The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • Professor Diji Aina on factionalism, economic parasitism and state fragility (1)

    Professor Diji Aina on factionalism, economic parasitism and state fragility (1)

    Although his inaugural lecture interestingly delivered on the ninth day of March in the ninth year of his promotion to the rank of professor at the Babcock University some six years ago in 2016, Professor Diji Aina’s dissection of the phenomenon of factionalism, economic parasitism and state fragility with particular reference to Africa and Nigeria specifically is one of the most exhaustive and insightful searchlights on the subject that I have read. The issues raised in the lecture are ever so refreshingly relevant to the push and pull of communal life in diverse polities across time and space. Titled ‘Factionalism, Economic Vampires and the Fragile State’, the discourse analyses diverse forms of cooperative and thus healthy factionalism as well as competitive, conflict-laden and thus dysfunctional  factionalism in polities ranging from South Korea, Eastern Europe and Latin America, Western Europe, the United States of America and of course Africa.

    Although some scholars have an essentially atomistic view of man as an isolated individual fundamentally preoccupied with the selfish pursuit particularly of his existential material interest at the expense of others, the philosophical basis of the ‘economic man’ of capitalist society, man is basically a social or political animal in Aristotelian terms whose life can only be meaningful in his relationship with other fellow homo sapiens. The imperative of living in society since man is not created to live a Robinson Crusoe-type of self-reliant existence makes the interaction of individuals with others in society inevitable essentially through the formation of groups which may be economic, religious, cultural, military, professional, educational, ethnic, leisure-related or, of course, political in nature.

    The political association in the form of the political party in democratic polities’ is perhaps the pre-eminent group in society since it competes with other like groups for the control of state power and the legitimate authority to coordinate and allocate values as well as determine, in the formulation of the political scientist, Harold Lasswell, who gets what, when and how in the societal distribution of resources even though he is criticized for not paying sufficient attention to the production of those resources as well as how much goes to the constitutive classes of society.

    Stressing the inevitability of factionalism in organized society, Professor Aina notes that the phenomenon “is an integral part of the political process whether in corporate political settings, autocracy or democracy. Party politics globally has served only as a tool of factional strategy in order to achieve political power. In other words, party politics depended on factionalism because the goal of party politics has been about access to power, the route to economic resources”. He sheds further light on the concept of factionalism stating that “Whereas in the cooperative and competitive typologies, the State is strengthened; in the degenerative model, the fragility of the state is seriously highlighted. For instance, factionalism contributed to political paralysis of the Soviet Union in the late 1970s, delayed Gorbachev’s political reforms in the 1980s, made the prospect of Obama’s last two years dull, and created an ugly scenario in 2015 in Nigeria’s national politics, thereby stultifying the change mantra”.

    Read Also: Elebuibon: Why there’s growing urge for money rituals

    Incidentally, for the first phase of governance in post-colonial Africa, the fractious character of democratic politics as captured by Professor Aina’s conception of factionalism bred a distrust for liberal democracy with some of the modernization theorists such as Samuel Huntington at the time in the early 60s and 70s,  perceiving and promoting the military, for instance, with its supposed organizational attributes of discipline, efficiency, primacy on order, hierarchy and promptness as a modernizing agent through what was described as ‘developmental dictatorship’. It was this same kind of rationalization that sought to justify the rash of military, one-party and one-man dictatorships across Africa at the time that was perceived as more suited for the attainment of Africa’s desired rapid development than the rancorous debates, noisy disputations, intra-party disputes and inter-party conflicts and protracted legislative deliberations characteristic of liberal democracy, a scenario vividly captured by Professor Aina’s conception of factionalism, which was seen as unduly distracting and obstructive of accelerated transformation in underdeveloped societies needing fast-paced transformation.

    It took bitter experience for African and other underdeveloped countries to see that imposing the peace and seeming order of the graveyard on a polity in the quest for development, rather than being a sure and speedy route to development, bred pervasive corruption, drove grievance, dissension and faction underground, inevitably nurtured political persecution, oppression and pernicious human rights abuse while worsening instability and deepening underdevelopment.

    In Nigeria since 1999, for instance, the most intense forms of intra-party disputations, political disagreements, poor governance, degenerative violence, unbridled corruption among other perverse manifestations of the political process have not tempted Nigerians to desire a return to military or any other form of dictatorship. Sometimes chaotic factionalism is increasingly being seen as an integral part of political contestation in a free and plural society and society must incrementally and systematically develop the capacity to manage such within the prism of democratic culture, institutions and processes.

    Illustrated throughout Professsor Aina’s lecture is the thesis that “Factions are ubiquitous aspects of life. From the Caudillos of Latin America where, according to Lewis (2006) strong colorful personalities impose their will on the people through the “hyper-presidential” system to political paralysis leading to Mikhail Gorbachev reform politics of the 1980s in the defunct Soviet Union to the gridlock cum divided government of the United States, factions have either strengthened or weakened the state”. But while relatively strong institutions as well as restraining moral or cultural values have been able to help contain the dysfunctional and disruptive consequences of governmental gridlock or democratic decay in advanced democracies such as Donald Trump’s America or Boris Johnson’s United Kingdom, factionalism has had more devastating and destructive consequences in underdeveloped polities like Nigeria.

    As Professor Aina explains, “Unlike in the United States where the political system is confronted by a gridlock and a divided government arising from multiplicity of interest groups and policy options, the Nigerian space is perforated by rampaging economic vampires, predatory elite gangs and a disoriented civic populace whose mind is sold to a complex web of patrons”. The economic parasitism of the political elite described by the professor as ‘rampaging political vampires’ is thus the key explanatory variable that links extreme and divisive factional contestations in Nigeria to state fragility and debilitating underdevelopment.

    As he pungently makes the point, “The concept of vampire is mythological. It conveys the idea of an entity or being whose goal is sucking out the life essence (i.e. blood or life sustaining fluid) of other living beings. In this lecture, we use economic vampires to represent all agents of the State and non-State actors who fuel factional flames and fan the embers of degenerative politics with the ultimate goal of preying on the economy. They come as political and economic entrepreneurs, multi-national corporation actors as well as other entities and persons whose apotheosis is putting profit ahead of all other goals and to the exclusion of ethical and moral considerations”.   In the concluding part of this essay, we will relate Professor Aina’s ideas to the character of politics, paralysis of governance, decay of values, heightened state fragility and developmental degeneracy in Nigeria’s fourth Republic with particular attention on the forthcoming general elections.

  • Rivers: Beyond emergency rule

    Rivers: Beyond emergency rule

    Six months will pass like a flash of lightning. Unless the right lessons are learnt and the warriors in the Rivers jungle embrace reason and retrace their steps from the path of perdition, the Southsouth state may still be back to square one at the end of the emergency rule.

    The advantage of the critical interregnum is that oil-rich Rivers State is steered away from violence that may cripple socio-economic and political life. An imminent harm to the national economy was also averted.

    While Governor Siminalayi Fubara and some politicians are still grumbling over the emergency regulations, the people have heaved a sigh of relief. There is peace in Port Harcourt and other parts of the state, and residents – the ordinary man in the street- are carrying on with their daily activities without let or hindrance.

    During the emergency period, tension would be further doused because there is no room for the misuse of power and authority by the suspended governor and the lawmakers. The governor and the aggrieved lawmakers are temporarily off the radar of influence, having been boxed to regrets and sober reflection. They now have an opportunity for the remission of sins and amendment of behaviour.

    The access to the state purse is suspended. Without power, politicians are empty, like a carcass without life and strength. Power is transient, and no condition is permanent.

    During this period, Fubara should be tutored by experienced politicians and statesmen to adjust to the requirements of politics and governance. The onus is on him to do away with the arrogance of power and disdain for the structure that threw him up and catapulted him from the back to the front seat. He needs assistance to overcome some adjustment difficulties associated with his change of status – from a top civil servant to a top political leader who is expected to work harmoniously with other leaders in the state.

    Read Also; Rivers crisis and the perils of unwisdom

    The governor also needs to adjust to the blow of fate and see this period as another learning process.

    The emergency administrator is not in Rivers to pamper anybody, although he is expected to maintain neutrality in the dispute. An experienced top military officer, retired Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas would brook no opposition. His charge is to maintain peace, by peaceful means and force, and he is answerable, not to the divided leaders of Rivers but to the distant Federal Government  in Abuja, the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    The retired naval officer was carefully selected for the job. He is conversant with the coastal region and the antics of troublemakers in the creeks. Therefore, vandals, thugs and other miscreants should beware. Lamentably, he is not in Rivers to initiate or really implement developmental projects dictated by popular yearnings and need analysis. Admiral Ibas was recalled from his blissful retirement to take on the restrictive burden of restoring peace in a state of pandemonium where commonsense, objectivity, and logic had taken flight. His assignment is to ensure that the jungle does not mature again.

    Here lies the huge cost of the emergency rule, which the combatants brought upon their state through their apathy to reconciliation and harmony, the threat of violence, recourse to economic sabotage, and disrespect for the Constitution, the rule of law, and due process.

    Democracy is partially crippled in the interim, and the blame goes to the polarised political class and the elders in the state who took sides and fueled the embers of disunity, instead of whipping the fighters into line through the deployment of moral weapons. It is ironic that elders who advised Fubara to jettison the peace pact initiated by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu later ran back to him in Aso Villa to save Rivers.

    As the House of Assembly is put in abeyance, democratic representation is also on hold – by federal fiat. It is noteworthy that the governor, who had forgotten the principle of separation of powers taught to him by his secondary school government teacher, plunged the state into chaos by derecognising the legislature, which is the first and the most important organ of government in a democracy.

    As the legislative complex was demolished and 27 lawmakers were unable to do the work assigned to them by their constituencies under the constitution, popular rule was emasculated and the constitution, the ground norm, was murdered in broad daylight.

    The casualties are the people. They were governed by ‘a government at half’ presided over by a governor who had become a divisive and destabilising factor. Fubara was aided by illegal commissioners and other members of the State Executive Council whose appointments were not approved by the Parliament.

    Historians will record that Gen-Z Governor Fubara of Rivers displayed a glaring naivety. His lack of tact and wisdom in handling his former political leader, Nyesom Wike, who has proved to be a veteran of political warfare in the state and his polarised Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), landed him in a pile of thorns. His bruised body and ego will take some time to heal if he gets out sober and educated. 

    The governor has more stakes. He has plans to consolidate his hold on the state. He is also gazing at 2027 for a second term. When he started the war of attrition, little did he guess, as a political rookie, that it would tax him to the brim. It was an avoidable confrontation.

    Did his Ahitophelean advisers ever imagine the raging fire in the corridor of power threatening to consume his tenure? If he must fight, why did he not fight in accordance with the law? How can the money illegally spent without appropriation be accounted for? Who takes the blame for the violation of laid-down constitutional procedures?

    Rivers may be at a snail’s speed for six months. Project execution may be unduly slowed down. Domestic and foreign investors can hardly explore the abundant opportunities in a tension-soaked environment. A crisis is not a positive factor in considering an environment conducive to development. Federal Government agencies and donor partners may even suspend collaboration till September.

    If the emergency rule is extended, it will take a big toll on those at war in varying degrees. The situation that would warrant an extension should be avoided by all means. After September, another six months would destabilise plans for strengthening political structures by the embattled governor and make him more vulnerable. Without deep experience and skills, the chance of political liquidation would be high as the state enters the preparation period for 2027 electioneering.

    The solution offered by the emergency rule is temporary unless the two sides settle the protracted conflicts on their own. What will be the status of the Supreme Court judgment in the light of the emergency period, especially the order withholding allocations to the state due to a lack of budget?

    After six months, what next?

    Unless the governor and the lawmakers reach a compromise on certain issues, the likelihood exists that they will resume hostilities and the Federal Government, which had hinted about the prospects of an extension, may find the justification for keeping Admiral Ibas in Port Harcourt for a longer period.

    The emergency rule does not invalidate the pre-existing impeachment move, which had jolted the pro-Fubara forces out of their delusion that the governor was immovable. Already, the verdict of the apex court had prepared the ground for his removal. The lawmakers obviously leaned on the strength of the final judgment in drawing up the 19 sins of Fubara, the gross misconduct that cannot be ignored. It, therefore, implies that the governor needs help from far and near.

    Mending the cracks in the wall of brotherhood is challenging. Political and social relationships have been crippled. Therefore, dialogue is crucial, and on this matter, the governor would be negotiating from the position of weakness as the aggressor and despot that has been momentarily caged by the law,  judicial pronouncement and the emergency rule.

    His ego is deflated. But Fubara should see it as a price to pay for leadership. He should see it as an opportunity to learn, re-learn and rise after his fall.

    The governor  should realise that having courageously endured so many ordeals and obstacles he had thrown on the path of the legislature in the last one and a half years, the lawmakers are likely to remain united in their bid to collectively weather the storm to the end. They have a formidable pillar of support and a backbone that cannot be broken easily. The governor’s predecessor and benefactor, the powerful and influential Minister of Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Nyesom Wike,  has conquered opposition forces – so far. He has resisted intimidation and overcome conspiracies.

    However, despite being in a position of relative strength, the lawmakers should apply the brakes from their understandable hardline posture and cooperate with the governor in fully complying with and implementing the court judgment. If the governor wants to faithfully implement the court judgement after the emergency rule, they should not resist him. They should not create hinderance. They should consider the interests of their state and the people they claim to serve. The conflict should not be allowed to fester permanently.

    The governor should take the initiative. He can also be assisted by well-meaning and neutral elders who have the interest of the state at heart.

    There are two possibilities. Reason may prevail and the governor and the lawmakers may amicably resolve the conflicts. There is no permanent friend or foe in politics; only permanent interest.

    Also, the governor and the lawmakers may shun dialogue and peaceful resolution. Then, the initial six months would be extended.

    The first option is better. It is in the interest of the people of Rivers.

  • Rivers crisis and the perils of unwisdom

    Rivers crisis and the perils of unwisdom

    There are those who have sought to draw parallels between Prime Minister, Alhaji Tafawa Balewa’s declaration of a State Of Emergency in the Western Region in the First Republic and the dissolution of the region’s democratic institutions and President Bola Tinubu’s similar action this week to address the obvious drift to anarchy in Rivers State where a debilitating political crisis had festered paralyzing governance for the better part of the last one and a half years. However, it is not a particularly accurate attempt at establishing historical equivalence.

    The State of Emergency imposed on the Western Region by the ruling Northern Peoples Congress (NPC)/National Council of Nigerian Citizens (NCNC) coalition at the centre was a premeditated and calculated plan by the federal government to obstruct, disrupt and dismantle democratic governance in the West, dislodge the ruling Action Group (AG) in the region, politically castrate the leader of the AG, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, who as Leader of the Opposition was perceived as an implacable thorn in the flesh of the ruling federal coalition and impose on the region a servile leadership more amenable to external control and manipulation.

    Thus, it was not the declaration of the State of Emergency in 1962 that instigated the widespread violence and unrest (operation wetie) that engulfed the Western Region and ultimately resulted in the collapse of the First Republic but rather the brazen rigging of the 1964 Western Regional elections that sought to foist the unpopular SLA Akintola-led Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP) on the people. In the Western Region, there was no breakdown of law and order anywhere in the region that prompted Balewa’s action but an instigated fracas by the minority in the Western Regional House of Assembly to prevent the majority from exercising its constitutional right to remove the Premier, Chief SLA Akintola, from office and appoint a new Premier. Balewa’s action in the West was the equivalent of a coup de tat which President Tinubu’s intervention in the continuously degenerating crisis in Rivers State could by no means be described as being.

    Read Also: Court halts INEC from processing recall petition against Senator Natasha

    In Rivers State, the protracted crisis between the immediate past governor of the state and now Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Mr Nyesom Wike, and his successor, Sir Similayi Fubara, had resulted in the criminal demolition of the premises of the state legislature to prevent the suspected planned impeachment of the governor, the consequent incapacitation of the legislature, the running of the affairs of the state with four out of 32 legislators, the holding of local government elections in defiance of a court order all culminating in the Supreme Court judgement of Friday, February 28, that stripped the Fubara government of any veneer of legitimacy.

    In the aftermath of the apex court decision, the majority faction of the legitimated Assembly initiated moves to commence the impeachment of Fubara and his Deputy which elicited threats by some militant ethnic-based groups to unleash violence in the state including the sabotage and crippling of the country’s vital oil pipelines. Governor Fubara himself had earlier, during the commissioning of a project, asked youths in the state to be calm and wait for instructions which would be given at the appropriate time. A few hours before President Tinubu declared the State of Emergency and suspended the executive and legislative arms of government, there had been explosions on at least two critical oil pipelines in the state and with no record of the governor as Chief Security Officer of the State warning against such actions or even convening a security council meeting to deliberate on strategies to contain the situation and prevent further deterioration.

    It is needless here to join the now largely academic debate on whether or not the President should have acted preemptively to avoid a descent to anarchy or the appropriateness of suspending democratic structures when declaring a State Of Emergency when a conflict between the executive and legislature in the state is central to the crisis.

    At the root of the crisis that has resulted in the unfortunate paralysis of democracy in Rivers State at least for the next six months in the first instance, is the self-sabotaging unwisdom of the contending individuals and groups in the politics of the state and this is not a characteristic that is peculiar to Rivers State. Rather, it is a feature of the political behaviour and culture of Nigeria’s political class across time and space which has led to debilitating systemic breakdowns at various times in the country’s political evolution.

    There is no doubt that the verdict of the Supreme Court amounted in reality to a decisive and massive victory for the pro-Wike forces in their battle with Fubara for the control of the soul of Rivers State. But was it a sign of wisdom or even strategic astuteness for them to have continued to push for the impeachment of the governor when they had him practically trapped and at their mercy? Moreso,  Fubara had already shown signs of softening his hard-line stance and stated his preparedness to implement the decisions of the Supreme Court, a matter in which he had little choice in any case. From the limited but significant triumph that the Supreme Court judgement meant to them, Wike and his supporters wanted overwhelming victory and the total political vanquishing of their opponents in Rivers State including the impeachment or maximum humiliation of the governor. It was unnecessary.

    Writing on the conflict between Awolowo and Akintola that degenerated to anarchy in the Western Region with all sides ultimately losing out, Professor Larry Diamond noted that “But neither was the Awolowo faction impressive in its commitment to the democratic rules of the game. While less flagrant in its abuses, it, too, manipulated the system in dubious ways for short-term gain: desperately trying to avoid a dissolution of the Western House that would necessitate a new election, secretly removing Akintola through petition before a House meeting, and rejecting, at every crucial point before the Emergency when it had the upper hand, any real compromise with Akintola”. Diamond could well have been talking about the Wike faction which squandered the upper hand that the Supreme Court judgement gave it and pursued a course of action that could most likely have led to widespread violence but for the President’s State of Emergency that demobilized all the contending factions.

    None of this is to downplay the gravity of the Governor’s constitutional infractions which were appropriately articulated by the Attorney-General of the Federation, Mr Lateef Fagbemi (SAN). Supervising the demolition of the House of Assembly structure and relocating the four legislators loyal to him to operate from the government house and illegally pass the state’s appropriation bill as well as approve the list of commissioners constitute the height of impunity. There is also the moral question of the governor turning so viciously and vehemently against his predecessor without whose support he could never have attained the position. But the unwisdom in Mr Wike’s widely perceived extremist utterances, his uncompromising stance and sometimes disdainful and dismissive attitude to the governor and his supporters elicited some degree of sympathy for Fubara who was perceived as the underdog.

    Beyond this, the conflict between the two had begun to assume ethnic undertones that could have complicated matters and aggravated the possibility of violence had attempts to impeach the governor continued. The truth is that Wike most likely acted impulsively in supporting Fubara as his successor rather than with the requisite care, diligence and meticulous consideration needed for such a decision. Having made that grievous error which revealed his inability to correctly assess and judge human character and leadership potential, the Minister should have handled the fallout in a less combustible manner and in a way that would not constitute a political liability for President Tinubu given his key position as a member of the Federal Executive Council (FEC).

    On his part, Fubara’s inability to more subtly and strategically manage his relationship with his predecessor and benefactor no matter the excesses of the latter exposes his naivety, political inexperience and deficiency of emotional intelligence. It is also a measure of his leadership capability that he has been unable to utilize the influence of his office to win greater support from the legislative arm of government but chose to antagonize the majority of the legislators till everybody was sent packing at least for six months. He is the greatest loser in the unfolding scenario in Rivers State and will most likely find out that most of those that urged him on in his confrontation with Wike were doing so not out of any sense of loyalty or commitment but for what they could benefit materially from the position he occupied. Sadly, the various leaders and elders in the state also took positions not dictated by the common good of the people of Rivers State but considerations of personal interest.

    At the inception of the crisis, President Tinubu convened a meeting of the contended parties with elders and respected statesmen from the state in attendance with a view to finding an amicable solution to the crisis. Unfortunately, the terms of the agreement which all the parties signed to at the meeting was subsequently jettisoned with people digging into entrenched and inflexible positions until the President wielded the big stick. But given his considerable political experience, strategic astuteness and the weight and authority of his office, President Tinubu is still in the best position to broker an acceptable peace that can usher Rivers State back to normalcy and such a feat will earn him considerable political capital.

    The Vanguard newspaper in its editorial of Tuesday, March 18, advised that “In this kind of situation, “might” may not be”right “. The two sides may not be in the mood to exercise diplomacy and implement the verdict through consensus. That was exactly the situation that the Lagos Assembly men and women found themselves in until the President intervened in a fatherly manner. We call on him to adopt the same attitude towards the implementation of the Supreme Court verdict in Rivers State”.

    In conclusion, the Vanguard suggested that “the President holds private talks with Governor Fubara and Minister Wike and commit them to peace and hold them responsible in case of a breach of the peace. …No side should be allowed to push its luck too far. Everything must be done to preserve the peace”. President Tinubu can break the vicious cycle of unwisdom in Rivers.

  • World Cup, our birthright?

    World Cup, our birthright?

    Super Eagles players are cruel. They repeatedly toy with our emotions with their lackadaisical attitude towards most of the matches leading to grabbing the qualification tickets to big international competitions such as the World Cup, Africa Cup of Nations etc. They report late to the camp, with many of them opting to go home to ‘flex’ as they say it in the discotheque parlance after the early release by the European clubs to play for their countries, in this case, Nigeria.

    These over-pampered players only get to be serious when the country’s chances of qualifying for competitions become dicey as if other countries should wait for them to wake up from their slumber. How can Nigeria play in a group that has Lesotho, Benin Republic, Zimbabwe and South Africa and we can’t win a game after four matches? Yet, we want to go to the 2026 FIFA World Cup. DEY PLAY!

    When they eventually decide to head for the camp, they show no remorse over their unbecoming attitude which always leaves the coaches with the short part of the stick whenever the results of the matches go awry. Sadly, it is the coaches who carry the brunt when the team loses or draws. Ironically, these boys get applause when Nigeria wins games. Our players rudely behave as if they are doing Nigerians a favour with their nauseating performances, forgetting that most of them gained international prominence playing for the country’s age-grade teams or/and playing for Nigerian clubs in domestic tournaments from where they are selected to represent the country in big international, continental, regional and national soccer competitions.

    The disturbing scenario of our players’ lateness to the Super Eagles camp is clearly noticeable when the team’s Head Coach is at the helm with the football federation’s officials unable to stem the slide. However, as we can see, these boys arrived in camp in Kigali on time with no stories of missed flights etc which underlines my earlier comment that these are cruel. I have chosen to do this column on Wednesday such that one can provide Eric Chelle with the background on why he must serve each player the team’s code of conduct book, going forward. The arrival in Kigali, without any iota of doubt gave Chelle the platform to have enough training sessions to set his plans for the Wasp of Rwanda on Friday irrespective of the outcome of the game which would have been known. I have taken the risk to discuss some of the problems that have kept Nigeria’s chances of securing Group C’s sole qualification ticket, which ordinarily should be a piece of cake, given our players’ exploits in the game all over the world. What our inept officials fail to realise when they make assurances about our abilities to grab the sole ticket is that three countries have seven points each before our game in Kigali. This makes it more precarious for us to achieve if we are to look at the group objectively based on how the countries have played in their last four matches. Until the Rwanda game on Friday evening in Kigali, Nigeria had only a miserable three points. Benin have seven points like Rwanda until their Friday (yesterday’s ) game against Zimbabwe. Or do they think it is only Nigeria who would improve on her poor standing?

    Read Also: World Cup 26: Tuchel begins England reign  today against Albania

    The NFF people, unrepentant optimists of the Super Eagles and indeed like minds, should stop evaluating our chances of snatching the group’s sole qualification ticket in isolation of what others are likely to do with their remaining matches. It would be unwise for Nigeria to discount the South Africans who would be laying siege for us when we hit Johannesburg for the return game. Have we forgotten that Zimbabwe play their home games in South Africa. Do we expect them to beat Bafana Bafana at home? If yes, then show me a virgin as a maternity patient.

    I always feel like throwing up reading some of our players’ pre-match interviews, promising victories, only to deceive us with their shambolic displays, losing to countries who don’t have the quality, exposure and experience of our players who rule their world playing for their European clubs. We haven’t been able to run the rule over these kinds of players, preferring to heap the blame on the system that throws up incompetent sports administrators with their misrule. A body that was indebted to the players, coaches and backroom staff for 29 matches spanning into years can’t be said to be efficient. A body which doesn’t see anything wrong in taking two jets on a round trip amounting to N400 million, doesn’t understand the meaning of being prudent with funds. If only Nigeria had a national carrier. Pity!

    The Rwandans didn’t come to Uyo for the first leg with two charter jets to beat Nigeria 2-1 inside the Stadium of Champions, Uyo in 2024. I wonder what those busybodies’ would be doing in Kigali to necessitate their presence at the stadium. The two jets we were told were to convey spectators to the match venue on match day and back to the country after the game. Is that all they would do? One is forced to ask how players who played the game would relax and move around inside the aircraft on a loaded flight. What would they be telling the players  in the event that we don’t win the game (God forbid), which is the only result to get to rekindle our hopes for Group C’s sole qualification ticket?

    We have imbibed this eerie habit of leaving things late to create tension for Nigerians for issues and events others handle seamlessly. It appears we are moving closer to the stage where our fingers would be burnt. Nigeria was lucky that Zimbabwe rallied back from being down by two goals to tie the scores of the game against the Republic of Benin at 2-2 on Thursday, otherwise, Benin would have gotten 10 points instead of the eight points against their name on the points table. Can you imagine Nigeria placed behind Lesotho in the group as at Friday evening before the day’s matches? That is how poor the country’s outings have been. We can’t continue with this panicky measure every time for a tournament we had four years to prepare for.

    Once again, we are using our qualification matches to mould a team for the 2026 World and think it is fair that we snatch the group’s sole ticket simply because we are Nigeria. Who does that? The senior World Cup is a platform to showcase excellence while making the game beautiful to watch and savour. Not a forum to exhibit mediocrity. Are we not tired of going to the World to play the mandatory three-group games only to be edged out in the second round? The time to stop this tomfoolery is nigh.

    Come to think of it, is the World Cup our birthright? You tell me.

  • Opposition leaders should stop wishing away Tinubu

    Opposition leaders should stop wishing away Tinubu

    As we approach the midterm of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s tenure in office, some very important and notable opposition political parties and leaders have started attempting to put their parties in order as they prepare for alignments, build-up to the 2027 Presidential elections. This is a natural tendency during the midterm of any administration globally. Consciously or subconsciously, the crucial players have started positioning, posturing, and strategizing. So, you can say that the organic political movement towards 2027 has begun. How the movement will evolve and make the requisite impact, i.e. upstaging the incumbent, whether it is the President or the State Governors, is what remains to be seen. In my view, the opposition parties are mostly currently in tatters, due largely to the lack of internal democracy, which is basically destroying the structures of the parties. It is also true the APC has its own internal crisis (particularly at some State levels). But suffice it to say that the APC is on “high grounds” due to the power of incumbency, So, the APC is so far able to manage its crisis better.

     However, when I sit with a strategic thinking cap for the opposition, they are on “low grounds”, if you are looking at a war games scenario. Therefore, the opposition parties at this point in time should be united, consolidated, and more importantly, to demonstrate to Nigerians that they are the credible and veritable alternative. Indeed, if opposition parties have internal crises, they are unable to resolve them. Indeed, if you have presidential candidates who cannot be able to apply political sagacity and political dexterity to unify their parties. Indeed, if they cannot apply political strategy to hedge against the incursion of the ruling party, whether subliminally or directly, covertly or overtly, then what I will ask myself is, do they really have the capacity to effectively and successfully manage a diverse and highly polarized Country like Nigeria with the inherent political, social and economic challenges? Just like we have witnessed time and time again, some politicians say they can bring us all the goodies of democracy and good governance, but when they take over power, the delivery of what they promise becomes a problem. So, what I am concerned about for the opposition is that you have, the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, in the person of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu – a tested opposition political figure who has become a President. Like him, or hate him, you cannot wish President Tinubu away. He is a political colossus, and he currently has the instruments of office. Therefore, the opposition politicians should stop wishing away President Tinubu. It is by strategy, hard work, consistency, perseverance, and discipline that they can become formidable; just like President Tinubu did during his hay days as a fiery, consistent, and effective opposition figure in the political history of Nigeria. How the other political colossuses and gladiators in Nigeria are able to learn from the past and strategize, re-organize, coordinate, and consolidate themselves and their political parties, such that they can give Nigerians a veritable alternative is crucial to their success. After all, in the last 25 years, almost every leading politician has been into one incumbent political party or another opposition political party. Hence, the question is, what is the ideology? What are the principles? And what are the actual interests? Are they for Nigeria or for personal interests?

     Recently, there have been a lot of movements in the Social Democratic Party (SDP), with the likes of Mallam Nasir El-Rufai, the former Governor of Kaduna State leading the defection movements. Assuming a coalition does materialize, because according to the calculations of some people, the SDP appears to be a cohesive party at the moment. If you ask me, I don’t know how cohesive the SDP is, because it is early days yet, especially given that the SDP is a legacy Party. I wonder if the SDP will rise from its ashes like a phoenix and become a formidable political party. That remains to be seen, as the party has not had major impacts in the 25 years of the 4th Republic, especially during presidential contests. As it is, it seems as if some of the key political gladiators that are moving into SDP presumably have presidential aspirations, including the former presidential candidate of the SDP in the 2023 Presidential elections, i.e. Barrister Adewole Adebayo. He is still very much the party, and he has recently re-iterated his intention to contest to be the President of Nigeria in 2027. Having said that, in my opinion, the reason for the coalition or alliance may be the reason why the coalition will fail. Because the inordinate ambition of some key political leaders in Nigeria may thwart the substance of the opposition parties and figures from achieving their objectives.

     By the way, as a Nigerian and as a northerner, I am saying that in the interest of fairness, equity, and justice, if we don’t want to turn this country into a joke, we should align with the principles of power shift, i.e. let us allow the Southern part of Nigeria to hold on to the presidency of this country for the remaining four years after 2027. That is the way that will demonstrate seriousness for the unity, equity, and justice of the forward-thinking movement of Nigeria. The point is, we must start making those sure-footed movements in a direction, as a country. Now, coming back to the coalition, in my own opinion, I am already isolating the northern political leaders, and I am saying this with all profound respect to them, without demeaning their fundamental rights to aspire to any office in Nigeria. For instance, to say, as the elder statesmen they will practice what they preach, and allow the South to have a four-year run. Post-2027 while they prepare for 2031.

    Read Also: Nigerian Idol return for season 10 as Iyanya joins judges

     What I believe is that all political leaders in Nigeria do not have to be the President of the Country before we can add critical values. What is important is to identify the right people with the right credentials, competencies, capacities, and credibility to efficiently, effectively, and successfully lead this country in the right way; whether Muslim or Christian or whatever because indeed each one of us is adding value to the progress of Nigeria. When it comes to coalition, they need to identify common denominator issues and deal with them. Otherwise, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu will have what they call in football a “work over” (easy win) in the 2027 Presidential elections. This is because the same scenario that played out in 2023 will play out. Already we are hearing snippets that the National Secretary of the SDP is already voicing out concerns that possibly some power brokers are already trying to take his position of National Secretary in the party. Now, if that is the case, the cracks are already forming around this fragile pot before it is heated up enough to accommodate the very hot and fluid contestations it will have to contain.

     We are already in the midterm, and I was expecting re-alignments by the opposition parties that are happening now to have started earlier, so as to apply the pressures for critical reforms to happen to our electoral and judicial processes and systems, which are amongst the critical success factors for the opposition parties, for the incumbent, and for all Nigerians. All of the body movements and emotions flying high will amount to nothing if we do not have a process that will be transparent and will have the credibility to get accepted by the people of Nigeria and the international community. Consequently, it is not just about opposition leaders and parties labeling the APC as this and that. It is a national culture that needs to be dealt with. As I said earlier if opposition parties are not able to put their houses in order, doing something as simple as adhering to their political parties’ constitutions and having internal democracies; then they will not inspire confidence that some of the opposition political parties will be able to evolve and bring the changes.  As I always said, Nigerian politicians are the same actors in different costumes! Unless we change that mindset, they will continue to sell us the dummies. After all, some politicians who campaigned and told us just two years ago, that President Tinubu is the Messiah, are now telling tongue in cheek, telling us that he is a failure.

     Building up to 2027, improvements in political, electoral, and judicial processes are crucial because they will be the precursor for the improvements in the quality of the recruitment processes in Nigeria.

     In conclusion, Nigerians should recognize that the politicians alone will not bring the change that we want. It is we, the citizens who will wake up and take our individual and collective destinies in our hands and decide how we want to shape our Country. This is because all the politicians eat from the same pot, sit on the same boards, inter-marry, and in the end shake hands and hug each other no matter what. That should be food for thought.

  • How muslims write will

    How muslims write will

    Preamble

    One of the obligatory Islamic duties which most Muslims take for granted is the writing of will. For every Muslim adult, male or female, writing a will is not a matter of choice. It is statutorily obligatory. But not many Muslims know this.

    The general thinking is that writing a will is only for old people who are close to death or those who are very rich. This does not only contradict the concept of Islam about death, it also contravenes the principle laid down in Islam about will writing. No one knows when death will come. An octogenarian may continue to live while a man or woman of twenties or thirties may die. The healthy may die while the sick lives.

    The circumstances of life in this age of technology which cause death are very unpredictable. Thus, death may come to anybody at any time.

    One of the advantages of Tafsir in the sacred month of Ramadan is to disseminate knowledge especially on sensitive but fundamental issues often over-sighted by most Muslims. Writing a will is one of such issues. Will in Islam is called wasiyyah. It is a very significant means of providing a flexible instrument of transferring estate or a fraction of it to those who not heirs.

    Wassiyyah basically means a bequest of assets and debts to others after one’s death. It depicts the differences between gift given out personally and one’s behave. Unlike hibah which means a gift in one’s life time, wasiyyah is a gift delivered to the beneficiary after the death of the giver.

    In Islam, writing a will is not about bequeathal of wealth per se. It is rather more about the explanation of certain things in the life of the will writer which were not known to his or her family members, relatives and close associates. For instance, if the concerned will writer did not pay Zakah when he was able to pay it, or he was indebted but did not disclose it to his relatives or if something is entrusted to him in confidence or even if he made a promise to someone without the knowledge of his relatives, it is incumbent upon him to include such matters in his will. This is to clear any possible ambiguity or doubt about his relationship with other people while alive.

    Writing of will by Muslims is ordained by the Almighty Allah in Q.2:180 thus:

    “It is decreed that when death approaches, those of you that leave wealth shall bequeath it equitably to parents and kindred. This is a duty incumbent upon the righteous. He that alters that (the will) after hearing it shall be accountable for his crime. Allah is all-Hearing, all-knowing.”

     Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was also reported by Bukhari and Muslim as saying that “Any Muslim who has something to bequest should not pass two nights without writing his will”. And Ibn Majah also reported a narration from Jabir quoting the Prophet as saying those who die leaving will behind died in the path truth and righteousness and they shall receive the forgiveness of Allah” 

    Ordinarily, in Islam, a Muslim has no right to share his property among his off springs or relatives by his own whim. The Islamic way of bequeathing inheritance has been divinely spelt out clearly in the Qur’an. And that is a different topic entirely not to be lumped with the issue of writing will.

    Who should write a will and how?

     If a will must be written according to Islamic prescription then the writer of such a will must be a Muslim. He must have attained the age of maturity. He must be sane. He must use an understandable language and clearly identify himself in his will. He must also append his signature and date to every page of such will. There must be witnesses to the writing of the will and those witnesses must also identify themselves clearly and duly sign the space left for them in the will.

    But if the will is to be orally recorded, the voice of the will recorder must be very audible with understandable language. The executors as well as the trustees of the will must be clearly named and if necessary, described to avoid any confusion that may arise from similarity of names. In the case writing, four original copies must be produced. And one each must be given to the four appointed executors. No one of the executors must know another and no photocopy should be produced for any reason. This is to prevent any possible leakage or connivance that may lead to betrayal of trust. Every appointed executor must be an acknowledged trustworthy person of integrity.

    Read Also: ‘Nigeria imports $4b steel yearly’

    Contents of the will

     An Islamic will should contain the following facts as a matter of necessity:

    •Listing the all assets

    •Listing all liabilities including debts, unpaid Zakah, promises made but not yet fulfilled, entrusted property, illegal acquisition in the possession of the bequether. 

    •Listing the wives, the children and other legitimate beneficiaries including the parents and siblings. All these must be clearly spelt out without mentioning the amount or share due to each beneficiary. 

    •Listing of special bequest and testamentary transfer  and endowment as well as the names of the beneficiaries. All these must be clearly spelt out.

    •Appointing a guardian or trustee for minor children until such children attain maturity

    •Specific sections of the will may be addressed to the wife/wives and children

    •The will must be updated from time to time and each latest copy must be given to the trustees and the old ones withdrawn for destruction.

    •The executors must not know the trustees. And the trustees must not take part in the execution of the will. Their duty is to ensure that the executors comply with the letters of the will.

    Outside the will

     Some facts not to be included in the inheritance aspect of the will of a Muslim are as follows:

    A non-Muslim child of a Muslim will-maker or an illegitimate child or a murderer (one who kills his parent) should not be included in the list of those to inherit because they are not qualified to inherit a Muslim parent under Islamic law. If, however, the will maker feels strongly about giving his non-Muslim child something from his estate, this may be contained in the aspect concerning testamentary transfer. Ditto the non-Muslim wife and illegitimate child. But the total aggregate of what a Muslim can will out to those not qualified for inheritance should not exceed one third of the entire estate after the deduction of debts.

    The idea of one third came about from a conversation between Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and Sa’d bn Abi Waqqas. The latter had sought the Prophet’s permission to bequest his entire estate to certain people and groups. The Prophet said ‘NO’. He, (Waqqas), then said what of half? And the Prophet said ‘NO’. Then he said what of half? The Prophet at that stage reluctantly gave a go ahead indicating that even the one third was too much concluding that “it is better to leave your heirs rich than poor”. Thus, the final approval became a Prophetic tradition which Muslim must abide by. This means that one third is the maximum a Muslim can bequest to anybody in his will outside the inheritance bracket. 

    Islam does not allow Muslims to write bequest or make will for those who are legitimately eligible as heirs. Therefore, anybody who is qualified to inherit cannot be included in the will for any gift.

    The copies of the will may be given to banks or any other corporate institutions like courts for safe keeping without the knowledge of the beneficiaries. But there must be witnesses to the keeping of such document in bank or court. A Muslim must not wait until death approaches before he writes his will. Neither should he wait until he becomes rich before doing same. Writing a will for a Muslim must begin as soon as he marries. And what is applicable to men in this case is equally applicable to women.

  • Rivers: Beyond the emergency

    Rivers: Beyond the emergency

    Things would not have come to a head, if the gladiators had listened to the voice of reason. Both sides are to blame, though one of them will take a large chunk of it. In the past 15 months, Rivers State have been enmeshed in a crisis of immense magnitude. The President moved in early to resolve the problem, but those benefiting from the crisis did not want it settled.

    Now, with Tuesday’s declaration of a state of emergency in the state, these same people, some activists and civil society groups are questioning the rationale for the President’s action. Their argument is that he should not have suspended the democratic institutions in the state after invoking Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution on the state of emergency. If I may ask: what democratic institutions? The same ones that the Supreme Court blasted the now suspended Governor Siminalayi Fubara for “collapsing”.

    As the Supreme Court held in its February 28 judgment: the state no longer had a government in place after Fubara demolished the House of Assembly complex on December 14, 2023, and rendered the Martin Amaewhule-led 27 lawmakers ineffective and ineffectual because of his fear of being impeached. Fubara then resorted to dealing with the minority five members then led by Edison Ehie, who resigned to become his chief of staff.

    He subsequently became chummy with the rump of three or four lawmakers led by Victor Oko-Jumbo, which the three layers of the High, Appeal and Supreme Courts declared as illegally constituted since it meant only 12.5% of the people had a voice in a house of 32 members. The apex court was unequivocal in condemning the governor who it described as a despot.

    President Tinubu alluded to the apex court’s position while imposing emergency rule on the state. He said he could not in good conscience as President watch and allow things to degenerate. Since the apex court’s verdict, various Ijaw groups have been threatening ‘fire and brimstone’ if the assembly, which on Monday, served Fubara and his deputy Ngozi Odu a notice of gross misconduct impeaches him.

    Read Also: Senate probes alleged annexation of Nigerian territories by Cameroun

    Impeachment is not an offence. It is a constitutional provision which the lawmakers, if they have the number and follow strictly the procedure for removal, can use to whip a governor into line. Barely 24 hours after the notice was issued, some militants blew up oil pipelines in parts of Rivers, despite knowing full well the consequences of their actions. The resort to violence by militants whenever there are issues like this did not start today. It is their way of blackmailing the nation to yield to their demands whether genuine or not.

    Our oil production took a nosedive a few years ago because of such activities as well as the large scale theft of crude. Of recent, things have been looking up for Nigeria as oil production took a huge leap crossing over 1.8 million barrels per day. The militants’ irrational and unpatriotic actions may take us back and down the economic slope if they are not stopped forthwith. The declaration of a state of emergency may be a better way of doing that since Fubara seems to be at peace with what is happening.

    Why will he not? I recall what he told a gathering at a commissioning ceremony about 17 days ago. “To our youths, be strong. Don’t be perturbed. At the right time you will get instructions”, he said on the occasion. I warned on this page 14 days ago that I hoped he was not planning something sinister. So, why is the President being crucified for imposing emergency rule on Rivers when the governor is only pretending to be interested in peace, but doing something else behind the scenes.

    Till his suspension from office on Tuesday, Fubara kept his executive council (EXCO) comprising mainly commissioners confirmed by the illegal Oko-Jumbo-led lawmakers, in defiance of the apex court’s decision which he said he would implement after receiving the certified true copy (CTC). He got the CTC long ago and left his commissioners intact. The opposition will rave and rant – in their usual style. Legal experts will also attempt to pull the wool over the people’s eyes on this matter.

    The thing is emergency rule is an aberration. This is why it is so named. When it is in place, democracy is suspended. It is painful but that is the plain truth. It is a weapon of last resort used in a democratic setting when all else has failed. Section 305 states the conditions under which it can be imposed and these were well spelt out in the President’s broadcast on Tuesday night.

    But those who want the status quo to remain are bickering. Can democratic institutions and the wielder of emergency legal powers exist side by side? It is trite that two captains cannot man a ship. How then can a governor and a sole administrator be in charge of a state under emergency rule? Let us leave politics aside and face reality. There would have been no need for this emergency if the gladiators had given a thought to the consequences of their actions.

    The framers of the Constitution did not expressly state in Section 305 that the governor and members of a House of Assembly should be suspended after the imposition of a state of emergency because there cannot be democracy under emergency rule. They are strange bedfellows. Democracy automatically gives way where there is a state of emergency.

    This is why I agree with the 2013 submissions of renowned law teacher Prof Akin Oyebode and the late constitutional lawyer Fred Agbaje in their reactions to former President Jonathan’s imposition of emergency rule in Adamawa, Borno and Yobe states then. “You cannot declare emergency rule and leave the status quo”, Oyebode said, adding: “emergency rule warrants extraordinary measures which nullify the maintenance of the status quo”.

    To Agbaje, “what the president (Jonathan) has done is to stand the Constitution on its head, by purporting to declare a state of emergency, and at the same time allowing the state legislature to function. His action is constitutionally heretical and anathema”.

    Instead of throwing tantrums, those who disagree with what President Tinubu has done in Rivers can explore the legal option. The outcome of their lawsuit will help to enrich our constitutional jurisprudence.

  • Genesis and development of universities in Nigeria

    Genesis and development of universities in Nigeria

    I am writing this piece to educate people who do not know the genesis and development of universities in Nigeria.

    During the war years in 1943 the British set up the Elliot commission to report specifically on the organization and facilities of existing centres for higher education in British West Africa. At the same time there was another commission called the Asquith commission that had a broader mandate covering the British Colonial African territories including West Africa. The Asquith commission was particularly asked to look into the relationship between colonial university colleges and the University of London. It was a result of the recommendations of these commissions that university colleges were established in 1948 in Ibadan and Legon in the Gold Coast and a medical school for the whole of West Africa was located in the University of Ibadan. The Fourah Bay College established in Freetown Sierra Leone in (1827) and its special relationship with Durham University was left untouched while the new university colleges were to have special relationship with the University of London from where its students were to continue to earn degrees until 1961.

    In 1959, on the eve of independence in Nigeria, the Ashby Commission was set up to investigate into Nigeria’s needs in the field of higher education over the next 20 years. This was largely informed by the manpower that would be needed in an independent Nigeria to replace the British expatriate officials who will be leaving the country. The commission reported in September 1960. The recommendation formed the basis of the establishment of a new federal university of Lagos and subsequent establishment of regional universities in Ile Ife, Nsukka and Ahmadu Bello University in Zaria.

    The significance of all these commissions and their reports is that hitherto universities were established in Nigeria after detailed reports were commissioned about funding, location, staffing and needs of the country and nothing was done arbitrarily at the whim of the authorities. In those days there was a manpower board which attempted to find out national and state needs in various aspects of the national and state economy and administration particularly in teaching, the bureaucracy, transportation, police and security, the military, customs and immigration and the general economy as much as could be surmised. In other words, institutions were not just decreed into existence without linking them with the needs and employment. Critics have said this was a-narrow way of looking into the future but the attempt was to avoid graduate unemployment and the incendiary possibilities of that kind of situation. Whatever the case may be, the planned commissions avoided the possibility of the consequences of unplanned development.

    Read Also: NSIA, Cascador partner to empower Nigerian entrepreneurs

    The immediate situation after independence was that there were massive job opportunities in teaching and by the time of the Israeli-Arab war of 1973-1974 and the Arab oil embargo on the USA and the West, and consequent rise in oil revenues for Nigeria, the Nigerian economy opened up phenomenally in construction, commerce, transportation and educational expansion creating needs in many areas which made it much easier for the graduates of Nigerian universities to find employment. The so-called oil boom was ephemeral and by the 1980s, it had petered out and it led to a lot of soul-searching even in the northern parts of Nigeria where for the first time, graduates unemployment began to manifest. People began to ask for the purpose of the nation’s massive investment in higher education and university expansion from the traditional comprehensive universities of Ibadan, Benin, Lagos, Ile -Ife, University of Nigeria, Nsukka, and Ahmadu Bello to building of new ones in Akure, Calabar, Port Harcourt, Jos, Bayero (Kano), Maiduguri, Sokoto, Abeokuta, Makurdi, Yola and Bauchi. The last four on this list were supposed to be specialized universities of technology and agriculture but in their development, the local university authorities injected politics into their development and they have mostly ended as comprehensive universities and some like Bauchi now have a college of medicine. I was involved in their planning and execution and they were not supposed to have been so developed.

    The NUC sent me and three academics to open offices in London, Cairo, Washington DC and Ottawa for the purpose of assisting the universities in staff recruitment, training, library and equipment acquisition just to show that the establishment of the new universities was well prepared. However when the economy in the 1980 hit some doldrums, the University of Yola was merged as a college with the University of Maiduguri temporarily before it reverted to status quo ante. Questions then began to be asked as to whether we were training the kind of graduates needed for the future. We knew agriculture was very important in the future of Nigeria but what kind of graduates in agriculture were we producing? We were also turning out thousands of graduates in science and engineering yet our roads and water projects were being built by imported engineers and scientists and there were very few indigenous builders. Our university intakes were lopsidedly in favour of liberal arts, education and social sciences.

    The whole question of over specialization at the undergraduate level of education was being asked.  Our faculties of education turning out graduates in such narrow areas as careers guidance and counselling, educational psychology and planning and administration came up for discussion and suggestions about making such educational areas of study, important as they are, into postgraduate studies were made and graduates in social sciences one without solid grounding in the history and anthropology of the country was challenged. The proliferation of faculties of social sciences turning out people in Sociology, Psychology, Social Work, seemed to have been ahead of our time. These questions were not comfortable so they were ignored and kicked forward for the future generations. Now it seems as if the chickens have come home to roost and the country is now faced with much more difficult problems of unplanned development of the present.

    Nigeria went through a period of military rule that with some interregnum went from 1966 to 1999. During this period, the country fought a civil war from 1967 to 1970 and was till 1979 under military rule until through international pressure the military government gave up power to a civilian democratic government which spent most of the time in corruption and economic mismanagement until it was overthrown in 1983. The military remained in power until 1999.

    Most of the development in higher education after independence took place under military rule. There was therefore not much democratic discussion about the future and most decisions were taken with bureaucratic and military fiat. Some of the decisions were excellent particularly the expansion of higher education to most parts of the country like the minority areas of the Middle Belt and the South-south but this was done without proper study of the absorptive capacity of the areas thus leading to mass migration of young people from their areas to urban centres of the country like Lagos where 60% of new graduates annually migrate to seek non-existing employment.

    Unplanned universities expansion

    What we have witnessed is the open sesame to private ownership of universities beginning with Obasanjo and his deputy Abubakar Atiku owning respectively private universities in Bells University in Otta and so-called American University in Yola. Obasanjo’s successor Goodluck Jonathan during a one night after-dinner speech in 2013 announced the opening of 11 federal universities, in one fell swoop, in states that did not have federal universities already and announced the vice chancellors of these universities and handed over to them N1 billion each for their initial take off. There were no plans, no governing councils that were to guide the orderly development of these universities and some of the vice chancellors had never done this kind of jobs before or been in any university senate or council of a university as some were recruited from abroad. Most of the money was spent on renting whatever hotel accommodation that was available in some of the inaccessible towns and villages where these new federal universities were located as “dividends of democracy“.

     The Pandora box of universities approval was opened and the National Universities Commission (NUC) whose remit was to advice government about the feasibility of these new universities seemed to have slept from 1999 to the present day and the results of which is the ballooning increase of universities in Nigeria to 270 federal universities, state universities, uniformed institutions (belonging to the, Air Force,

    Navy, Police, Army, Defence Academy) 148 of which belong to private institutions and the rest to states and the federal government. The situation is still fluid but I believe water will eventually find its own level with some of the private universities folding up and some of the state universities being merged or folding up and the category of the so-called uniformed universities rationalised in the face of reduced national revenue largely derived from hydrocarbons which are increasingly challenged as sources of energy in a world concerned about global pollution and climatic and environmental degradation.

  • Freeloaders’ creed

    Freeloaders’ creed

    It is a curious thing, isn’t it? The ease with which a society can hold out its palms, demanding honey from the hive it has not tended. Once again, I find myself at the front seat of this perennial circus—a boisterous affair where the ringmasters are the very citizens who brazenly dodge taxes, yet demand effective public services. It is the Nigerian penchant for freeloading, a national pastime disguised as survival.

    The story is as old as the first misstep of our fledgling republic. But the truth bears repeating because the wound festers still, growing deeper with each cut. While reporting recently on this very topic, I got drawn yet again to the performance and unholy alliance between the common man and the bureaucrat—each playing his part in a silent sabotage.

    A recent tour of Lagos brought me face to face with the latest act in this ongoing drama. Electricity marketers and technicians spin their webs, bypassing meters as deftly as any thief might pick a pocket. The people nod approvingly, grateful for the temporary relief. The electricity they siphon is never deemed a crime, but a necessity, a balm for their daily hardships.

    “We had no choice,” resonates the freeloaders’ plaint. But beneath this veneer of desperation lies a stark reality—every stolen kilowatt-hour is a dagger thrust into the heart of the nation’s cashcow.

    Francisca Pajok, a hairdresser in her mid-thirties, is a character in this unfolding tragedy. In the dim light of her salon, her idle hands tell the story of a business that has learned to steal its survival. Her generator hums softly outside, its power fed from the covert artery of her tampered metre. Pajok feels no guilt, no shame, just revulsion over being found out and disconnected. She is a product of a society where it is not theft if it is survival.

    It is this sentiment, this collective shrugging of responsibility, that has become the hallmark of our national psyche. Nigerians feel aggrieved, wronged by a system that promises much but delivers little. And perhaps, they are not entirely wrong. After all, the labyrinthine corridors of public governance in this country are filled with bureaucrats fattening themselves on the spoils of corruption. To dwell too long on their deviousness, however, would be to digress; today’s focus is not the thieving public servant but the citizens who have mastered the art of dodging their dues while loudly demanding services of the finest quality.

    Yet, we cannot ignore the symbiotic relationship between the corrupt official and the citizen who thrive in the shadow of malfeasance. For every Pajok bypassing her metre, there is a public utility official turning a blind eye, a hand outstretched for a cut of the spoils. This quiet complicity erodes the very foundations of our state. The roads crumble, the hospitals run dry, and the schools rot from within. But still, we demand more.

    And what of the taxes, those lifeblood contributions citizens owe their nation? Ah, taxes, the ultimate taboo in a country where everyone – individuals and corporate entities – seeks unearned benefits. This sentiment is shared by many, who feel the government is a monolith of ineptitude and corruption, undeserving of their hard-earned naira.

    They argue, with some merit, however, that taxes are squandered by public officials who live in obscene luxury while the rest of the country suffers. But in this tangled dance of evasion and entitlement, we forget the simple truth: a government starved of revenue cannot function. Every dodged tax is a school unfunded, a hospital without medicine, a bridge left unbuilt.

    The freeloading infects every corner of society, from the slums to the boardrooms and illicit black markets. Mohammed, for instance, lived off the widening gap between official and parallel exchange rates, amassing a fortune as he arbitraged Nigeria’s currency crisis. But President Bola Tinubu’s floatation of the naira has shrunk those margins. “It’s impossible to make any profit now,” Mohammed laments, blind to the larger truth: that his wealth was never built on real value but on the quicksand of speculation.

    Mohammed’s loss, like Pajok’s silent theft, is symptomatic of a larger sickness—a nation addicted to shortcuts. Instead of building real industries, creating sustainable businesses, or investing in infrastructure, Nigerians have long preferred the game of quick gains. The naira has become a mere token in this game, a fragile thing bet upon like dice in the hands of unrepentant gamblers.

    This, then, is the heart of the issue: a society caught in the cycle of evasion, from taxes to currency, from responsibilities to realities. Economic analyst, Tope Fasua, once painted a bleak picture of a society betting against itself, citizens hoarding dollars and rooting for the collapse of their national currency. “When citizens lose faith in their own currency, all is lost,” he warned. The wealthy few who stockpile dollars cheer at the naira’s devaluation, blind to the ruin they are hastening. Their gains are short-lived; their profits, like smoke, vanish as inflation eats away at the nation’s lifeblood. Meanwhile, the masses—those without access to foreign currency—suffer the most, as the price of food, fuel, and basic necessities skyrockets.

    Read Also: Reps, NHRC, UK govt, others pledge support to deepening rights protection in Nigeria

    Fasua’s words ring with eerie prophecy: “In time, the man with millions of dollars stashed away won’t be able to step out of his house, for there will be zombies waiting to devour him.”

    It is a vivid metaphor for a society that has turned on itself, where the rich barricade themselves behind high walls, while the poor—zombified by poverty—lurk just beyond, hungry and desperate.

    We have built for ourselves a fragile illusion, a fantasy where the government is an inexhaustible well of resources, and we are mere bystanders in the unfolding drama of national governance. But this illusion is crumbling.

    Change must begin at the top. President Tinubu, in his sweeping reforms, has begun to address these issues. The removal of the fuel subsidy and the floatation of the naira were painful but necessary steps toward a more sustainable economy. But for these reforms to truly take root, the government itself must lead by example.

    It is unconscionable to ask Nigerians to tighten their belts, while lawmakers and civil servants grow fat off the public purse. The salaries of public officials must be slashed, their perks curtailed. Only then can the government stand on moral ground when it asks its people to do their part. For as long as the ruling class lives in barricaded bubbles, untouched by the stringent economic policies, the cycle of evasion will continue. Pajok will continue to steal electricity. Mohammed will find new ways to game the system.

    The road to redemption will not be easy. It requires sacrifice, not just from the government, but from every Nigerian. Taxes must be paid. Services must be earned, not stolen. The freeloading must end. The light that Pajok steals is not just electricity; it is the future. The currency Mohammed traded in shadows is not just money; it is the potential for real growth that was squandered. The taxes they evade are not just funds—they are the schools, the roads, the hospitals that could lift this nation from its knees.

    Nigeria’s future lies not in entitlement but in the hard work of every citizen, paying their dues, owning their responsibilities. Only then can we rise from the ashes of our own making.

  • The Senate as theatre

    The Senate as theatre

    The foundation of the Fourth Republic Nigerian Senate was set in the dramatic. Twenty six years after, not much has changed as the chamber is roiled by a storm that began as a minor disciplinary matter, but has now been framed in the untamed courts of public opinion as a case of abuse of power.

    As a political reporter back in 1999, I recall being present at a pre-inauguration get-together in Enugu for senators-elect. As the event wound to a close I was privileged to corner the late Dr. Chuba Okadigbo who conspiratorially whispered, ‘the deal has been sealed.’ The deal in question was that majority of the lawmakers had agreed to back him for the Senate Presidency. The event was on a weekend.

    Between then, and Thursday, June 3, 1999, when voting took place, President Olusegun Obasanjo who didn’t want a strong personality heading the National Assembly, mobilised his allies within the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and across two opposition parties, to thwart what many had thought was a given. By the time the dust settled Enwerem had prevailed by 66 votes to 43. Such was the shock of the defeat that Okadigbo, who looked like he had been poleaxed, took a while to arise from his seat.

    But that was just the beginning of the drama. Enwerem would be toppled in a matter of months after being accused of corruption and falsification of documents. A big deal was made as to whether his academic qualifications which bore the names ‘Evan’ and ‘Evans’ belonged to the same person. Okadigbo would take over the seat he was earlier denied but only occupy it for barely a year before being ousted by forces sponsored by the Executive Branch.

    Who can forget that it was in the belly of the Senate that Obasanjo’s Third Term project which looked all but done was undone, in a theatrical seating that had many lawmakers mocking the then president’s well-funded bid to perpetuate himself in office?

    Read Also: TETFUND plans strategic partnership with NILDS

    In 2015, the All Progressives Congress (APC) won the presidency and secured a comfortable majority in the Senate. The party’s hierarchy and new president, Muhammadu Buhari, favoured Ahmad Lawan for the Senate President. They didn’t factor in the ambition of former Kwara State Governor, Bukola Saraki, and elements of the ‘New PDP’ tendency. So while the obedient lawmakers were being whipped into line in one location in Abuja, a rump of the party in cahoots with the PDP were already in the chamber voting. It was an embarrassing coup d’état that destabilised the administration for the next four years.

    Today, that dramatic tradition continues in the Godswill Akpabio versus Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan controversy. Many view the clash as some kind of David versus Goliath sequel – with the Kogi legislator in the shepherd boy role and the Senate President as the Philistine giant. How wrong they are; the reverse is actually the case here.

    In one corner you have a beautiful woman with a colourful past. She’s a wily fighter who knows how to weaponise vulnerability and hurl emotional grenades. She’s not new to taking on powerful men, having fought her former governor, Yahaya Bello, to a standstill.

    She defiantly told the Senate President after refusing to move from her seat according to the rules: ‘I’m not afraid of you!’ It was a pregnant statement that many scrambled to decode. By next morning, she had moved things a notch further by openly accusing Akpabio of sexual harassment on national television.

    In the opposing corner you have the supposedly powerful former Akwa Ibom governor turned Senate President. He is a genial gaffe machine with a penchant for off-colour jokes; a walking disaster every time he opens his mouth. Even worse, this isn’t the first time a woman would accuse him of being fresh with her.

    Former Acting Managing Director of the Niger Delta Development Commission (NDDC), Joy Nunieh, once claimed she slapped Akpabio – then her supervising minister – after he tried to kiss her. He rebuffed her claims by directing people to ask her ‘four husbands’ about her character. He also claimed that they were about the same age so nothing could have attracted him to her.

    The same thing cannot be said of Natasha. She is dazzlingly beautiful and very conscious of the fact. But she would also be something of a problematic witness given that she once accused former President Goodluck Jonathan aide, Reno Omokri, of making advances toward her.

    Omokri was able to prove that at the time the supposed encounter allegedly took place he was in the US. He had his passport and airline tickets as evidence. Once he placed those online his accuser quickly deleted her posts. The matter was reportedly settled after payment of cash. With that in her past I can just imagine how much some vicious lawyer would give to cross-examine her. Was this just a case of mistaken identity, mischief or something more disturbing?

    One of the deadliest accusations any man – weak or powerful – can face is sexual abuse or harassment. People quickly believe the accuser female. The question that often pops ups is why would she lie if these encounters didn’t happen.

    One of things muddying the water in the current face-off is that Akpabio is a figure many hate. He has foes who have been gunning for him for ages. They see in his current troubles an opening to take him down. They didn’t want him as Senate President and detest his alliance with President Bola Tinubu. They don’t like the fact he leads a National Assembly that isn’t adversarial towards the Executive but favours cooperation. Others can’t stand him because of what they view as buffoonery in his utterances.

    The opposition see in him a weak link in the government. They see blood in the water. Their belief is if they can take him down the administration can be destabilised at a critical juncture of its tenure. All of these things colour the interventions of the critical and throw things out of perspective.

    No matter how things are twisted, remember that the row started over a simple matter of seating arrangements. Senators – male and female – have testified they have moved seats several times. Those rules were there long before the Kogi senator was elected and haven’t been changed. But Natasha refused to move and openly defied the Senate leadership. Should the rules have been ignored just to accommodate her defiance? Many have argued that knowing punishment was coming she decided to bring the tent down on everybody – making the sexual harassment allegations seem like an afterthought.

    This is not to say that her claims against Akpabio shouldn’t be dealt with in a fair manner. But that petition is a totally different matter which she never brought up over a year after it allegedly happened. That notwithstanding, she has placed something on the table that has to be addressed.

    Her critics say her anger boiled over after being removed as chair of the Senate’s Local Content Committee and shunted aside to head the one on the Diaspora and NGOs. Is this truly the case?

    While one is against powerful individuals abusing their positions to take advantage of others, questions must be asked about how Akpoti-Uduaghan has gone about prosecuting her fight. Is this about seeking justice over things allegedly done to her by the Senate President or is it an all-out war against the institution? With her swinging and slashing in all directions it’s becoming hard to tell.

    In an interview she just gave to the BBC, she likened the Senate to a cult where people are afraid of uttering contrary views for fear of retaliation. That’s like slapping the coward tag on over 100 of your colleagues who you still hope to work harmoniously with. It’s not a very smart move because you would need allies to reform the place you dislike so much.

    Even more curious is her surprise appearance at the Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) where she, again, ventilated her sexual allegation claims. Aside the fact that she wasn’t a member of the Nigerian delegation, her choosing that platform to wash dirty linen speaks of questionable judgment knowing that the IPU has no power to sanction or regulate a sovereign country’s legislature. So what was the whole show about?

    In the end only one chamber would matter as the senator pursues justice: the courts where she filed suit for defamation and challenged the legality of her suspension. She would also have her day to respond to Akpabio’s wife who has equally sued her for billions. Hopefully, she has stronger evidence than that the man she accused, squeezed her hand in a ‘suggestive’ manner.