The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • SNAPSONG 259

    SNAPSONG 259

    Here once again

    The golden era

    Of the Emperor, bold, loud,

    And triumphantly heedless  

    In every Ivory Tower

    A statue for Nescience

    To every beacon of Vision

    A shroud of dreadful darkness

    Let Silence ring

    From the classroom to the newsroom

    Let retributive venom unsettle the wind

     From the marketplace to the lawyers den

    Oderint dum metuant*

    For this is another season

    Of fear and silence; of anxious tongues

    Hanging limp from the trembling mouth

    Read Also: Genuine friendship scarce in Nigeria’s music industry – Ruger

    Shibboleth hunters at the national gate

    Immigrant-catchers are on the prowl

    Those cat-eating, dog-chewing strangers

    Are cargoed back to their native  holes

    Promise made, promise kept

    Nothing makes one country greater

    Than a brutal diminution of other countries

    The era of liberal kindness is long done and gone  

  • The omitted heroes

    The omitted heroes

    It is impossible to remember all the June 12 heroes once; but those left out today should be honoured later

    That it took the Bola Ahmed Tinubu presidency to honour the men and women who fought for the democracy that we are all enjoying today should not come as a surprise. Indeed, what should have surprised us is for President Tinubu to, like three of his predecessors, forget the source from where his presidency came.

    Tinubu was himself in the vanguard of the June 12 struggle. As they say, “he who wears the shoe knows where it pinches”. As a leading light in the pro-democracy days, he knows what it means to fight such a battle, especially with soldiers that the allure of political offices had made to forget their natural calling, and so wanted to stay perpetually in power, whether as military president, or transmute into civilian president, without going through the rigours of a free and fair election.

    For the benefit of many of our youths who may not know what June 12 is all about, a brief recap.

    Nigeria held a presidential election on June 12, 1993, which was won by the late Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola. But the Ibrahim Babangida regime annulled the election, regarded as the freest and fairest in the country’s history, for no tenable reason.  Following the annulment, several prominent Nigerians spoke and worked vociferously against the annulment. Some of them were killed, some incarcerated under frivolous charges, while others went on exile for fear of being hounded. The activities were largely coordinated by the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO).

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    To cut a long story short, the country only managed to get out of the quagmire after a prolonged political crisis, and on May 29, 1999, six years after the election was annulled, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was sworn in as president.

    It was in recognition of the invaluable contributions of the men and women who fought the military to a standstill after the annulment, until they handed over in 1999, that President Tinubu gave national honours to many of them on June 12, 2025.

    Much as it is better late than never, it is nonetheless sad that the nation had to wait for 26 years, and until one of their own is in office before the honours came. There had been at least four presidents before Tinubu; namely Chief Obasanjo, who took over on May 29, 1999, and served till May 29, 2007; President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua of the ‘Umoru, they say you are dead’ fame (May 2007 to May 2010); President Goodluck Jonathan (May 2010 to May 2015), President Muhammadu Buhari (May 2015 to May 2023), and now, President Tinubu.

    We can understand General Obasanjo pretending throughout his eight years as if June 12 did not exist. Apart from the fact that he may not want to publicly identify with the reality that his kith and kin in khaki were returned to their barracks so ingloriously, even though that was self-inflicted, because they would have saved the country the upheavals that followed their desire to remain perpetually in government if they had remained honest to the exit date they set for themselves to gloriously quit the stage. 

    We may also excuse the late former President Yar’Adua.  Although he was in power for three years, he was bogged down by a debilitating illness that made it impossible for him to govern with the required presence of mind, until he died.

    But if we can excuse Yar’Adua for not honouring the June 12 heroes, what of former President Jonathan on whose laps the country’s presidency was literally placed, on a platter? He too in his entire five years in office did nothing about the heroes.

    It was not until June 12, 2018, that President Buhari conferred the winner of that election, Bashorun Abiola, with the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR). He also honoured Babagana Kingibe, his running mate,

    as well as declared June 12 as new Democracy Day, in place of the previous May 29.

    We should give kudos to Buhari for this. Abiola, no doubt, was the symbol of June 12. But a tree can never make a forest. As Abiola himself often acknowledged in his lifetime, “you cannot clap with one hand”. If many of these other people did not complement Abiola’s efforts, June 12 would never have been a reality. Mercifully, Tinubu has made up for whatever Buhari did not do in this regard.

    We should also berate the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) for not deeming it worthwhile all these years to lift a finger for these real patriots whose struggles paved the way for many of them to become governors. Yes, we might say they do not have any direct power to do much on the matter, but they wield enough clout to influence decision on it, if only they believe it is something worth clamouring for. They always have a way of getting things done if they want to.

    Not to talk of the National Assembly. The people making laws for good governance in the country.  But this should not be surprising considering that some of them in the hallowed chambers even sat or spat on June 12, by supporting the sit-tight military dictators.

    All those who were in a position to remember these great heroes but forgot or simply ignored to do it didn’t do well at all, especially if they have been part of the political class since then. These heroes were not soldiers in the Nigerian Armed Forces. They did not sign that they would die for the country, yet many of them put their lives on the line for us to have the democracy that we are enjoying today, no matter how imperfect.

    Forgetting the heroes is like a river that forgot its source. It is akin to wanting to build something on nothing, which we all know is impossible.

    I commend the president for remembering those he has honoured. I also appreciate the concern shown in several quarters that the list is incomplete. The truth of the matter is that, given the scope of the June 12 crisis, it is almost impossible for all the actors to be remembered in

    one fell swoop. I guess those left out would be honoured sooner or later. The president himself alluded to that in his speech at the joint session of the National Assembly where he announced the names of the honorees on June 12.

    Bashorun Abiola’s wife, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, and the late Gen. Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, were posthumously honoured.

    Others in no particular order: ‘The Nation’s  Editorial Adviser Prof Olatunji Dare; Chairman of The Nation Journalism Foundation and columnist Prof. Adebayo Williams, board member Mr Olawale Osun and ex-columnist Prof. Segun Gbadegesin.

    Other living recipients are Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka (GCON), publisher of Vanguard, Sam Amuka-Pemu (CON), Kunle Ajibade (OON), Nosa Igiebor (OON), Seye Kehinde (OON), Kayode Komolafe (OON), Dapo Olorunyomi (OON) and Bayo Onanuga (CON).

    Also honoured are: Ayo Obe (OON), Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah (CON), Senator Shehu Sani (CON), Governor Uba Sani (CON), Femi Falana, SAN (CON), Abdul Oroh (OON) and Odia Ofeimun (CON).

    The rest are Felix Morka (CON), Ledum Mitee (CON), Dr. Amos Akingba (CON), Prof. Julius Ihonvbere (CON), Dr. Edwin Madunagu (CON), Pa Reuben Fasoranti (CFR), Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi (CFR), Sen. Abu Ibrahim (CFR), and Sen. Ameh Ebute (CFR).

    Prominent among those missing on the list is Late Chief Frank Kokori, the former Secretary-General of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), a man that the military dictators would never forget because of his role of ensuring fuel scarcity at crucial times of the struggle.

    Others left out include the Late Mr Walter Carrington, the U.S. ambassador to Nigeria from 1993 to 1997. Meaning he was around in the thick of the June 12 crisis and his voice as to where he stood on the matter was loud and clear enough. Some have argued that his support for the struggle was influenced by his marriage to a Nigerian (Dr. Arese Carrington), and his having lived in three Nigerian cities since the late 1960s. I don’t know. What we know for sure is that he fitted the bill.

    I remember a speech he gave at (I think) a cocktail party during the crisis and after he had spoken, myself and some of my colleagues at the event were afraid for his life, even though he should enjoy immunity as a diplomat; America’s envoy for that matter. But that was an era where anything could have happened without the country’s then head of state (Gen. Sani Abacha) understanding the implications. That apart, any of his goons could have done what occurred to him as the needful (like they did to some pro-democracy activists) before they would realise the implications.

    I remember too that I was looking left, right and centre at the end of the programme until I got to wherever I chose to sleep for the night (because I went to the event in my branded official car as editor of ‘The Punch’ at some point during that struggle, a thing I later felt I should not have done, given the safety and security implications at the time.

     ‘The Punch’ was one of the influential daily newspapers in the forefront of the June 12 struggle and it paid hugely for that. What with serial proscriptions, including one for about 15 months, alongside two other national dailies. The story of June 12 cannot be complete without giving due credit to the  newspaper.

    That takes me to the symbol of the newspaper at the time, Chief Ajibola Ogunshola, chairman of its board of directors. As editor of the daily title, I am competent to say that whatever courage we exhibited then on June 12 would not have been possible without the support of ‘The Punch’s’ board of directors, and Ogunshola in particular.

    Incidentally, it was only a few hours that I discussed Ogunshola’s omission from the list with one of his friends, an erudite professor, that I read in the column of my predecessor, Bola Bolawole, that “Those of us at ‘The Punch’ Newspaper were completely blotted out; yet, we stood and fought for June 12 more than anyone else, even more than the Concord Newspapers owned by MKO Abiola, the symbol of the June 12 struggle. I stand to be corrected because facts and figures back up this claim.”

    That this was Bolawole’s introduction to the piece underscored his disappointment that ‘The Punch’ was conspicuously missing on the honour’s list.

    Many of the other names I could have added have been mentioned elsewhere except that of Mr Soji Omotunde.

    All said, it is good that many of the omitted names are now in the public domain. This should be of tremendous help to the government when compiling the names of the next set of people to honour for their roles in the June 12 struggle.

    There are also many anonymous others who were mauled down by soldiers on the streets during the many protests that defined that struggle in several parts of the country. It would not be a bad idea for the government to construct a befitting monument in their collective memory.

  • The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (XXIV)

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (XXIV)

    It is now difficult to imagine that the United States of America and the Soviet Union were allies during the Second World War. Even if  we view that alliance from the point of view of the enemy of my enemy being my friend. But, the truth is that without that alliance, it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to contain the Germans on their rampage through Europe. The seeds of the victory of the Allied Powers were planted in the fertile soil of Europe, especially in Mother Russia. Had the Germans taken the trouble to learn from history, they would have found that Russia was a graveyard for ambitious would be conquerors and would have been a lot less cavalier in their attitudes towards coveting the Russian land mass.

    Just over two hundred years before Hitler unilaterally broke his infamous non-aggression pact, the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact to give it its correct diplomatic title, Carl Gustav of Sweden had invaded Russia. He had attacked Russia with the intention of incorporating her vast lands into the Swedish empire. Instead, he came up against the pitiless Russian weather and the remnants of his army was finished off at the battle of Poltava in present day Ukraine in 1709. That marked the end of the Swedish empire which was once dominant in the area around the Baltic sea. Today, Sweden is no more or less than a middle level power which was famous for car building (Volvo), her home-grown socialism, which is fading rather badly as well as the faded ABBA pop group. She is still paying for that blunder at Poltava.

    One hundred years on from the battle of Poltava, in 1812, Napoleon, emperor of the French and dictator of the rest of Europe, mobilised the largest army that Europe had ever seen. It was made up in total of 600,000 troops or more and matched them into Russia. There, the Russians making skilful use of the vagaries of the brutal Russian weather completely destroyed Napoleon’s Grand Amée almost without firing any shots in anger and in doing so, brought his up till then glittering military career to an abrupt end. He never won any battle worth talking about after his Russian debacle and by 1815, all his ambitions were buried and sealed in the little Belgian village of Waterloo, now a byword for terminal failure. A little over a hundred years later, another ambitious fool was digging his grave on Russian soil.

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    On June 21 1941, Adolf Hitler ordered the German army to attack Russia. The attack had been meticulously planned in such secrecy over several months that when it came, it took the Soviets completely by surprise. So much so that the Red army was caught on its haunches, unable to make any effective response to what by that time was a typical German blietzegrieg; a massive and rapid coordinated attack with tanks, motorised infantry and a large number of aircraft, all acting in concert to cause terror and utter confusion in enemy ranks. The nature of the attack on Russia was in tune with the principle of total war, designed to obliterate an entire civilisation in the shortest time possible. Hitler’s orders were for total war. A war that went far beyond the limits of imperial ambition. It was a war which was designed to clear the land of its indigenous population in preparation for its occupation by Germans. In other words, it was genocide on steroids. No prisoners were to be taken as SS troopers followed in the wake of the regular army to execute all survivors, military and civilian of any attack. The victims of these mop-up operations were men, women and children of all ages. In addition, millions were quite deliberately starved to death. This was not war but genocide to be committed by any means necessary. Moreover, it was all out war against communism, the competing ideology with capitalism. In time honoured tradition Hitler was trying to use the medium of war to extend the reach of the German brand of capitalism. Like any European colonialist in the heart of Africa, Hitler wanted very much to claim all the natural resources found in Russia for himself.

    The codename of this operation, Barbarossa was deliberately chosen to send a message. Frederick known as Barbarossa for his red beard was the leader of the third crusade who incidentally did not make it on his second visit to Palestine to fight the Muslims occupying Jerusalem but drowned on the way. It should not be forgotten that the Crusaders went to Palestine with nothing but murder in their heart. What is often forgotten was that each crusade started with pogroms committed against Jews in Europe before those so called soldiers of Christ went on their murderous journey to Palestine. Ironically, Barbarossa protected the Jews against the customary violence which was their usual lot at the beginning of any crusade. This irony was however lost on Hitler as he unleashed his forces against Russia. As with the crusades, Jews in Eastern Europe bore the brunt of Hitler’s crusade to Russia. The extermination camps which the Germans built and operated in Poland are some of the bloody footprints left behind by Operation Barbarossa.

    Operation Barbarossa deserves a separate treatment but this is beyond the scope of the present discussion of the rise and rise of capitalism. The Soviet response to Operation Barbarossa may have been slower than expected but when it came, it was extremely vigorous and uncompromising even if it was not as effective as it could have been. It however slowed the German advance long enough to keep the armies in the field as winter arrived. The Germans had given a great deal of consideration to the approach of winter. After all, they had the example of Napoleon to guide them. The reality of it however was still as unexpected as it was devastating as their awesome machine failed to cope with the demand imposed on it by sub-zero temperatures, broken roads, virtually non-existent modern infrastructure as well as the lack of human comfort. The Russians had retreated to the east at the approach of Napoleon and Hitler thought that history was going to be repeated. Surprisingly, the Soviets were resolved to dispute every inch of their territory with the invaders. After all, they had the capacity to send millions of men into the field. In addition to their capacity to produce the armaments required for the fight, the Americans set up a steady stream of the supply of tanks, aircraft, tractors, food and clothing to their unlikely allies who were fighting for their very existence.

    Determined to make history, the Germans had committed vast resources to Operation Barbarossa. They sent in no less than three million men, armed to the teeth into the fight. By that time, the Western front had been stabilised, France had been knocked out of the fight and the British were fighting desperately to prevent an invasion across the English Channel. All the Germans needed to do was to subdue the East but it was easier said than done. Twenty seven million men, women and children were wasted on the Eastern front but the survivors held firm. In the end, the Soviets pushed the Germans back all the way to Berlin and forced Hitler down into his bunker where he dosed both himself and new bride with cyanide before putting a bullet into his own brain to make doubly sure that he was not captured by vengeful soldiers of the Red Army.

    The Allies had a tolerably good working relationship even though the Soviets did what could be considered as a disproportionate amount of the heavy lifting. The Germans had sent their best, most experienced troops into the eastern front and those troops were supported with the most effective equipment. For much of the war Stalin made repeated calls on Britain and the USA to open another front in the West but for a long time, his pleas fell on deaf ears as their allies preferred the southern route through North Africa and Italy. It was not until June 1944 that the allies made a frontal attack on German occupied Europe. By this time the Germans were barely hanging on in the East as they tried desperately to stem the Soviet advance on the eastern front. The reality on ground at the time was that the Allied forces who came ashore on the beaches of Normandy were being opposed by a virtually ragtag German army armed partly with refurbished equipment. The flower of German power was at the time being decimated in the East by an energised Red army bristling with confidence as they marched resolutely towards Berlin.

    Every year since the end of the war, veterans (there are virtually none left now) and government delegations from all over the western world gather on the beaches of  Normandy to commemorate the D-day landings. They give the impression that they won the war on their own. Poppycock! Since then Hollywood has glorified those landings and celebrated them with made up stories of super human heroism. Look closely and below all the smoke, you will find evidence of naked propaganda. The decisive battles which led to the liberation of Europe from German occupation were fought thousands of miles from the beaches of Normandy.

  • The importance of struggle

    The importance of struggle

    Struggle or ceaseless contention whether at the personal or impersonal level and whether it is physical, metaphysical or cerebral, is about the most important aspect of human existence. We see it every day either at the nuclear family level, the extended family, the national, the societal, the global, gender and even at the most intensely personal levels. There can be no progress without conflict. No human advancement is possible without struggle; no civilization is feasible without some antagonistic exertions. Throughout recorded history, humanity has always oscillated between peaceful cohabitation and violent confrontation. Under peace humans covet war and during war they court peace. This is one of the most intriguing paradoxes of human existence.

        Penultimate Thursday on the thirty second anniversary of the June 12, 1993 presidential election whose outcome was annulled by a military cabal, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in his national broadcast unveiled a list of the protagonists of the struggle to rid the country of military despotism. The symbolic import of the moment was lost on many. Following on the protocol established earlier by General Mohammadu Buhari who broke the ice by insisting that Abiola, the winner of the annulled election, was a legitimately elected president of Nigeria, Tinubu’s was a bold and lightning move on the political chessboard which shattered the myth of the old feudal order and prised the lingering limpets of their remaining delusions and tenuous hold on political reality. It was a move which was as disruptive of the last vestigial remnants of the hegemonic coalition which has prevented Nigeria’s emergence as a modern nation as it was redolent of the possibility of a new beginning for Nigeria.

        President Tinubu must have struggled with himself and the list, judging by subsequent disclosures. It is no easy task coming up with a list of prodemocracy notables in a nation hobbled by divisions and fractured down the line by intense schisms. There are significant omissions and contradictions galore, apart from one or two curios and political hermaphrodites. For example Ken Saro-Wiwa and his Ogoni nation did not even bother to vote on June 12 1993 as a result of a lingering dispute with the Nigerian state but they are united with the June 12 agitators by their mutual hostility to the authoritarian antics of a harsh, unitarist state. In a paradoxical tribute to the residual powers of the postcolonial state to reorder the life of its citizens some living people were awarded lower honours than the one they already got while others were subject to state vivisection or posthumous retribution.

      But that does not vitiate the integrity of the gesture, nor its symbolic significance. There will be rectifications as the pressure eases. It is important to always retain a sense of the longer perspective or what the French call “la longue duree” in these matters. Nobody would have thought this possible twenty five years earlier as General Obasanjo began a deliberate and systematic roll-back of the gains of demilitarization by substituting brutish autocratic rule for fledgling democratic governance until he met his comeuppance in the hands of a resurgent senate led by Ken Nnamani. But here we are with the guns of hilly redoubts funereally silent. The cunning of history cannot be more cunning.

    READ ALSO: How we contracted infections using school toilets – Pupils

      What is even more important is to retain a sense of struggle as the constant and permanent imperative of human existence. Without struggle, nothing can be gained and all will be lost. Without struggle, a society resembles a stagnant pool with foul and fetid odour oozing from its dark disabled mass totally lacking in restorative energy and dynamism. A stagnant pool cannot move itself forward, not to talk of its contents therein which are trapped in terminal inertia and progressive decay. It is useful to recall that before the whole concept of jihad became militarized and weaponized as an instrument of relentless conquest spearheaded by the Muslim conquerors of modern Turkey, it meant “self-striving” or self-struggle, that is constant self-improvement at the physical, intellectual and spiritual level. But the idea of the jihad as unrelenting siege against “unbelievers” helped the Ottoman warriors to steamroll an enormous swathe of Europe until it met its peril outside the gates of Vienna in 1683. Thereafter, a rapidly industrializing Western Europe infused with the dynamism of new technological advancement and philosophical enlightenment took over the reins of power and began to inflict serial humiliation on the Islamic world, a development which reached its apogee this past week with the remarkable blitzing of Iran by America and Israel.

      As we have seen with the June 12 campaign, the struggle for the democratic emancipation of a society is often spearheaded by the most articulate and enlightened segment of the society. But its bounties and dividends do not exclude or exempt any section of the society. The most recalcitrant and vociferous elements who were in support of the annulment are among the greatest contemporary beneficiaries of a democratic Nigeria. Active saboteurs of the democratic ethos and key members of the annullists’ innermost caucus and those who vowed to shoot Abiola the very moment he was declared president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria have since held down important posts in the post-military Republic including the senate presidency without anybody disturbing them or attempting to annul their election despite the glaring electoral malfeasance. Some of them have continued to strut and preen about as if nothing happened and without any sense of shame or remorse.

       This is the historic burden individuals, groups and sub-nationals at the frontiers of consciousness and human developments are called upon to bear with grace and nobility. In multi-national nations with uneven and even countervailing modes of economic, political and spiritual productions, it is often the most advanced and the most politically conscious segments of the society that are called upon to carry the burden of civilizational advancement on behalf of the rest of the society. If they are lucky, they escape with hideous scars, if not it is genocide and relentless pogroms or structural and systematic exclusion from power.

     The June 12 debacle is illustrative of persistent attempts to undermine or short-circuit Nigeria’s journey to authentic nationhood. In the run up to independence, those who stalled and stonewalled about whether it was the right time for national emancipation from colonial slavery and servitude, those who preferred the unfreedom of medieval peonage to the freedom of postcolonial civilization despite all its troubling shortcomings, were also the first to seize the levers of state power with the active connivance of the colonial powers. Rigged against political, economic and spiritual rationality, it is as if the nation is deliberately programmed to self-destruct. The dire consequences are inevitable. When the risible charade eventuated in pogroms, ethnic insurrections, communal upheavals, military rebellion and a tragic civil war with millions of casualties, it was those who had been discarded whose economic expertise was called upon to rescue the nation from economic collapse.

       With no lesson learnt and nothing forgotten, the wild binge and infantile romance with national suicide continued with the short-lived Second Republic. This time around, it was a man who had famously insisted that he desired to be nothing but a federal lawmaker who was adjudged to be the most qualified for the job. Lack of preparation for the job was the most efficient and effective preparation for the job. It was no more than superintending the most stupendous and mindboggling state larceny and unhinged looting of the national patrimony ever visited on modern humanity. After four years, the Bazaar of Beelzebub was terminated by the military that then proceeded to unleash the most horrendous instance of state aggression on the populace including widespread murder of citizens, state liquidation, mysterious disappearances, ethnic cleansing all culminating in a nasty civil war which claimed over two million citizens.

     When the whole thing ended in tears and predictable tragedy all over again in 1998 with the mysterious demise of General Sani Abacha, the hegemonic forces that have held Nigeria hostage since independence went back to traditional quarters once again to rescue the beleaguered nation. Unfortunately for the nation and his core supporters, General Obasanjo, due to limitations of character and intellect, mistook the sacred mandate to get the nation back on track with a charter of messianic intolerance and autocratic delusions. Mysterious eliminations persisted. Spellbinding corruption resurged.

     With the Owu-born soldier having set the template, Nigeria once again began to list and lurch about like an old ship that had entered uncharted waters and without any certificate of seaworthiness. Such was the unprecedented instances of economic heists and the mismanagement of ethnic, cultural and political diversities that by 2023 Nigeria was facing a seismic implosion. This time around, it appeared as if the nation’s legendary run of luck was about to desert it.

      This was the volatile and combustible conjuncture that threw up President Bola Ahmed Tinubu who is himself a veteran of many of the struggles and an epitome of life at the barricades. This time around, the organic crisis of the state has produced a dangerous power void. The old Selectorate, crippled by loss of credibility and historical legitimacy, were too enfeebled to make any serious move. With their wits scrambled and their perception of reality distorted by historic confusion, the hegemonic rump of the extant power bloc could not bring themselves to directly endorse Tinubu. And since heavens help those who help themselves, particularly in a normless postcolonial coliseum, it was Tinubu himself who made a direct power grab in an election that was as contentious as it was also redolent of the possibility of throwing up the hegemonic hub of a new power formation in the country.

       What Tinubu’s numerous detractors seem to forget is that an angelic leadership cannot evolve from a demonic environment. In the circumstances and in the absence of substantial elite consensus in a nation already split down the line by the misappropriation of its rich heritage of diversities anybody thinking of completely free and fair elections can continue to live in a fools’ paradise. It will not happen. We should stop putting the cart before the horse in this country. Successful elections are the outcome of intricate pacting and strenuous elite negotiations based on a give and take spirit and continuous struggle for self-improvement. This is not decided on election’s day but well before. Elections are routine manifestation of the state of the society itself. This is why countries such as Ghana, Senegal and Tanzania are enjoying a smoother democratic run than Nigeria.

      So far, President Tinubu has managed to contain the economic turbulence arising from the neoliberal prototype he has unleashed on the country with its hints of harsh inequities, brutal neocon social engineering and its Darwinian survival of the fittest. But deep resentments run deep and hunger abides. He has also managed to spring the traps of calculated political blackmail, sustained ethnic baiting and open courting of military intervention emanating from some quarters. Yet apart from the gale of defections which is nothing more than a shuffling of meal tickets among desperate politicians, what looked like the dawn of a new hegemonic power hub appears to have receded into the shadows leaving in its trail a resurgence of inter-ethnic hostilities and murderous confrontations in several northern states. With Benue State foaming in blood, it appears that the old masters of genocidal expansion and lebensraum are back in the game of testing the nerve of the nation to see whether something will give. If they succeed in Benue, they will train their gaze on the South.

       The president should not allow it to be said that the tenuous cord binding Nigeria’s fractious nationalities together finally snapped under his watch. There is little courtesy or accommodation one can extend to people who take delight in shedding the blood of their fellow citizens just to gain political advantage. Taking strong bold steps to preserve the corporeal integrity of the nation cannot be incompatible with vote-harvesting. In any case, those who perpetrate such crimes cannot be interested in elections or democracy for that matter. In 2015 at the inception of the Buhari administration, this column recommended the inauguration of a National Commission for Horizontal and Vertical Integration which works at the level of restoring and maintaining economic, ethnic and religious parity for all Nigerians. Unfortunately, the circumstances have since worsened and the country is being gradually returned to a theatre of massive bloodletting.

       No rational human courts war and disorder. Yet under peace some people desire war just to satisfy their nihilistic neuroses. If they cannot build civilizations they can help to destroy extant ones. With the most agriculturally productive belts of the nation already a prohibited zone thus inducing astronomical rises in the price of staple food, with our highways swarming with murderous marauders crippling inter-state commerce, it is beginning to feel as if the country is being gradually placed on a war-footing. The merchants of occupational terror and expansionist genocide are back on the prowl and Nigeria might have entered another decisive phase in the struggle for the soul of the nation. With the global order fast unravelling, it is a case of every nation for itself. The nation in itself has no chance.

       President Tinubu has shown more than enough political nous and guile not to appreciate the fierce urgency of the moment and how to go about the latest manifestation of the organic crisis of the Nigerian postcolonial state. Let his courage and political pluck not desert him at the appropriate hour. His Gboko Declaration and marching order to security forces will be read as a threat and oblique declaration of war in the appropriate quarters. The president needs to watch his back in the coming months. You can be right and yet be wronged. This is the signal lesson of the June 12 imbroglio.

  • Atiku, el-Rufai, Amaechi and All Democratic Alliance

    Atiku, el-Rufai, Amaechi and All Democratic Alliance

    After waiting for months for the other shoe to drop, the opposition coalition movement has finally proposed a new party altogether in their iron determination to dethrone President Bola Tinubu. He is their main target. Led by the implacable former vice president Atiku Abubakar and seconded by the equally agitated former governors Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State and Nasir el-Rufai of Kaduna State, what was initially planned as a merger or coalition of parties has become an independent, stand-alone, political organisation, the All Democratic Alliance (ADA). Last month, they had been undecided whether to throw in their lot with an existing party, which would have been less burdensome to their finances and their suspect organisational skills, or to bite the bullet and start afresh, a tantalising but nervy prospect. They toyed with the idea of committing to the Social Democratic Party (SDP), in which the feisty Mallam el-Rufai briefly cavorted and beckoned on his mates to join, or attaching themselves to the African Democratic Congress (ADC), which they saw as less controversial and more amenable to their designs. None seemed to fit the bill, it turned out. And given the fact that they had all along flirted with a Plan B, they have now decided to burn their bridges. It is henceforth forward march into the unknown.

    The main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was the natural and special purpose vehicle choice for the brains behind the aborted coalition to execute their 2027 goals. But that former ruling behemoth saw through their schemes and was loth to be turned into an appendage by the footloose Alhaji Atiku. Angry and impatient, Alhaji Atiku and company stormed out and began fishing for new lovers, first trying out the SDP, and then the ADC, before finally berthing at the unregistered ADA. But ADA and its leaders are not in the clear yet. The party will probably be registered, especially going by how toxic the new party’s leaders have turned Nigerian politics and preemptively accused the electoral commission and other agencies of government of bias and conspiracy against the opposition. After registration, the party’s leadership structure will have to be resolved amongst dozens of potential leaders and rhetoricians with large egos. And finally, the leaders must confront and surmount the main hurdle almost certain to shake the party to its core, to wit, the contest to pick the standard-bearers for the next presidential election.

    Read Also: 600 stranded Nigerians expected from Iran

    The new party, when registered, will boast the presence of political heavyweights and flyweights like former Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate and ex-Anambra governor, Peter Obi, former House of Representatives speaker and ex-Sokoto State governor, Aminu Tambuwal; former All Progressives Congress (APC) national chairman and ex-Edo State governor, John Oyegun; former Internal Affairs minister and ex-Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola; former Justice minister Abubakar Malami; former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Babachir David Lawal; former PDP chairman Uche Secondus; and Osita Chidoka and Nnenna Ukeje. As notable as these gentlemen are, they certainly do not possess the numerical strength or ideological force to win any presidential election. They will of course hope that they could constitute the seed of the party, and that more recognisable names and aggrieved politicians will eventually defect to the party once the coast seems clear. But if at any time they see that ADA seemed to have been conceived only to drive the presidential ambition of Alhaji Atiku, they will think twice. Some defectors may already seem committed to the ADA idea, seeing how much they loath President Tinubu and are willing to sacrifice anything to see the president deposed, but others may become extremely wary of being used as tools to drive Alhaji Atiku’s obsessive agenda. Their reluctance will appear to be well-founded. For, at the moment, the general consensus is that a southerner must contest the next presidential election against President Tinubu, if it came to that, since the election might quickly transform into a North-South struggle in the face of what many fear is the looming imposition of northern hegemony driven partly by herdsmen attacks.

    The new party will also contend with how to determine its financial and administrative fulcrum. If Alhaji Atiku is not convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that he is the potential and undisputed candidate of the party in the next poll, he will be chary of spending as much as is needed to turn the party into an immovable force. Party leaders will then have to decide how to raise funds from external forces, perhaps businessmen with a grudge against the government. But even here, given how some top business leaders miscalculated in the 2023 poll and have gone the extra mile to rectify their errors, few moneymen will be eager to put the wrong foot forward again. If Alhaji Atiku hedges his financial bet, Mr Obi, who is naturally stingy, will do worse. No one of any heft in the new party will be so forward in frittering away his funds on a gamble they cannot quite convince themselves would be worth their while. Alhaji Atiku may have mooted the idea of a joint ticket with Mr Obi, but the new party will face the horrible conundrum of determining whether the vacillating Mr Obi as running mate, assuming he really joins and remains in the party, would pull as much weight as he did in 2023. Despite the reigning permutations centred on Atiku/Obi, the opportunistic duo of Mr Amaechi and Mallam el-Rufai will wait in the wings and hope that circumstances and political exigencies will force ADA to rethink their presidential ticket away from the anticipated serial contender.

    The PDP may have survived the Alhaji Atiku scare, for he had at first seemed determined to once again foist himself on the party’s presidential ticket, with all the attendant drawbacks and unworkable permutations, but it may face the fresh danger of being overtaken in terms of ranking by ADA. The new party will, however, make heavy weather of beating the PDP to the tape, considering that it is neither a coalition nor a merger, and so does not have any state under its control. Mallam el-Rufai may have boasted that the next election is not about which party has the highest number of governors in its kitty, insisting that the poll is about the electorate, but he knows in his heart that he is simply posturing. APC stood a chance of winning in 2015 because it had a number of governors on its side and also attracted a few more before the polls. More, it was truly a coalition of powerful parties and individuals, a prospect ADA can only dream of. It is unlikely that in the months ahead ADA will really become a coalition of parties. Its newness, which is strictly limited to its name and structure and organs, not its old and jaded leaders, will, therefore, be a disadvantage. Worse, if its presidential ticket is what they think it already appears to be, there will be no excitement anywhere, not even among voters.

    In the end, ADA may very well turn out to be a damp squib. It has so many things going against it than for it. It will be delusional to hope it can really compete with the ruling behemoth, or outpace the second ranked and still solid PDP. It can hope to be the new LP in 2027, for the old LP has become a hors de combat; but to aspire to be more when they are encumbered by bitter and vengeful leaders instead of ideological puritans and savvy, altruistic administrators is pure hallucination. ADA is starting on an old and dirty slate; once they are registered as expected, they must produce altruists and ideologues and nationalists capable of rethinking and rebranding Nigeria. So far, the names associated with the party reflect ethnic opportunists and promoters of religious and regional exceptionalism more than anything else. Such an amalgam will not win a presidential election; they will foul it.

  • Redressing counter insurgency paradigm

    Redressing counter insurgency paradigm

    The word ‘counterinsurgency’ is used broadly in the context of this piece to mean the state’s fight against threats to national security, whether it involves Boko Haram/ISWAP, unknown gunmen, or bandits/herdsmen. All three major threats are sponsored by shadowy financiers and politicians with sinister objectives, and are fairly well organised. Islamic State’s West Africa Province (ISWAP) is a Sunni jihadist group that broke away from Boko Haram sometime after the latter affiliated with the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL). United or divided, the hydra-headed monster has only been degraded, not defeated. Its ultimate goal is a caliphate whose short-run locus is the Northeast. The unknown gunmen group has projected itself as the fighting arm of the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB), an organisation dedicated to the establishment of independent, not a confederate, Biafra encompassing the Southeast geopolitical zone. Its fairly well-oiled campaign has been vicious and relentless.

    The third group is loosely framed in banditry and herdsmen militias, with a number of emergent spinoffs such as the Lakurawa and Mahmuda militia groups. This agglomerative group does not project jihadism but espouses and unifies in themselves the ruthless despoliation of the Dacoits of India/Myanmar, and the genocidal ethnic cleansing campaigns of the Arab nomadic Janjaweed operating in the Darfur region of Sudan, Chad, and speculatively perhaps in Yemen. While the core North of Nigeria flirts dangerously with the first and third groups, the Southeast romances the second group. What has kept Nigeria from keeling over is the restraining and even countervailing influence of the few oases of peace and stability in some parts of Nigeria. Indeed, it is not even clear that the federal government, starting with the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency and on to the present, has a clear and holistic understanding of the catastrophic threats facing the country. So far, going by the stridency of the warnings they have continued to issue the country from time to time, the Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Christopher Musa, and the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen Olufemi Oluyede, have seemed to have a more solid grasp of how close the country is to apocalypse.

    One of the results of the shallow understanding of the existential threats facing Nigeria is the government’s inability to properly calibrate its fight against the jihadist and separatist groups already fragmenting like a cluster bomb and inching closer to metastasising. Publicly, the government has announced a two-pronged approach to combat the looming disaster. First, it has tried to identify, expose and prosecute the sponsors of the threats, most of whom are Nigerians. The shadowy sponsors deploy economic and Islamic ideological reasons for their sponsorship. Second, the government has also tried to combat the centrifugal forces through textbook counterinsurgency methods, some of it kinetic and non-kinetic. In the end, due to an incomplete understanding of the threats facing the country, the government’s efforts have been largely desultory. As a result, the threats are multiplying, stretching the country’s security agencies thin, endangering democracy, and making the fight costly and increasingly disruptive.

    When Boko Haram began, there was no affiliation with ISIL. But because the fight against the group was incompetent and disorganised, it became protracted, enabling it to seek affiliations and finding one in the Middle East. Then, the group split into two dangerous monsters instead of one. As the Northeast crisis dragged on and on, and seeing how fairly shambolic the counterinsurgency operations had become, informers and collaborators proliferated and began whittling down counterinsurgency operations, and ambitious and militant adventurers in the other regions saw how easily money could be made by organising themselves into non-state actors without fear of consequence. Now, a whole economy estimated to be running into billions of naira has developed around insurgency, banditry and separatist organisations. Even counterinsurgency operations are reportedly not immune to financial shenanigans. The fight against sponsors of militant groups needed to become a crusade, instead it has become farcical. Counterinsurgency operations needed to be intensified and fierce, instead it has largely remained a thrust and defend pirouette lacking in the bite and relentlessness major military campaigns are noted for.

    Read Also: Genuine friendship scarce in Nigeria’s music industry – Ruger

    The paradigm has to change. The back and forth of the government is a reflection of indecision, confusion and poverty of debate. At one moment, they speak of taking the fight to the insurgents; at another moment they publicly announce, to the satisfaction and relief of the insurgents, that kinetic methods alone cannot end the menace, thereby encouraging militias to try and outlast the government. In short, while the diagnosis may sometimes be fairly sensible, the treatment has been largely shambolic. Whether the government likes it or not, given the upheaval in the Sahel, the whole Nigerian edifice is alarmingly close to caving in. It is, therefore, time to take the fight to the insurgents and morphing militias which threaten the peace and stability of the country. It is time to quit pussyfooting around with loose talk of non-kinetic methods of deradicalisation and reintegration of terrorists. These non-kinetic methods reflect a poor understanding of the nature and trajectory of the terrorist organisations threatening the country. It is time to first defeat the insurgents and other non-state actors before thinking of deradicalisation or reintegration.

    Nigeria’s predicted collapse is not inevitable if the government has a deep and convincing understanding of the country’s existential threats. It is assumed they have studied why states collapse, and have benefited from contemporary examples from Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, DRC, Syria, Soviet Union, and Yugoslavia, among others to learn from. Most of the threats to Nigeria are region-specific, implying the recklessness and complicity of traditional, business and political elites of those places. Regardless of the influences of these powerful elites, which can disquiet the ruling party in a democracy anchored on elections, it is time the government showed that the lessons it learnt from other state failures are not superfluous. It is time to pursue insurgents without any let up until they are destroyed. No fits and starts. It is also time to mobilise the country’s security forces through large-scale recruitment of troops in order to fight this battle once and for all. To shirk this responsibility is to predispose the country to eventual and inevitable collapse. Insurgent groups fragmented and metamorphosed, and banditry and separatism have lasted so long because the militants sense national weakness. It is time to change the paradigm if the country is to survive.

  • Bandit Ado Alero pontificates

    Bandit Ado Alero pontificates

    Ado Alero, a bandit kingpin, continues to mock the country and thumb his nose at the authorities. Declared wanted by the police since 2020 and with a N5 million bounty on his head, he has casually entered into and exited peace treaties with the authorities, the latest of which was about two weekends ago, according to a post on social media. It is not even his Houdini act that astounds the public, or his reputation for violence; it is his insouciant disregard for public feelings and anguish. Turbaned as Sarkin Fulani in Tsafe town in 2022 by the Emir of Yandoton Daji Emirate in Zamfara State, Aliyu Marafa,  Adamu Aliero-Yankuzo, aka Ado Alero, has since continued to pontificate in the presence, as always, of security agents during what they describe as peace meetings.

    Read Also: Nigeria, Benin sign landmark integration pact

    In the said social media post, he lashed out at the government, saying: “I’m calling on the Nigerian government, for God’s sake. In light of the current situation, they should stop referring to us as terrorists while claiming that they have built schools for bandits or provided us with education. They should also stop saying that bandits have been rehabilitated and reintegrated into society, which is simply not true.” In the said video said to have been shot at a peace meeting somewhere in Danmusa LGA in Katsina State, the brash and cocky bandit leader also cautioned the government to stop lying that the rehabilitation and reintegration of repentant terrorists were ongoing. No such programmes were ongoing anywhere, he fumed. In other words, the bandit leader wants peace on his own terms. Worse, it is now incontestable that the whereabouts of bandit leaders in the Northwest, just as herdsmen ravaging the Middle Belt, are not secret. So, what kind of game is really going on in those regions? If Katsina State could publicly disavow negotiations with terrorists, could the federal government conceivably be conducting peace talks with the bandits? Indeed, is there any desire to end the wars?

  • Gloom to hope: Tinubu’s unusual road to ending Benue’s bloodbath

    Gloom to hope: Tinubu’s unusual road to ending Benue’s bloodbath

    The week past was arguably one of the most emotionally charged, politically sensitive, and leadership-defining moments of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s two years in the saddle. What usually would have begun as a regular week for the President swiftly morphed into a scene of national mourning and urgent leadership intervention, following the massacre of scores of citizens in the Yelewata community of Guma Local Government Area, Benue State. In a presidency filled with state visits, policy unveilings, and summit diplomacy, this moment stood apart—gripping the nation’s conscience and calling its leader to immediate, decisive action.

    President Tinubu’s decision to suspend his scheduled state visit to Kaduna to personally commiserate with the grieving people of Benue was not just symbolic; it was statesmanlike. It demonstrated a level of empathy and responsibility not often seen. But beyond the symbolism was substance—words not merely of comfort but of course correction, of vision, and of a leader anchoring his presidency on both the emotions and needs of the people.

    When he arrived in Makurdi, it was not with the glee of commissioning development projects or receiving accolades, but with a sober presence that reflected the nation’s collective heartbreak. “We are here not just to show our face,” he told a hushed town hall gathering at Government House, “but to share in your grief and condole you and ourselves for the loss of lives that occurred.”

    His speech, deeply human and politically poignant, acknowledged the sorrow but more importantly offered a path forward—a call to action for the state’s stakeholders, led by Governor Hyacinth Alia, to seize the tragedy as a turning point. Perhaps the most compelling portion of the President’s address came when he shifted the focus from the event itself to the duty of leadership amid chaos. Addressing Governor Alia directly, Tinubu said, “The yoke is on you. That’s part of the problem of leadership. Move round to see those leaders, join them, ask them questions, to join you and find solution.”

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    This wasn’t mere rhetoric; it was a strategic handoff laced with personal insight. Drawing from his own experience as Lagos governor during a period of ethnic tension, Tinubu reminded the gathering that peace, no matter how elusive, is achievable—but only with political courage, cultural sensitivity, and a readiness to confront difficult truths. His Lagos-era success in converting intergroup tension into an economic opportunity, particularly through the livestock sector, was cited not just as a case study but a blueprint: “When I faced the question of herders and butchers in Lagos, I solved the problem, and I created economy out of it… I’m proud of that.”

    Throughout the address, Tinubu demonstrated a rare fusion of emotional intelligence and executive urgency. He commended the armed forces, acknowledged their sacrifice, but did not spare the security establishment from scrutiny. “Police, I hope your men are on alert to listen to information. How come no arrest has been made?” he queried, demanding immediate and proactive response from the Chief of Defence Staff, Chief of Army Staff, and intelligence chiefs. The message was clear: this government will not tolerate impunity.

    Yet, President Tinubu did not come to Benue with only words of rebuke or solemnity. He came with tangible plans. Central to his proposition was the establishment of a peace and development committee comprising former leaders of the state, traditional rulers, and representatives of non-indigenous communities. He called for the inclusion of eminent figures such as former Governors and acknowledged the presence of the Minister of Livestock, asking Governor Alia pointedly: “Give me land. I need land here to establish a ranch. I will share the profits.”

    This was not a passing political gesture; it was an open invitation for structural reform, a practical step toward solving the root cause of the conflict, which the Tor Tiv had earlier identified as land-related tensions. Tinubu’s response was both economic and visionary: “If we learn how to share and how to accommodate, we have enough land to feed, to raise our children, to cultivate happiness and prosperity.”

    Throughout the town hall, the President emphasized unity, tolerance, and the indivisibility of the Nigerian family. He revisited the national anthem—not for nostalgia, but for guidance. “Though tribes and tongues may differ, in brotherhood we stand,” he reminded the audience. “It must reflect in everything we do—in our character, in the economy, in sharing, in developing our people.”

    The most resonant aspect of his speech was perhaps the moral challenge he issued not only to the governor but to every stakeholder in Benue: that true leadership requires embracing all, friend or foe. “Not everybody will like you in politics,” he said. “They hate me like hell too. Well, I’m here, I am the President, and under democratic regime, I made a promise—I’ve even protected my abusers and accusers with the principle of democracy, freedom and prosperity.”

    With this, Tinubu redefined the tragedy in Yelewata not just as a security or ethnic crisis, but as a leadership test. The underlying message: the ability to transform sorrow into solutions is the true measure of statecraft.

    He did not shy away from pressing traditional rulers either. In fact, he urged them to be part of the proposed peace initiative. “We will meet in Abuja to really fashion out the nucleus of a lasting peace and I’m ready to invest in that peace. I want the traditional rulers—the Tor Tiv, the Och’Idoma, and others—to be included in this peace committee.”

    This was President Tinubu at his most impactful—wearing not just the cap of the Commander-in-Chief, but the robe of a reconciler-in-chief. His empathy was not performative. His detour to Makurdi was more than condolence—it was a strategic redirection of the state’s energies and, by extension, of the nation’s conscience.

    What must not be lost on Nigerians is how quickly and intentionally the President responded. In an era where political optics often take precedence over human impact, Tinubu’s pivot from a planned celebration in Kaduna to a mournful intervention in Benue was a reminder of what responsive governance looks like.

    In closing, his message was a powerful reassurance: “We will convert this tragedy to prosperity again and again.” Those are not just words; they are a promise, a challenge, and a new beginning for Benue.

    For a people long battered by cycles of violence and failed promises, it is perhaps too early to say if this visit will mark a turning point. But one thing is clear: in choosing to be physically present, to mourn with the bereaved, to confront security chiefs, and to propose viable solutions, President Bola Tinubu did not merely lead with authority—he led with the heart. In that moment, for the people of Yelewata, Makurdi, and beyond, that meant everything.

    Steady Hand Amidst Shadows

    While the tragic massacre in Yelewata cast a dark pall over national consciousness, President Tinubu pressed forward with a schedule that reasserted his unwavering commitment to Nigeria’s democratic evolution and developmental agenda.

    Amidst the sorrow, Tuesday brought a symbolic and strategic moment in Abuja as President Tinubu flagged off the construction of a new national headquarters for the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). The edifice, still on paper and soil, already speaks volumes about his administration’s intent to institutionalize democracy not just through rhetoric, but infrastructure.

    “This democracy is not a destination but a journey,” the President told the dignitaries, technocrats, and political stakeholders in attendance. And in that sentence lies the core of Tinubu’s leadership philosophy—a forward momentum anchored in building, both literally and institutionally. He was clear: the INEC headquarters is not just bricks and mortar, but “about the strength of our democracy, the independence of our institutions, and the future of our electoral integrity.”

    In one of his more resonant remarks at the ceremony, Tinubu charged contractors and engineers to not merely construct a building but “build trust in our nation.” Such is the President’s view of statecraft—every gesture, every policy, and every project must restore confidence and anchor hope.

    Thursday saw the President in Kaduna State, a visit that was previously postponed due to his emergency trip to Benue. His return to Kaduna was not just a political formality—it was a testimony to continuity and commitment. And it turned out to be a showcase of progress.

    He commissioned a slew of projects under Governor Uba Sani’s administration, from a 300-bed specialist hospital to a fleet of 100 CNG buses, new roads, and a vocational institute. Each project symbolized what the President would later articulate as the future of Nigerian governance: youth empowerment, peace, and sub-national development.

    “Skills development… is an example the sub-nationals should follow,” Tinubu said, noting that his administration would soon unveil a national agenda on youth skills and food sovereignty. He did not just laud Kaduna’s achievements—he positioned them as a benchmark, a direction for other states to emulate.

    But perhaps the most poignant moment came when he reflected on Kaduna’s transformation from a hotspot of insecurity to a beacon of peace. Recalling how military-grade protection was required to visit Birnin-Gwari during his campaign days, Tinubu shared with visible relief that “you can now move around without fear.”

    And with that, the week ended where it began—with solemnity, but also with steps taken toward nation-building. From honouring Nigeria’s fathers and elder statesmen like General Abdulsalami Abubakar (rtd), to recognising reformers like Taiwo Oyedele, to correcting historical oversights by awarding national honours to figures like Col. Dangiwa Umar, President Tinubu maintained a deliberate rhythm: affirming Nigeria’s democratic character, strengthening its institutions, and building the peace and prosperity that Nigerians so deeply deserve.

    For President Tinubu, it seems, leadership is not the absence of adversity—it is the courage to build even in its midst.

  • July 29, 1966 and Gen. Gowon’s convenient amnesia

    July 29, 1966 and Gen. Gowon’s convenient amnesia

    As a student of history, the recent attempts by General Yakubu Gowon to revise history and distance himself from a number of hideous  events including the overthrow and assassination of his boss and the Supreme Commander, General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi in July 1966 much represents a troubling attempt to rewrite one of Nigeria’s most traumatic and tragic historical moments. His new found claims of innocence in the coup that brought him to power are not merely misleading—they are demonstrably false and constitute a profound disservice to historical truth, an attempt to insult the intelligence of the average Nigerian and pour scorn on the memory of the fallen officers.

    If General Gowon truly had no involvement in the July 29, 1966 coup, as he now claims, then the most pressing question remains unanswered: Why did he assume the position of Head of State ahead of a Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, who was unquestionably the most senior military officer at the time? This fundamental breach of military hierarchy and protocol cannot be explained away by convenient amnesia or claims of reluctant leadership.

    The military chain of command is sacrosanct, and any deviation from it requires extraordinary circumstances or deliberate manipulation. Brigadier Ogundipe’s seniority was well-established, and his assumption of leadership would have been the natural and legitimate course of action following Ironsi’s death. That Gowon leapfrogged over him suggests not passive acceptance of circumstances, but active participation in the conspiracy that brought about the change in leadership.

    READ ALSO: How we contracted infections using school toilets – Pupils

    The ruse that Northern soldiers refused to take orders from a senior officer who was not of Northern origin remains laughable and even if it is true that they did, were Northern officers the only persons in the army, truth remains that Gowon was an active participant in that coup and he got his reward from the bullet ridden bodies of Ironsi, Fajuyi and his comrades in arms.

    While General Ironsi was being brutally tortured and murdered in Ibadan—beaten “like a common criminal” as contemporaneous accounts describe—where was Lieutenant Colonel Gowon? He was in Lagos, ostensibly going about his duties while his Supreme Commander was being subjected to the most degrading treatment imaginable. This geographical separation cannot absolve him of complicity; rather, it suggests a carefully orchestrated plan where different actors played their assigned roles.

    What concrete steps did Gowon take to prevent the coup? He claimed in that interview that he tried to warn Ironsi! Where are his alibis if he did so? How do we correlate this story with Alex Madiebo’s version in which he, Madiebo reported the coup plot, ably led by Gowon to Ironsi, who in turn out of naivety called in Gowon and asked that Madiebo repeat his allegation which Gowon denied. Again, when it became clear that mutinous officers were moving against the government? What efforts did he make to rally loyal troops to defend the constitutional order? In the first coup of January 15, 1966, Gowon rallied troops to rescue the likes of Remi Fani Kayode, but in that of July 29th 1966, the same Gowon sat astride like some lame duck while his supreme commander and brother officers were killed.

    The July 1966 coup was not merely a military putsch—it was part of a broader campaign of ethnic violence that saw the systematic massacre of Igbo and other Eastern Region civilians across Northern Nigeria. Gowon’s claims of non-involvement ring particularly hollow when considered against his inaction during these pogroms. As a senior military officer with significant influence, his failure to use his position to protect innocent civilians represents either gross dereliction of duty or tacit approval of the violence.

    The interconnected nature of the coup and the pogroms cannot be divorced from each other. They were part of a coordinated effort to allegedly take revenge for a coup a majority of Igbo and other Eastern Region officers and civilians knew nothing about following the January 1966 coup. Gowon’s emergence as the beneficiary of this violence cannot be explained as mere coincidence.

    Perhaps most damning is the documented interaction between Gowon and a minister regarding whether the remnants of the Balewa Cabinet had indeed handed over power to Ironsi. In that exchange, Gowon had probed the minister  on whether the rump of parliament had peacefully handed over power to Ironsi, such inquiry reveals a man intimately concerned with the legitimacy and legal foundations of the government he was about to overthrow. By establishing that Ironsi had forced the rump to hand over power to him, not because he Ironsi was amongst the plotters but owing to the fact that he could not guarantee civilian control over the mutinous soldiers, particularly when an Nzeogwu was lurking in the North and thinking of marching down south to finish off what Ifeajuna and co had bungled. Why would someone uninvolved in a coup be making such specific inquiries about constitutional succession? This question exposes the premeditation behind Gowon’s eventual assumption of power.

    The most revealing aspect of this entire episode is the documented plan for Northern secession from Nigeria, which would have preceded Gowon’s assumption of power. His infamous statement that “there was no basis for Nigeria’s unity” was not made in a vacuum—it was part of a calculated strategy to justify the North’s withdrawal from the federation.

    Only when it became clear that secession would not serve Northern interests as effectively as controlling the entire federation did the strategy change. Gowon’s rapid transformation from an advocate of disunity to a champion of “One Nigeria” reveals the opportunistic nature of his political calculations. The correlation between the planned secession and his eventual emergence as Head of State is too strong to be coincidental.

    Gowon’s current denials fit a disturbing pattern of Nigerian political leaders who refuse to take responsibility for their roles in the country’s tragic history. By claiming innocence in events that brought him to power, he insults the intelligence of Nigerians and dishonors the memory of those who died during that dark period.

    The fact that Major Murtala Muhammed was the operational leader of the coup does not absolve Gowon of responsibility. Military coups, particularly successful ones, require coordination at multiple levels and the complicity of key figures who may not be directly involved in the operational aspects but whose support or acquiescence is essential for success.

    What makes Gowon’s denials particularly troubling is their timing and context. Rather than using his advanced age and the passage of time to reflect honestly on past mistakes and seek reconciliation, he has chosen to perpetuate falsehoods that prevent  future Nigerians from achieving the closure necessary for true national healing.

    History will judge whether Gowon was a reluctant leader thrust into circumstances beyond his control or a calculating participant in a conspiracy that fundamentally altered Nigeria’s trajectory. The evidence strongly suggests the latter, and his current attempts to sanitize his role only compound the original offense.

    General Gowon’s recent statements represent more than historical revisionism—they constitute a dance on the graves of Ironsi, Fajuyi, a number of brother officers and the countless civilians who died during the pogroms of 1966. Perhaps he is indeed haunted by the blood that was shed to bring him to power, but rather than confronting these ghosts with honesty and seeking forgiveness, he has chosen the path of denial and deflection.

    The Nigerian people deserve better from their former leaders. They deserve truth, accountability, and the kind of honest reflection that might finally allow the country to heal from the wounds of 1966. Instead, they are presented with convenient amnesia and protestations of innocence that insult both their intelligence and the memory of the dead.

    If General Gowon truly wishes to contribute to Nigeria’s healing, he should abandon these false or convenient amnesia narratives and engage in the difficult but necessary work of honest historical reflection. Only then can Nigeria begin to move beyond the tragic legacy of 1966 and build the united, peaceful nation that Ironsi, Fajuyi, and countless others died believing was possible.

  • Did the Israeli attack anticipate the Iranian response?

    Did the Israeli attack anticipate the Iranian response?

    George Lakoff and Mark Johnson’s famous 1980 book has an interesting title: Metaphors We Live By. The book is of the view that metaphor (the indirect comparison of two or more things which share one or more features) reflects or influences how people think and what they do. In this regard, metaphor is related to stereotypes (uncritical assumptions and positive or negative over-generalisations) and myths (ideas which are based on long-standing or widespread fascination, fear or awe).

    Metaphors, stereotypes and myths have been on ample display since 13 June, 2025 when Israel carried out a surprise attack on Iran. According to the Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the attack was carried out to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, Israel itself is widely believed to have hundreds of nuclear weapons, and it has refused to admit or deny its possession of these weapons in media interviews. Israel has also refused the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) access to its nuclear research facilities, and has declined to sign the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

    Apart from being used to produce offensive weapons, nuclear capabilities can be put to peaceful uses for human well-being, especially to provide access to alternative energy sources for overall development. Such peaceful uses of nuclear resources are approved by the IAEA. For a country to seek to prevent another sovereign one from developing its nuclear capabilities or even possess nuclear weapons, while the aggressor nation possesses those capabilities, is therefore an overreach and amounts to a usurpation of the regulatory duty of the IAEA.

    Some have argued that the best thing for humanity is to create a nuclear-free world, because of the unimaginable devastation that usually attends nuclear accidents or the deliberate use of nuclear weapons. Such people however contend that if the world cannot be made nuclear-free, then all countries which have the capacity to develop nuclear weapons should be free to do so, to facilitate their development and guarantee their security.

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    In fact, it has been pointed out in this regard that it is countries that do not have nuclear weapons or which agree to abandon their nuclear programmes (e.g., Iraq and Libya) that end up being attacked. Conversely, it is countries that possess nuclear weapons or stockpiles of other forms of weapons of mass destruction (e.g., Pakistan and North Korea) that appear to be safe from aggression however much such nuclear nations or their leaders may be hated or despised by some sections of the international community.

    It is for these reasons that some have argued that Iran does not actually possess nuclear weapons and is not on the verge of acquiring them. In fact, attention has been drawn to the fact that Benjamin Netanyahu has been alleging, ostensibly as a scaremongering tactic, for the past thirty-three years now, that Iran is only weeks, months or a few years away from possessing nuclear weapons.

    For example, Al Jazeerah, like CBS, noted that in 1992, as a member of parliament, Netanyahu told the Knesset that “within 3 to 5 years, we can assume that Iran will become autonomous in its ability to develop and produce a nuclear weapon.” He made related claims three years later and also in 2009 and 2012. As Al Jazeerah notes, “and, 33 years after Netanyahu’s first so-called imminent warning, Israel attacks Iran [and he said], ‘If not stopped, Iran could produce a nuclear weapon in a very short time. It could be a year. It could be within a few months.’ … That’s despite the US Director of National Intelligence saying Iran isn’t building a nuclear weapon, months earlier. … But for Netanyahu, the slogan has been the same for decades.”

    Whatever the credibility or lack of Netanyahu’s allegations may be, Israel took it upon itself to attack Iran on 13 June, 2025, and the surprise attack has wrought remarkable damage on Iran in human, intellectual and physical terms. Specifically, the attack led to the killing of top Iranian nuclear scientists, some top Iranian military personnel, Iranian civilians, and also resulted in immense physical damage.

    In spite of the devastation, Iran has not appeared to have been dazed for too long, and it didn’t seem to have had the time to mourn its dead, considering the fact that within hours of the Israeli attack, Iran started its retaliation. And it was spectacular. It launched a mass of ballistic missiles against Israel. Some were successfully intercepted by the Israeli defence system respectively metaphorically named ‘Iron Dome’, ‘David Sling’ and so on, but some of the missiles beat the Israeli defence and managed to hit their targets. Considering the ease with which these Iranian missiles seemed to have been penetrating the Israeli anti-missile system, some have claimed that rather than call it “Iron Dome”, it should be called “Paper Dome”.

    There have been speculations that as the attacks and counter-attacks continued, Iran was launching more advanced missiles which were increasingly beating the Israeli defence system. This drew attention to some metaphors of the war. The Israeli attack on Iran was code-named “Operation Rising Lion”. However, given the robust retaliation by Iran, and speculations that at some point Netanyahu had fled from Israel under pressure, and also from the images of Israelis scampering to safety as the sirens were constantly sounding, some suggested that the Israeli attack should actually have been codenamed “Operation Running Rabbit”.

        The Iranian missiles hit various strategic targets in Israel and have caused extensive damage. These include the headquarters of the Israeli military, the offices of Israel’s famed intelligence agency (MOSSAD), Tel Aviv’s Ben Gurion Airport, and the strategic Haifa Port. The Iranian missile attacks have created an unaccustomed image of devastation in Israel and widespread panic among the citizens, leading to desperate efforts to leave the country to escape the Iranian barrage. One estimate put the number of Israelis who had fled to Cyprus within the first week of the war with Iran at 30,000.

    Following Iran’s confounding response to the Israeli attack, Israel has been inviting America to join it in the war to decapitate any presumed imminent Iranian nuclear endeavours and to topple the current Iranian government. According to CNN in a 20 June, 2025 report, “Under Supreme Leader Ayatollah Kameinei, Iran has emerged as a formidable power in the Middle East and a vital counterweight to US dominance – just as China is working to expand its own diplomatic and economic footprint in the region.”

    There have been ambivalent signals from America’s President Donald Trump regarding Israel’s call, and the American ambivalence has been eliciting threats by different countries, such as Pakistan, to come to Iran’s aid, should the United States accede to Israel’s request.

     In the meantime, Pakistan has made the following demands of the United Nations Security Council as reported on 20 June, 2025: “First, categorical rejection and condemnation of Israel’s attacks on the Islamic Republic of Iran since 13th of June … Second, play its role to end the hostilities and promote de-escalation for achieving a comprehensive ceasefire before the situation spirals out of control and threatens the peace and stability of the entire region.”

    Pakistan continued: “Third, clear denunciation of the targeting of IAEA safeguarded nuclear facilities against provisions of international law and the UN Charter as reflected in the UN Security Council resolutions, IAEA resolutions and international humanitarian law including the Geneva Conventions. The Security Council must implement its own resolution 487. Fourth, call for dialogue and diplomacy to promote a peaceful and lasting resolution of the crisis. Diplomacy must be given a chance. … Regrettably, Israeli unlawful strikes against Iran came at a time of intense diplomatic engagement on Iran’s nuclear issue.”

    Meanwhile, Israel has been creating the farfetched scenario that when Iran finishes with Israel, the US will be Iran’s next target of attack. This is a further attempt to try to persuade America to join the war on the side of Israel. Moreover, as the Telegraph of 19 June, 2025 reports, “Israel has warned that missiles launched by Teheran could hit Europe as it intensified efforts to win Western support for its war with Iran in an online advertising campaign.” These propaganda efforts designed to denigrate Iran seem to be ironically lionising the country.

    A war or military attack must have a strategic objective. Was seeing Tel Aviv devasted, Haifa in ruins, and Ben Gurion Airport shattered a strategic objective of Netanyahu’s 13 June, 2025 surprise attack on Iran? Was exploding the myth of the unmatchable Israeli intelligence as symbolised by MOSSAD and the shattering of the stereotype of the invincibility of the Israeli military one of Netanyahu’s strategic objectives? Was shredding the close to a century of cutting-edge research as represented by the destruction of the Weizmann Institute Netanyahu’s strategic goal? Was seeing Israelis die and making Israelis feel unsafe in Israel an anticipated outcome?

    As a Yoruba proverb cautions, war is not like a delicious dish to be relished by either the person serving it or the person to which it is served. Another Yoruba proverb admonishes that it’s the beginning of war that we know; we never know how it will end. It is therefore never out of fashion to preach and maintain peace.