “My appointment as the king is the first time in history that kingmakers will be unanimous in selecting an Oba of Lagos,” he had said in court during the battle. The attack on his palace did not reflect his assertion.

    The palace of the Oba of Lagos, built in 1670, is a tourist attraction.  The ancient palace has been modernised over the years, including in Oba Akiolu’s era. There are ancient shrines within the palace grounds, and some of the previous kings are buried at Iga Idunganran. These features were insignificant to the mob that desecrated the palace.

    It is noteworthy that the palace is located in a poor locality. Isale Eko is an urban eyesore. The picture of a beautiful palace amid visible poverty is unappealing.  It is always a possibility that the poor will protest against poverty and aloof prosperity.

    The Forum of Eko Princes and Princesses condemned “the wanton desecration of our traditional heritage in Lagos,” referring to the actors as “miscreants and vandals.”  The group called for an investigation by the state government.

    Similarly, the Association of Lagos Titled Chiefs said it was “a taboo for instruments of office (traditional staff) or any of its replicas to be carted away from the palace” as well as “other traditional artifacts” stolen by people described as “miscreants and hoodlums.”

    Those who desecrated the palace should be tracked down and punished, these traditional stakeholders demanded. But the matter is not so simple. Beyond investigating the incident and punishing the guilty, the traditional authorities need self-examination.

    How has the traditional leadership helped to develop the locality and the locals? Have the traditional leaders done enough to alleviate the obvious poverty in the area?  How many of the people in Isale Eko are among the   more than 83 million Nigerians living below the national poverty line, according to figures released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) this year? Nigeria’s population is about 206 million.

    The NBS 2019 report on Poverty and Inequality in Nigeria deserves the attention of not only the federal, state and local governments but also the traditional authorities across the country.  Every level of leadership has a development role and should be development-conscious.

    Oba Akiolu, a lawyer, turned 77 on October 29.  He got the shock of his life when the mob violated his palace on October 21.  May he not experience such a shock again; may he have the wisdom to prevent a recurrence.

  • Takeaways from #ENDSARS

    Takeaways from #ENDSARS

    By Emeka Omeihe

    The EndSARS protests have come and gone. But they ended on a very sad note given events that trailed their closure albeit, abruptly.

    First was the forceful dispersal and killing of some of the peaceful protesters at the Lekki tollgate in Lagos by men in military uniform and elsewhere by other security operatives. This quickly gave room for the hijack of the protests by hoodlums and sundry characters precipitating another wave of killings, burning and looting of government and private properties across the country.

    Both events ruffled nerves culminating in denials and counter denials of responsibility. Mutual recrimination also had a field day between the government and the larger society on the propriety of deploying armed military men to quell peaceful protests such that resulted in the number of deaths that is now a subject of intense disputation.

    But the protests and the controversial manner the government handled them have also brought in their wake, profound questions that touch on the raison d’être for the institution of modern governments. They raise posers as to the purpose of government and whether it is an end unto itself or a means to an end- public good?

    And in attempting to answer these questions, the social contract theory of state comes in very appropriately. Though there are other accounts of how the modern state came into being and the purpose it came to serve, the social contract variant appears the most universally appealing because it best aligns with the nuances of modern democratic engagement.

    In very simple terms, it conceives governance as a contract between the ruled and their rulers. Man in the state of nature, somewhat became dissatisfied with the atavism of that order described as nasty, short and brutish. In order to stave off the war of man against his fellow man, they resolved to give out some of their powers to a sovereign who will in turn protect and provide for them. But they reserved ultimate sovereignty for themselves since they are the ones giving out some of their powers for their collective protection and provision. Having given out those powers, they still retain the ultimate power to keep the sovereign at check and can withdraw it depending on their perception of its use.

    It is this social contract theory that finds practical expression in modern democratic engagements through periodic, free, fair and credible elections. Through the periodicity of free, fair and credible elections, the ultimate sovereign- the people determine those to preside over their affairs. They are by this arrangement, ipso facto the ultimate holders of real political power.

    Those who exercise political power do so, on their behalf and must always be accountable to them for its use. This relationship is brazenly assailed each time the collective will of the people is subverted through unwholesome electoral processes or anti-people decisions by those elected to superintend over their affairs.

    We have gone this far in order to contextualize the dynamics of the #ENDSARS protests and some issues that arose from it. This is more so as the feeling one gets from the reaction of the government is that it is yet to come to terms with the reality that real power belongs to the people and that governments are agents of the people’s will. If that relationship had been clearly understood, perhaps, the arrogance of power or corruption of it evident in aspects of President Buhari’s last broadcast would have been substantially played own.

    The president recognized the right to protests is constitutional. But while admitting his government’s acceptance of the five-point demand of the youths, he mixed up matters when he said “sadly the promptness with which we acted seemed to have been misconstrued as a sign of weakness and twisted by some for their selfish unpatriotic interests”.

    The impression this conveys is that the government did the country a favour by acceding to demands of the protesting youths by disbanding SARS and promising police reforms. How doing the right thing should be misconstrued a sign of weakness remains largely confounding. But it exposes the mindset of those we elected to superintend over our national affairs. Statements of this nature convey the unmistakable impression that our leaders are yet to come to terms with the right mix in the relationship between the leaders and the led in a democratic engagement. They cast the government as an end rather servants of the people. Little wonder all the wrongs that have been going on in our governance processes.

    We are contending with a law enforcement arm that was set up to protect the society from armed robbery and related violent crimes. But instead of rising to the challenges of their statutory duties, they became law unto themselves robbing and killing the very people they were supposed to protect. They levied spurious allegations against innocent people, sent some of them to their early grave and got official cover for such heinous crimes.

    Yet, the government had the temerity to tell us in our faces that the protesters took the overdue disbandment of SARS as a sign of weakness. What can be discerned from this is that the government was not fully convinced that it took the right decision by accepting the demands of the youths. Otherwise, the claim of its ‘goodwill’ being taken for a sign weakness would have been totally uncalled for. But perhaps, unknown to authorities, the reluctance they saw in the reaction of the youths stemmed from lack of trust on promises from the government.

    That was why the protests trudged on despite the disbandment of SARS with promises for police reforms. Even with the setting up the various judicial panels of inquiry by state governments, fears are that not much may come out of them. Such fears are easily reinforced by statements conveying the impression that the federal government did not quite accept the reality that disbanding SARS and police reforms are in the overall interest of the Nigerian people.

    As pointed out in this column a fortnight ago, #ENDSARS is just a metaphor for all the systemic dysfunctions afflicting this unity in diversity. It is a clear rejection of the serial mindless looting of our commonwealth that has reduced our citizens to hewers of wood and fetchers of water, a rejection of the scandalous salaries and allowances paid to unproductive legislators and a rejection of a judicial system that has become a verity of Thrasymachus notion of justice-the interest of the stronger in a given state.  It is a collective uprising by young elements dissatisfied with the continued frittering away of their future by uncaring leaders-a bold statement that there is a limit beyond which we cannot stretch the patience of the people. It denotes a clear signal that ultimate power resides with the people and that a people deserve the type of government they yearn for. Sadly, attempts were made by those who wish to continue manipulating the youths to inject the ethnic poison to what had turned out a national mass movement. These were the dialectics that activated the youths’ protests and it is gratifying the government admitted having heard the message loud and clear.

    If that message was received very clearly as claimed, we should also presume that the objective conditions that precipitated the embarrassing looting of the so-called COVID-19 palliatives are clear testaments to the raging abject poverty in the land. Did I hear an aide of the president contending that the looting was not an indication that Nigerians are hungry? What else could it have been rather than a clear confirmation of the verdict of the World Poverty Clock that rated Nigeria the world poverty capital?

    When government functionaries speak in this manner, the impression is that they are very far from the existential realities of the vast majority of our people. It is the same mindset that complicated issues on the devious activities of SARS until the centre could no longer hold. Such a mind frame is potentially dangerous and may have accounted for government’s inability to come to terms with the reality of the genuine demands and needs of the people.

    #EndSARS and the concomitant lootings are signals of the larger systemic dysfunctions of a malignant federal order. The issues are at the very heart of the survival of this country and only far-reaching reforms to substantially dilute the overwhelming powers of the federal authority can serve as a soothing balm. Anything to the contrary will amount to postponing the evil day. The protests provide yet another opportunity for the government to put its ears on the ground to tap the real mood of the constituents.