The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    The much-awaited certified true copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court verdict on the Rivers State political crisis which was released on Thursday has ended all legal disputes among the feuding parties. With the court’s profound findings, any matter pending in court has died a natural death. The court without mincing words defined the status of the 27 lawmakers led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule as authentic, adding that it is the only body that Governor Siminalayi Fubara can do business with.

    Until the decision, Fubara was comfortable dealing with the then Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-man assembly, claiming that the Amaewhule group had defected from the Peoples Democratic (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Even after the Court of Appeal affirmed a Federal High Court order that it was constitutionally wrong of him to deal with only three of the 32-man assembly, Fubara  disobeyed the orders. He insisted on having his way, boasting that the “house exists at his pleasure”.

      Rather than do as directed by the high and appeal courts in Abuja so that peace can reign in the state, he went to a state high court in Port Harcourt to obtain an order to enable him present the 2025 budget to the Oko-Jumbo group, even after his presentation of the 2024 budget to the same set of lawmakers had been declared illegal. It was an error on his part. The apex court was unsparing in its reprimand of the governor, who it described as a despot that collapsed the government of the state so that he could have his way. Indeed, it was needless for him to have gone to the high court, while pursuing a cross-appeal at the apex court, which pronouncement would swallow whatever the lower court comes up with, no matter how brilliant.

    Fubara was only buying time and postponing the day of reckoning which finally came on February 28 . Still he did not see the handwriting on the wall when Amaewhule and co., went to court to stop him from further receiving allocations from the central bank and the accountant-general of the federation as he was not operating a valid budget. The high court decided in the plaintiffs’ favour. The governor went on appeal and won. The appeal court held that it was a constitutional matter on which the high court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed. It restored the high court order. Quoting from the appeal court verdict, the apex court held:

    Read Also: Natasha/Akpabio feud: External plot to tarnish Nigeria’s image – NASAC

    “The objective of the high court case is to stop the release of funds to the governor so as to compel him to cause the making of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution… the Court of Appeal also acknowledged that based on two of its judgments as at today the Amaewhule group who allegedly defected are still legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and empowered to conduct the business of the Rivers State House of Assembly”. It said it was therefore wrong of the appeal court to have declared that the high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the fund allocation case.

      According to the apex court, Fubara’s fear of impeachment led to his cat-and-mouse relationship with the Amaewhule group. Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that the governor started the prevention of the sittings of the assembly as constituted by its members as prescribed by Section 96 of the Constitution. His reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Necessity, His Lordship said, “is to continue the brazen subversion of Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State. Having by his own admission engaged in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 lawmakers from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, his resort to the aforesaid Sections 102 and 109 and the Doctrine of Necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and democratic government in Rivers State”.

    The court was not done: “The governor had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise. There must be a House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place. The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of an alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It is an engagement in chicanery. What is clear is that the 27 lawmakers are still valid members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and cannot be prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House by the governor in cahoots with the four other members. Sections 102 and 109 cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise”.

    Berating the governor for choosing to collapse the legislature to enable him govern as a despot, the apex court declared: “As it is, there is no government in Rivers State… political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the governor of a state or any person. What he has done is to destroy the government for the fear of being impeached”. With this decision, the case before the Port Harcourt High Court seeking to sack the 27 lawmakers for alleged defection has become mere academic exercise. It is as dead as a dodo.

  • Why more young people are dying these days

    Why more young people are dying these days

    As I reflected on the recent deaths of many young men and women between 35 and 50 years old, two questions crossed my mind. One, if it is true that we now live in an age when hygiene and modern medicine have made it possible to live even longer, why are people dying young? Two, what is Professor Daniel Lieberman’s answer to why young people are dying more than before, given the medical resources available?

    About a decade ago, I reviewed The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health, and Disease, by Daniel Lieberman, a Harvard University Professor of anthropology and evolutionary biology. The book, first published in 2013, does (a) charts a chronology of our biological evolution up to the time that we have our present bodies; (b) shows how our cultural evolution has transformed our environment, the way we live, and what we eat; and (c) explains how mismatch between our biological and cultural evolutions has caused many modern-day diseases killing us today. By mismatch is meant that there is a conflict between the conditions of modern life and our prehistoric bodies. That is, we were not adapted to where and how we live our lives today as well as what we eat. Food and drinks are meant to give us energy and valuable nutrients, but the way food and drinks are prepared, preserved, and stored today may bring us closer to the grave as they lead to the prevalence of diseases, such as obesity, diabetes, heart disease, back pain, depression, various cancers, and so on.

    You do not have to be an evolutionary biologist to follow Lieberman’s argument. Similarly, the idea of cultural evolution should not be strange, even to a lay person. Nor should you be an anthropologist to understand the three major cultural transitions in human history that have major implications for our bodies.

    The first was the transition from hunting and gathering to agriculture, when we began to settle down to farm our own food. The second was the industrial revolution, when we began to use machines to replace human work. The third transition, an offshoot of the technological advancements of the second, was the digital revolution, when we began to replace physical meetings with virtual ones and social media networking. In many advanced economies, more and more people are now working from home.

    Each of these transitions came with advantages and disadvantages. For example, agriculture brought predictable food supply, but farmers were susceptible to famine and food shortages as well as contagious diseases.

    The industrial revolution brought science and technology as the major driver of human activity. Social and economic institutions were reorganised, factories began to produce on a large scale, and the economy of delayed return replaced the economy of immediate return of the farming age. Human populations exploded with progress in medicine, sanitation, and food storage. As a result, there is much more food variety than the average farmer could provide. However, the varieties and the surpluses came at a cost. Most of what we consume today is processed and shipped by machines, and they contain huge amounts of pesticides, inorganic fertilizers, and antibiotics. Worse still, processed food contains more sugars and starches, causing spikes in blood sugar levels that our bodies were not designed to deal with. Even the fashionable non-stick pots with which many of us cook contain PFAS chemicals, which can lead to serious health problems, when the coating is damaged or overheated.

    The digital revolution may have brought radical changes to how we communicate and work. However, it has also made us more sedentary and less physically interactive. The implications for our bodies are still being studied. But the social implications of social media on our social lives and political participation are no longer in doubt.

    The truth is that we live in a world of new handicaps and new diseases, which never afflicted our prehistoric ancestors. Unfortunately, many of us overlook or are unaware of some common sources of today’s diseases. Many of these sources became prevalent only recently, coinciding with the appearance of today’s youths on the food scene. The sources include preservatives and additives in processed foods, chemicals in plastics, non-stick pots, makeup and hair products, asbestos, and formaldehyde in building materials.

    Today, in part because they care less about safety, the younger generation is ultra-exposed to these sources, most of which are associated with one type of cancer or the other. They consume a lot of ultra-processed foods, which are associated with a higher risk of gastrointestinal cancers, regardless of their weight or body mass index. Youths are particularly susceptible to exposures to toxins in the environment and in many everyday goods listed above, which are also known to cause cancer.

    Youths are also victims of modern lifestyle changes, which involve less physical exercise, and less or interrupted sleep. Recent medical research shows that sleep and circadian rhythms are important components of health. Getting less sleep may be a factor in developing colon, breast, ovarian, or prostate cancer. Although genetic inheritance remains a predictor, but many cancer patients these days have no such history.

    It is not the case, of course, that older adults over 60 are inoculated against these diseases. My focus on youths is motivated partly by the spike in the number of youth deaths and partly by a recent meta-analysis by the American Cancer Society, which found that 50 percent (17 of 34) of the most common cancers are occurring more frequently in younger people. Worse still, while death rates are dropping for colorectal cancer patients over 65, they are increasing among younger patients, partly because colonoscopies are not recommended until after 45. The problem with youths is that cancers are often not caught until it is too late for treatment. All we tend to hear is that X or Y was rushed to the hospital two days ago, but he or she did not make it.

    Read Also: Nobody who jumped from party to party has ever become Nigeria’s president – Reno Omokri

    To complicate matters for today’s youths is the prevalence of psychotropic, illicit injection drugs, and stimulants to get high in a country that lacks effective drug regulation. To be sure, NAFDAC is doing the best it can, but it can only do so much in a society where rules and regulations are breached more than they are observed. Besides, today’s youths are so daring and creative that they’ve reportedly created deadly concoctions out of pain killers.

    Perhaps at no time in human history is Lieberman’s “mismatch” theory more relevant than today. Our bodies were not designed for what we do and consume. And our youths, who consume any and everything, are the greatest victims. Many of them began early with processed baby food, continue with ultra-processed food, consume sugary and alcoholic drinks, and top them with drugs to get them high. They stay on the phone till 2am or later and have little or no time for regular physical exercise. And the killer of it all—they shrug off symptoms and only seek intervention when it may be too late.

  • Who will save Rivers from her warring children?

    Who will save Rivers from her warring children?

    Politics has been variously defined as ‘authoritative allocation of values or “who gets what when and how”. But I think in terms of intrigue that goes into balancing the interest of pressure groups and public interest, deviousness and ruthlessness of office seekers and for our purpose in this write up ‘politics as the art of the possible will be more appropriate (Otto Von Bismarck, German statesman and First Chancellor of Unified Germany 1815-1898).

    The truth is that not all office seekers or office holders are politicians. Politicians are a special breed of selfless public servants who are not deterred by the fact they that are hardly trusted by the public they serve who often see them as corrupt, devious and men of many words. These largely misunderstood patriots ruled and may sometimes be addressed as their excellences, but others call the tune. Unfortunately, no matter how much politicians are detested, our survival as an organized society depends on their resourcefulness and brinkmanship.

    Of course, bluffing Governor Similayi Fubara who had all his past battle fought for him is not a politician. In fact he is not smart enough to learn from our recent history.

    We once had a Raji Babatunde Fashola, a non-politician but a very smart guy as governor of Lagos State. He was not his party’s but his godfather’s choice. When he had a slight disagreement with his godfather, all those who had wanted his job, rose up in his defence not because they loved him, but to spite his godfather. Opposition parties were dangling their party’s’ ticket in his face in case he was denied his party’s ticket for a second term.

    But instead of swallowing the poison as Fubara did, he went for an international engagement where he gave a lecture and announced to the whole world that “Tinubu made me governor”. That became newspaper headlines in both local and international newspaper the following day. The godfather was humbled. If the godfather today takes credit for landmark projects like the Lagos rail line and Atlantic City, it was because his trusted godson, the actualiser, unlike Ambode who ignored some of the projects during his four years tenure, remained faithful to his godfather and his dream project.

    Ex-President Goodluck Jonathan, following some disagreement with Obasanjo also joined forces with his estranged godfather’s political foes including James Ibori who also headed the Yar’Adua group that did not want Jonathan to succeed the ailing President Yar’Adua. This was long after he had declared publicly that apart from God and his biological parents, Obasanjo was the next most important personality in is life. Jonathan was hijacked by the late pa Edwin Clark, who gave himself the title of ’father of the president’ to spite Obasanjo. Jonathan forgot his battle was fought by the likes of Tunde Bakare on the streets of Lagos and Abuja with the ‘doctrine of necessity’ slogan. The rest is history.

    Today, facing the same scenario, Fubara, like Jonathan, teamed up with enemies of Wike, his estranged godfather including Imo Ikenga Ugochinyere, who has today become Fubara’s interpreter of court pronouncements. Others include PDP stalwarts in borrowed robe of media men who would not forgive Wike for bringing PDP down during the 2023 elections. Some of them pretend to be news anchors without appreciating that the greatest attributes of a news anchor include  journalistic integrity, professionalism  and ability to be ‘silent and listen”. These men lionized Fubara, encouraged him to stand up to his estranged godfather and talked him out of his initial undertaking to implement term of truce reached when the president first intervened.

    Unfortunately, Fubara still does not understand that the only people benefiting from the tragedy he has inadvertently brought upon his people are these self-serving advisers and media promoters who smile to the banks at the expense of besieged people of Rivers.

    For instance, ‘News commercialisation’ which refers to situation “whereby the electronic media report as news or news analysis a commercial message by an unidentified or unidentifiable sponsor giving the audience the impression that news is fair, objective and socially responsible”(Nnorom,1994) is not cheap. The 30 minutes slot cannot be anything less than N20m. That is what someone coughs out to allow the likes of Ikenga Ugochinyere to speak without substance on TV for 30 minutes in the name of fighting Fubara’s war. He was pathetic to watch last week on Fubara’s favourite TV platform as he gave his own interpretation of the Supreme Court judgment after which he urged Fubara to ‘carry on’ the battle.

    The above forces that exploited Fubara’s lack of capacity to understand that sometimes in political warfare , you may have to stoop to conquer, were behind his missing of an historic opportunity provided by last week landmark  Supreme Court judgment to end his people’s nightmare after two years of his unstable government.

    The Supreme Court judgment was straight forward.

    The court ruled there is no evidence that the 27 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly defected from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC), because without evidence presented before the court, in the eyes of the law, no defection took place and consequently the status quo in the House of Assembly must remain.

    It criticized the governor for behaving likes a despot by demolishing the House of Assembly complex and preventing the 27 lawmakers from sitting. It also condemned Fubara for destroying of Rivers State over his fear of impeachment

    “Since the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to govern without the legislature as a despot, the Supreme Court held that “As it is, there is no government in Rivers State”.

    It held that “The doctrine of necessity cannot be invoked to justify the continued existence of a deliberately contrived illegal or unconstitutional status quo.

    That “political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the governor of a state or any person.

    That “The part of the judgment of the Court of Appeal, affirming the judgment of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby affirmed.

    Read Also: United Nigeria Airline launches Abuja-Katsina flight route

    That “The said judgment of the Federal High Court in suit No. FHC/AB)/CS/984/2024 is hereby restored.

    That “For the avoidance of doubt, it is hereby ordered that the Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the Government of Rivers State, its organs,… until an Appropriation Law is made by Rivers State House of Assembly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution.

    That “The Rt. Honourable Martin Chike Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume unhindered sitting as Speaker and members respectively of the Rivers State House of Assembly.

    With all the roads blocked, if only Fubara understands politics as the art of the possible, and had without the meddlesomeness of elders and politicians on both sides of the aisle who speak from both sides of the mouth, picked up the phone to congratulate the speaker of his state House of Assembly and his colleagues over their victory at the court and offer to forward the 2025 budget and the list of his commissioners as directed by the Supreme Court, the following day.

    And let us for a moment imagine Fubara with awesome apparatus of his office storming Wike’s victory church thanksgiving in Abuja and insisting Rivers State seat of power remains in his house until he agrees to join him for another thanksgiving in Port Harcourt to convince the mass of Rivers people in whose name they all swore, that the battle was over.

    Of course Fubara would have seized the initiative while Wike would have been humbled.

    Unfortunately, Fubara who cannot appreciate the worth of the office he never fought for will rather keep on playing the ostrich. Whilst he claims to wait for certified copy of the court judgment to start complying with the Supreme Court judgment, that has not stopped him from starting preparation for the conduct of a new local government election.  A few days after informing his street boys to wait for signals, a trending video of AK-47 wielding militants in the creeks threatening to attack oil installations emerged. The Punch gave an elaborate coverage to them and their demand.

    Ijaw youths have also joined the fray in support of Fubara, the first Rivers governor of Ijaw ethnic extraction.

    The question now is with Fubara’s resolve to continue waging war against his own government, politicians admitting treachery against their state, elders speaking from both side of the mouth while our once beautiful ‘Garden City’ turns into a city of blood by militants groomed and armed by Rivers’ successive governors, who is going to save Rivers?

  • Like tortoise, like Fubara

    Like tortoise, like Fubara

    Siminilayi Fubara, the shrill-whining governor of Rivers, particularly when baying under pressure, reminds one so much of the tortoise in the Yoruba folktale.

    Tortoise announced he was going on a trip. When would you return?  He deadpanned: when I’m disgraced!

    Ola Rotimi, in Kurunmi, that Yoruba historical tragedy, used the tortoise parallel to paint the excesses of Kurunmi, lord of Ijaye and Aare Ona Kakanfo of the Oyo Empire. 

    Kurunmi perished, ousted by the invading Ibadan forces, losing his seven sons in battle — and his Ijaye fiefdom to boot.

    No matter his grouse with his emperor, Alaafin Adelu, Kurunmi should have been less inflexible.  True, by extant tradition, Adelu, the Aremo (firstborn of the Alaafin) should have died with his father, not succeed him.  But Atiba had changed that tradition, thus clearing Adelu’s path from forced death, to royal succession.

    But Kurunmi balked at that new order.  He defied his new emperor, just because he felt he had the lethal force to prevail.  When the formidable Ibadan army stormed Ijaye, after all entente had failed, the playwright, Ola Rotimi, deemed Kurunmi’s intransigence a wrong tactic to press a right cause — hence the tortoise’s parallel.

    Alaafin Adelu needed to consolidate his hold on power.  Ibadan scoffed at any rival power, which Ijaye was.  In that high-power convergence of interests, Kurunmi was toast, though too deluded to know! The rest, as they say, is history.

    So, are Fubara’s causes, against Nyesom Wike, the abrasive guy that loves to war and brawl to wear down his foes, wrong or right?  Besides, which of the two camps kisses naked danger, though is too far gone to realize it?

    Read Also: Lassa Fever kills doctor, 97 others in Nigeria

    That would depend on where you stand on the Wike-Fubara divide — just too much sentiments in the air to correctly track anything!

    But Governor Fubara isn’t exactly an Ijaw equivalent of Kurunmi — heady, intrepid and rumbling.  Wike, his arch (tor)mentor, and now FCT minister, fits more into that profile. 

    Still, Fubara could whine, kick, bite and swear!  As Kurunmi, he shares a penchant for reckless excesses, which bait avoidable ruin.  That explains his latest judicial jam — a thundering double defeat that was hardly a surprise.

    Fubara, as executive basket mouth, is perhaps the only governor in today’s Nigeria that would insult a high court judge for doing his job, trash-talk the Inspector-General of Police (IGP), laying grievous allegations at his feet, and call his mentor-turned-arch tormentor names, just to press his democratic right to white rage!

    But no tears for Wike — the Sim insults are majestic Karma at work!  Wike too, no less,  had scalded, bruised and verbally bombed Rotimi Amaechi, his ex-boss and benefactor. 

    Still, while Fubara blows hot, he easily forgets that common sense — and survival instinct — impose on him the imperative to make friends (and not talk up powerful foes), just in case you need some right voices, in right quarters, when the chips are down.  Not Fubara!  He brawls as if there would be no tomorrow!

    Now, that dreary “tomorrow” is here.  The governor, buried by own rashness, is sapped by cold law — the twin-nullity of his budget (for two years’ running!) and the council poll he forced, abusing and traducing about everyone in view! 

    He would cut his loss and make a dash for some negotiated peace?  No way!  From his post-verdict antics, Fubara seems digging deeper and deeper!  Poor Rivers!

    Still, how long, for instance, did he figure he would continue dealing with his glorious “simple minority” of four, in the Rivers House of Assembly of 32, and he wouldn’t get roasted, with him even providing the fuel?  How long?

    Should push come to shove, Fubara could be toast! 

    Should the Rivers House go full blast for impeachment, only a miracle would save Fubara.  How could anyone be elected governor, and yet not know spending public money, without parliamentary appropriation, is democracy’s most grievous crime, only next to treason? 

    In the Rivers’ tragic burlesque, even the state’s Attorney-General, who bears the suffix of SAN — the learned silk, Nigeria’s highest professional ranking of lawyers — passed through a four-man screening, in a 32-member Rivers Assembly!  If gold rusts, what would iron do?

    Pray, how could such a crippled appointee advise the governor against governance outlawry, which the Supreme Court utterly flayed in its February 28 verdict that brought Fubara down to earth?  It’s certainly not the best of times for the embattled governor!

    But it’s neither for the Wike camp, with its post-verdict unbridled triumphalism; and a confetti of rash orders to further bludgeon the dust-biting Fubara and co.

    Again, for Fubara, no tears from here!  He should have known what’s coming for him, with such executive brigandage he had allowed himself to be goaded into. 

    Again here, the Supreme Court referenced his gung-ho demolition of the House of Assembly, a rash act tantamount to, as the apex court put it, cancelling democracy in the state!

    Still, while the Wike camp have the infantile Fubara exactly where they want him, any rash move from their own end could earn them defeat from the jaw of victory! 

    That’s the thing, though. It need not be a zero sum game.  But Rivers politics would be nothing, if not zero-sum — either with Amaechi versus Wike;  or this Wike/Fubara row.

    So, though the Supreme Court verdict has been humbling — if not crushing for Fubara: and just as well — it could offer a new re-set that gifts the Rivers folks a relief.

    Law is cold.  It already leaves Fubara for dead.  But emotive politics is as hot as clinical law is frigid and cold.  Fubara could have earned his impeachment — if it came — by own reckless executive follies and foibles.

    Still, everyone knows the beginning of invoking an impeachment.  But hardly anyone knows how it would pan out.  Which is why both sides must take the judgment as welcome shock therapy.  The Rivers APC, calling for Fubara’s resignation in 48 hours or be impeached, should perish that reckless thought!

    Also, the so-called Ijaw “youths”, threatening Armageddon on Fubara’s account, should chill.  That’s as infantile as Fubara’s approach to governance. 

    It doesn’t paint the Ijaw in good light.  It’s only the dumb that resort to violence — of which no one has a monopoly — because they can’t think through a challenge.  The Ijaw are far too illustrious and far smarter than that.

    Besides, they should have learnt from the Goodluck Jonathan debacle.  Threat and thunder didn’t fetch President Jonathan a second term any more than it would save Fubara from the political guillotine, via an impeachment well-earned.

    But with mutual caution, it need not go to that dire extreme.

    Which is why the Wike side too must work toward peace with dignity.  Even if they loathe Fubara as a “traitor”, they should honour the office of the governor.

    Incidentally, all these would have been averted, had Fubara heeded the presidential peace framework of re-submitting his budget to the legit Assembly, but no!

    Let both parties return to that framework.  Rivers deserves peace and development, not conflict without end, among its political warlords.   Enough is enough!

  • Fubara: Pay day for outlawry!

    Fubara: Pay day for outlawry!

    Thanks to the candid judgment of highest court of the land, the events of October 29, 2023 and their many confounding aftermaths in the Garden City State, have been comprehensively settled. Reminds me of the Biblical abomination of desolation – used to describe an egregious violation of covenant, the judgment came to me as an unambiguous censure of outlawry; a brutal excoriation of that individual for whom the law is what he alone, apparently, thinks it is!

    Lest I forget, those Nigerians, particularly the supremely voluble television lawyers still in expectation of some judicial reprieve from the lower court on the question of the status of the 27 lawmakers decreed out of existence by Fubara and his henchmen, the publication of the entire text of the judgment in this newspaper’s edition of last Friday must have come as a terrible blow.

    As far as judgments go, nothing that could have been touched appears to have been left untouched. From how the parliament, the symbol of representative government in that beautiful enclave, was razed to the ground by anarchists, who, supposedly for the loved for their beloved governor, thought little of taking the country back to the Stone Age.

    To how the governor, following their steps, in an unparalleled demonstration of executive delinquency, moved in the bulldozers to complete the rite of destruction on that symbol that had cost the state treasury billions of taxpayers’ money.

    And still to the constitutional absurdity of a four-member parliament making laws for the people to the exclusion of the majority of 27; the intervening charade of screening members of the state executive council followed by the bigger sham of local council elections that mocks not just the law but the tenets of constitutionalism, with the governor disdainfully proclaiming that the jungle – his self-declared jungle –has matured.

    And then the travesty of all time – a gang of four members assuming the power over the purse of the state in place of a properly constituted legislative assembly even when a lower court had earlier pronounced such activity as a clear usurpation of the powers of the majority and thus illegal.

    All of these and many more were touched upon by the five-man panel of justices.

    Talk of the house Fubara built finally collapsing like a pack of cards!

    To borrow the words of the jurists: “In this case, the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to govern without the legislature… As it is, there is no government in Rivers State”, the apex court had thundered!

    Fubara, it specifically noted, “started the prevention of the sittings of the Rivers State House of Assembly constituted by the number of members as prescribed by Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution long before the issue of the remaining 27 members defecting to another political party arose.

    Fubara’s activities “were adjudged by the concurrent holdings of the Court of Appeal in its judgment in Appeal No. CA/ABJ/CV/133/2024 as illegal and unconstitutional long before the allegation of defection started”, said the justices while referencing an earlier judgment of the appellate court.

    His “reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the doctrine of necessity”, it said “is to continue his brazen subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State”.

    How, truly are the mighty fallen. This is a governor, who in May last year had told “those group of men who claim that they are assembly members; they are not existing. I want it to be on record…

    “I accepted that peace accord to give them a floating. That’s the truth. There is nothing in that peace accord that is a constitutional issue. It is a political solution to a problem. I accepted it because these are people that were visiting me and we were together in my house.

    “These are people that I have helped… in many ways when I wasn’t even a governor. Yes, we might have our disagreements, but I believe that one day, we could also come together. That was the reason I did it.

    “But I think it has gotten to a time when I need to make a statement on this thing, so that they understand that they are not existing. Their existence and whatever they have been doing is because I allowed them to do so. If I don’t recognise them, they are nowhere; that is the truth”.

    Read Also: Dettol Cool brings freshness to fitness enthusiasts, communities across Nigeria

    That was the almighty Fubara announcing the dawn of jungle rule to a visiting delegation from the neighbouring state of Bayelsa led by former Governor Seriake Dickson; moments after openly repudiating the political settlement brokered by President Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

    No doubt, the past few days must have been a rather traumatic metamorphosis for Fubara. From being everything from underling, to deal breaker and then to lawbreaker and finally to supremo; and now with the apex court’s definitive judgment, he has been stripped of his self-assumed pretences to unchallengeable power. What an elegant way by the Supreme Court to restore order and decorum to the conduct of government business.

    Can the law, which he had all of these while scoffed at, still save him? With the options so narrow and in-between, I guess that is a tough question to hazard. Will the political process which he falsely assumed would answer to his diktat still avail given how rapidly things have turned? That is even more problematic particularly as he still talks as someone living in wonderland, totally oblivious of the unambiguous pronouncement of the apex court. Like Donald Trump and his blithe summon to his MAGA goons in the dying days of his first term, imagine Fubara even asking his own ‘cult’ to stand firm for further instructions!

    And what about those supposed elders, the army of conflict entrepreneurs and ethnic jingoists, egging him on? Assuming that they have not been too far gone in their Samsonian Complex; will they now afford him the space to read the signs correctly and to take corrective measures? Will he be willing to eat the humble pie to engage his nemesis? What about those who, only yesterday pronounced him their hero? Will they still have the nerves to stay the course?

    The days ahead promises to be interesting. 

  • Trial of Senator Natasha

    Trial of Senator Natasha

    Distinguished Senator Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan is arguably the most popular senator in the country as I write this piece. Of course, some would rather say, the most notorious senator. It all depends on the pundit’s sympathy. Some have referenced her as the biblical Delilah, who was recruited by the Philistines to seduce Samson, in this case, Senate President Goodswill Akpabio, to reveal the source of his strength and die. The more compassionate see her as Bathsheba, Uriah’s wife, whom King David, cornered to himself, and then dinned with Uriah, to his death.

    Yet others, have out rightly dressed Natasha as Potiphar’s wife, who tried to lure Joseph to her warm embrace, and when he rejected the offer, roped him in as a rapist, and was jailed. For most people, Natasha’s troubles or stardom, started a few weeks ago, over where she must sit, to be heard, in the hallowed chambers of the Senate of the Federal Republic of Nigeria. A directive by the senate leadership to relocate to a new seat, was met by an Amazonian defiance, which rattled the senate, as the social media, dry-cleaned the senate laundry in public.

    Rising with poise and defiance, and raising the omnibus Order 10 of the senate rules, on privileges, Senator Natasha, refused all entreaties to move to her newly assigned chair, before she can be heard. As if propelled by forces, far bigger than her delicate frame, she confronted the senate president frontally, ignoring threats of a walkout, by the senate sergeant-at-arms, and declared fearlessly that she cannot be intimidated. Entreaties by colleagues, well-wishers and detractors alike, were brushed aside. Sensing that the senate chamber was turning into a real-time theater, the plenary proceeded, as if nothing happened. 

    Before the brouhaha, over the sitting arrangement, Senator Natasha was like the rest of other female senators. Only those who followed her fight with the former governor of Kogi State, Yahaya Bello (alias the White Lion), to get to the senate, would have taken notice of her. In fairness to Senator Natasha, the way she fought off the “White Lion”, who may have taken that name to scare his opponents showed that she was not a mewing but a ferocious member of the feline family.    

    Read Also: Nigeria-UK current trade volume hits £7.8b 

    That sterner stuff showed on the floor of the senate when what was a mere altercation snowballed into a hurricane, which some quickly predicted would consume the President of Senate, Godswill Akpabio. First, Natasha thundered that she would release a bombshell, should Akpabio dare her. Perhaps, not wanting to be discouraged from ‘bombing’ the senate president, Natasha went to a radio and television stations, to allege that Akpabio had harassed her sexually – guess when, in December, 2023.

    Like an expectant mother, Natasha must have gone home to her beloved husband, Chief Emmanuel Uduaghan, expecting an earthquake in the senate, after igniting what she thought was seismic disruptions. Most distinguished senators were neither amused nor scared, of what they considered the antics of a derailed member. Citing several orders from their red book, they were nearly unanimous that Natasha has brought the senate to disrepute, and violated the privileges of other senators. Natasha was quickly referred to the committee on ethics and privileges.

    Her spirited effort to deflate the matter, through an action for defamation, against the senate president, based on statements made by his aides, could not detract the guns aimed at her. Of course, whether defamatory suit is an action in persona or in rem, is a matter for the courts to determination. Again, a petition to the senate, alleging sexual harassment against the senate president, which apparently was intended to force Akpabio to surrender his presidency, while the matter is investigated, fell through on the premise that a senator cannot sign a petition to be presented to the senate for adjudication.

    While seeking the intervention of the senate to investigate her petition, against Akpabio, Natasha refused to submit to the senate committee, she was referred to, following her tantrums in the chambers, and the subsequent radio and television interviews. Expectedly, the senate committee reached a verdict, that Natasha should be suspended for six months, and her allowances and security details withdrawn. The committee added that the punishment can only be rescinded if she offers a written apology to her colleagues. Meanwhile Akpabio’s wife has gone to court, claiming that Natasha defamed her and her children, while Natasha’s husband is strongly defending the wife in the public space.

    In the midst of these imbroglio, some pundits are wondering what is driving Natasha, in her quest to bomb Akpabio out of his exalted senate seat? Could it be the alleged incidence of holding her hand in December 2023, and proposing in a hush tone, while the husband is answering a call, an adulterous return to Akpabio’s den sometime in the future? Or could it be the removal from her plum senate committee chair on local content, obviously well after the alleged invitation to an adulterous treat, failed?

    Could the answers lie in the questions raised in the midnight call by the senate majority leader, Opeyemi Bamidele, querying what Natasha would gain, from bringing Akpabio down, from his exalted seat. Exploring that theme, could it be that Natasha is a whip in the hands of Akpabio’s detractors, wishing to bring him down? Is there a chance that Natasha is recruited like Delilah, in the Biblical story, to bring Akpabio down? Or worse still, Potiphar’s wife? Conversely, could she be like the wife of Uriah, whom King David coveted and adulterously converted to his own?

    Delilah, was a beautiful Philistine woman, whom Samson loved, against good reasoning. She was recruited to entrap Samson, to reveal his source of strength, and swayed by her beauty, Samson revealed his secret and eventually brought the roof down on himself and his enemies. According to Senator Ireti Kingibe, Senator Natasha has received more privileges in the senate than her. So, what changed. Recall, that the senate president had within weeks of Natasha’s entrance, as a rookie senator, made her the chairman of a committee considered plum.

    Chief Uduaghan, is(was) clearly a good friend of Senator Akpabio, and the family relationship precedes Natasha’s emergence, as a senator. If that friendship played a part in Natasha’s rise in the senate, is it playing a part in her troubles? And will it play a part in its denouement? Some women pressure groups are threatening fire and brimstone against Senator Akpabio and the senate, should the senate fail to recall Senator Natasha from the six-month’s suspension handed her, by the senate. Part of their grievance is that Senator Akpabio, cannot be a judge in his own cause. Will Natasha play by the senate rules and mend her part, or will she fight on from outside, as many are baiting her?

  • Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    Supreme Court clears political fog over Rivers

    ANALYSIS

    The much-awaited certified true copy (CTC) of the Supreme Court verdict on the Rivers State political crisis which was released on Thursday has ended all legal disputes among the feuding parties. With the court’s profound findings, any matter pending in court has died a natural death. The court without mincing words defined the status of the 27 lawmakers led by Speaker Martins Amaewhule as authentic, adding that it is the only body that Governor Siminalayi Fubara can do business with.

    Until the decision, Fubara was comfortable dealing with the then Victor Oko-Jumbo-led three-man assembly, claiming that the Amaewhule group had defected from the Peoples Democratic (PDP) to the All Progressives Congress (APC). Even after the Court of Appeal affirmed a Federal High Court order that it was constitutionally wrong of him to deal with only three of the 32-man assembly, Fubara  disobeyed the orders. He insisted on having his way, boasting that the “house exists at his pleasure”.

      Rather than do as directed by the high and appeal courts in Abuja so that peace can reign in the state, he went to a state high court in Port Harcourt to obtain an order to enable him present the 2025 budget to the Oko-Jumbo group, even after his presentation of the 2024 budget to the same set of lawmakers had been declared illegal. It was an error on his part. The apex court was unsparing in its reprimand of the governor, who it described as a despot that collapsed the government of the state so that he could have his way. Indeed, it was needless for him to have gone to the high court, while pursuing a cross-appeal at the apex court, which pronouncement would swallow whatever the lower court comes up with, no matter how brilliant.

    Fubara was only buying time and postponing the day of reckoning which finally came on February 28 . Still he did not see the handwriting on the wall when Amaewhule and co., went to court to stop him from further receiving allocations from the central bank and the accountant-general of the federation as he was not operating a valid budget. The high court decided in the plaintiffs’ favour. The governor went on appeal and won. The appeal court held that it was a constitutional matter on which the high court had no jurisdiction. The Supreme Court disagreed. It restored the high court order. Quoting from the appeal court verdict, the apex court held:

    Read Also: Dettol Cool brings freshness to fitness enthusiasts, communities across Nigeria

    “The objective of the high court case is to stop the release of funds to the governor so as to compel him to cause the making of the appropriation law by the Rivers State House of Assembly properly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution… the Court of Appeal also acknowledged that based on two of its judgments as at today the Amaewhule group who allegedly defected are still legitimate members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and empowered to conduct the business of the Rivers State House of Assembly”. It said it was therefore wrong of the appeal court to have declared that the high court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the fund allocation case.

       According to the apex court, Fubara’s fear of impeachment led to his cat-and-mouse relationship with the Amaewhule group. Justice Emmanuel Agim, in the lead judgment, held that the governor started the prevention of the sittings of the assembly as constituted by its members as prescribed by Section 96 of the Constitution. His reliance on Sections 102 and 109 of the Constitution and the Doctrine of Necessity, His Lordship said, “is to continue the brazen subversion of Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and legitimate government in Rivers State. Having by his own admission engaged in a series of illegal activities just to prevent the other 27 lawmakers from participating in the proceedings of the House to carry out their legitimate legislative duties which they were elected to do, his resort to the aforesaid Sections 102 and 109 and the Doctrine of Necessity on the basis of his allegation that they have defected is a red herring to perpetuate his subversion of the Rivers State House of Assembly, the 1999 Constitution and democratic government in Rivers State”.

    The court was not done: “The governor had collapsed the Rivers State House of Assembly. Therefore, no question about any member having lost his seat in that House due to defection can validly arise. There must be a House of Assembly for any constitutional processes therein to take place. The claim that the 27 members are no longer members of the House on the basis of an alleged defection is a continuation of his determination to prevent them from participating in the proceedings of the House. It is an engagement in chicanery. What is clear is that the 27 lawmakers are still valid members of the Rivers State House of Assembly and cannot be prevented from participating in the proceedings of the House by the governor in cahoots with the four other members. Sections 102 and 109 cannot be invoked in aid of this unconstitutional enterprise”.

    Berating the governor for choosing to collapse the legislature to enable him govern as a despot, the apex court declared: “As it is, there is no government in Rivers State… political disagreements cannot justify these attacks and contempt for the rule of law by the governor of a state or any person. What he has done is to destroy the government for the fear of being impeached”. With this decision, the case before the Port Harcourt High Court seeking to sack the 27 lawmakers for alleged defection has become mere academic exercise. It is as dead as a dodo.

  • Electricity tariff hike disambiguation

    Electricity tariff hike disambiguation

    Indications from officials of the federal government point to an imminent increase in the price of electricity paid by consumers. The Special Adviser to President Tinubu on Energy, Olu Verheijen was quoted last month as saying that the current power tariff would rise by about two-thirds in order to reflect the cost of supplying it.

    She reportedly told journalists during the Mission 300 Energy Summit in Tanzania that the higher energy tariff is required to fund the maintenance necessary to improve reliability and attract private investors into power generation and transmission.

    She was later to clarify that she was misquoted. According to her, what she said was that following the increase on Band ‘A’ tariffs, the current tariffs now cover about 65 per cent of the actual cost of supplying electricity with the federal government subsidizing the difference.

    But this arithmetic did not just add up. Under the Service-Based Tariff (SBT) scheme, consumers were classified into bands A to E with different tariff’regimes and hours of electricity supply. Those on Band A pay N209 per kilowatt-hour while their Band B counterparts pay N68 per kilowatt-hour for 20 hours and 16 hours of daily electricity supply respectively. Band E customers are supplied only four hours of electricity.

    As at the time the SBT scheme was being sold to the public, the impression conveyed was that Band A tariff was the appropriate price for the commodity supplied to those in that band.  Is Verheijen now saying that the current rate paid by Band A customers represent only 65 per cent cost of the power supplied to them? Or was she referring to consumers in other bands? She needs further clarification on this.

    Read Also: NGML, Ssonic Petroleum ink strategic gas deal to power Nigeria’s energy future – Ezeala

    But that is really beside the point. The real issue is, increase in electricity tariff is imminent irrespective of how it is framed. The Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu toed the same equivocating line last week when he announced plans to ‘regularise’ the country’s electricity tariffs to address the significant disparity in tariff between different consumer bands.  

    The minister shied away from presenting it as tariff hike when he spoke at the public presentation of the National Integrated Electricity Policy (NIEP) in Abuja. “We’ll look at the tariff again. I’m not saying that we’re going to increase the tariff before I’m misquoted. We are going to look at the tariff and see how we can improve upon the modest achievements we made last year”, he said.

     Adebayo pointed out what he saw as the incongruity in differentials in prices paid by Band A and their B counterparts and stressed the need to close such gaps. He finds no justification that Band B which enjoys about 16 hours of electricity daily pays only N68 per kilowatt-hour while those on Band A enjoying about 20 hours pay N209.  He may have a point here. But how come the government is realising this about a year after the Band A billing system took effect? The answer may be located in the current inability of official of the government to come clear on what regularising the electricity billing process is all about.

    In spite of the garb government functionaries have sought to dress the plan, the Nigerian Labour Congress (NLC) sees it for what it is – an attempt to hike the price of electricity supplied to consumers. It has therefore vowed to resist it.

    In a statement issued in Yola, Adamawa State after its National Executive Council meeting, NLC rejected what it called “sham reclassification” of electricity consumers by the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission NERC). It accused the minister of power and NERC of attempting to force consumers into higher tariff bands under the pretext of service improvement while in reality deepening economic hardship. Beyond electricity, the NLC also expressed concerns over the recent increase of over 35 per cent in telecommunications tariff.

    Though it acknowledged having reached an agreement with the federal government on the 35 per cent increase instead of 50 per cent earlier floated, it is yet sceptical of the federal government’s commitment to keeping to its words. The concerns of the NLC are not unfounded especially given the manner government officials are packaging and presenting the plan. Their manner of presentation conveys the unmistakable impression that either there is something to hide or they are not comfortable with such plans.

    Verheijen who initially spoke of two-thirds increase, later said she was misrepresented as what she meant was that the current price paid by consumers represented about 65 per cent of the actual cost of supplying electricity while the federal government bears the difference. That clarification came with flaws as pointed out earlier.

    Adelabu would rather speak in very unclear terms. He talked about regularizing the country’s electricity tariff to close the significant disparity in tariff differences between different bands. Yet, he would not want to be quoted as saying there will be a hike in electricity tariff. What else was he talking about if not the imminence of tariff hike?

    So, the scathing remarks and scepticism by the NLC on government’s commitment to keeping to the 35 per cent telecommunications’ tariff agreement are not out of place. But the reason the government does not want to call a spade its rightful name is not hidden to the discerning public. It has to do with the manner the STB scheme was sold to the public last year.

    Then, the policy was presented as discriminatory pricing.  It allowed Distribution Companies (DISCOS) to raise electricity price to N225 per kilowatt-hour from N68 in return for guaranteeing 20 hours of electricity supply per day. NERC said then that Band A customers represented 15 per cent of the population but constituted 40 per cent of electricity users. 

    The government also said the price paid by Band A customers represented the appropriate pricing for the commodity and would allow the DISCOS fully recover efficient cost of operation including a reasonable return on capital invested in the business. Now, it appears to be singing a different song.

    Ironically, this brand of discriminatory monopoly was not necessarily based on the ability to pay or some other social or demographic indicators but on the capacity of the DISCOS to supply at least 20 hours of electricity to the earmarked areas. It is still unclear whether the price regularising scheme will guarantee other bands longer hours of steady electricity supply or how the price adjustments will affect the various bands.

    The prospect of steady power supply to all the bands appears a tall order given the experiences of customers initially graded under the Band A scheme. The DISCOS were soon to find out that they lacked the capacity to maintain the agreed hours of steady electricity supply to their consumers. This saw to the down-grading of customers hitherto in Band A to Band B.

    Band B could not also deliver on promise as epileptic power supplies coupled with national grid breakdowns made a mockery of the scheme. Even then, the total power generation in the country which is still about 5,000 megawatts is still a far cry from the national power supply demand.

    It remains doubtful whether the government can possibly market the regularisation process on the grounds of improved and steady power supply. That will make no sense. Apparently conscious of that contradiction, the new argument is that cost reflective adjustments will improve funding for maintenance and reliable supplies and attract investors into power generation and transmission.

    What this entails is that consumers across all bands will have to pay more before the investments in infrastructural maintenance that will guarantee steady supplies could be attracted. If this interpretation is correct, then electricity consumers must be charged more for services rendered irrespective of their level of efficiency. That seems where we find ourselves now.

    That would appear a negation of the foundation on which the STB scheme was erected. Then, all the rigmarole on nomenclature- STB tariffs, cost-reflective pricing and regularisation of tariff are just subsidy removal from electricity dressed in other garbs. Such policies have been coming in torrents and the government appears scared calling it by its real name for fear of backlash.

  • Lion and the jewel

    Lion and the jewel

    One thing is sure. The history of the Senate, nay, the history of law making in Nigeria will never be written without that compound name: Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan. Some might even add, that that provenance must include the history of Nigerian politics. At least, the history of Nigeria romance, high-profile or low, city or subaltern. The history of man and woman. An inflexion point since that Edenic dawn when Eve slew Adam with her guile – maybe not!

    Some might call it a story of impertinence. The story of rebellion. A legislative equivalent of a gang rape. A penile tale. A servile tale. No one can dispute that it is the story of beauty. A woman, fair, imperious, intelligent, daring, against a powerful man.

    It is understandable that many thought she was suspended because of her sexual harassment charge. That is the power of sex, and beauty. Beauty is a dazzle, an obfuscation. The imagination of the public was entranced into a one-sided verdict, charmed by beauty into a foreordained fable. Steamrolled, henpecked. Beauty will save the world. Dostoyevsky might mean it in other lights. Not in the context of Natasha. Maybe Austrian Poet, Rainer Maria Rilke, garlands the right sentiment. Says he: “Beauty is the beginning of terror.” In another place he writes, “an angel is terrible.”

    Senator Godswill Akpabio is a lover of humour who says he would be a comedian, if he comes to this world again. It’s no time for humour.

    First, the people say the Senate “gang-raped” the woman by not giving her fair hearing. Fair hearing? She sat on the wrong seat, against the rule. She wanted a better chair so she could be seen and preen, her vanity toppling the law? She wanted to stand up in the majesty of her resplendence, sash over her dainty locks and head, her eyes bold and her skin aglow. Camera as witness.

    Her accusation was about a public fantasy about a man and a beauty, Soyinka’s Lion and the Jewel, a beauty and a beast. That sort of fantasy can invoke rage. The rage about justice, a powerful man oppressing a fragile creature, a man exploiting patriarchy in a legislature full of red-blooded souls. Also, about envy, about why a man should amass such powers, and not them, why a woman should have such beauty, and not them. It is about opportunity. Time to nail Akpabio, the man who said things they did not like. Like “we are eating.”

    Read Also: NGML, Ssonic Petroleum ink strategic gas deal to power Nigeria’s energy future – Ezeala

    But the issue is the issue. Did Natasha have proof of her case? Was it because she had been shunted out of the limelight? So, she decided to behead the man at the top? She was given an opportunity to appear before the panel, but she scorned them. She said she has concrete evidence, but no one has seen it. Shall we crucify Akpabio because he is a man, because he is her “boss,” because he can tease and make sexual advances? All men can make sexual advances. It does not mean when a man does it, it is true.

    Beauty is a magnet. It is a snare both for the woman and the man. This is not the first time beauty will subdue headlines. When it erupts, we forget everything. We forget bad governance, tribe and faith. We forget education policy, the slum of Mushin, the billions stolen yesterday, the foibles of tyranny.

    In the military era, a certain beauty known as Jennifer Madueke rocked the nation, a svelte, fair, benumbing vision, captured the imagination. It was a different kind of story. It was during the IBB years.  Names plopped down into the public ears.  From army generals to inspector general of police Oyakhilome to, can you imagine, Beko Ransome-Kuti. Civil rights took back seats to the blights of the flesh. A journalist, now famous, pointed her neck as the centre of her power. Neck like a cake, ramrod like a snake. She was the day’s Delilah. A beauty knocking down the mighty. It was a story of drugs and lust, penis and penance.

    Nor is it new. Even the only man God called his friend in the Bible was in thrall of a beauty naked in the wash, Bathsheba, who birthed a child that birthed many who birthed the holy Jesus. How could we have the Anglican Church today without a beauty. Anne Boleyn captured Henry the Eighth, who admired “her pretty duckies,” who must marry her first and upturn divorce history, and cut off the Catholic Church and form the Anglican. If beauty is the beginning of terror, as Rilke asserts, the king beheaded Boleyn, because of another beauty. Recently IMF chief failed to be French president because of a bubble of perversion with a West Arican immigrant and hotel maid, a tale retold with gusto and bravura in Chimamanda Adiche’s new novel, Dream Count.

    In ancient times, we learned of Cleopatra, who entrapped Antony and slaughtered her brother. Theodora was so beautiful that emperor Justinian of Rome changed the law to marry her , though a whore, a whore who fired male senses more than any seraph. If beauty formed a church and broke another, it touched off the greatest war in the ancient world. It was because Jason married Helen of Troy. Shaka the Zulu fell because of Noliwe, and Thomas Mofolo retells this tale but not as succinctly as Poet Senghor who wrote “the weakness of the heart is holly…” and he killed the beauty in order to “escape doubt.”

    But it is doubt that Natasha Akpoti-Uduaghan leaves in the trail of her petition. For two reasons, though. One, she accused the man in his house, and the husband did not hear, and the space between them and the man? We need geographic illumination. It is interesting that the man did not say he heard to buttress his wife. Two, Reno Omokri she accused has proven her wrong in public. Her past has tainted her credibility until she has “concrete evidence.” Many may be enthralled with the witchcraft of her beauty, to paraphrase Shakespeare, but her claim must be proved. As Virginia Woolf writes, “Nothing has really happened until it has been recorded.”

  • Adichie counts her dreams

    Adichie counts her dreams

    There is something eternally charming about Chimamanda Adichie’s new novel, Dream Count. One thing struck me. It tenants a quartet. In her case, four women. Two big-name writers precede her. Wole Soyinka with his Interpreters and his latest novel, Chronicles from the Land of the Happiest People in the World. The stories are told from four people’s perspectives. Chigozie Obioma’s latest civil war novel, The Road to the Country, also is about four people. Unlike both novelists, Dream Count is all about  women. Soyinka’s all about  men.

    Adichie’s women are Nigerians and one Guinean. The three Nigerians are Chiamaka, Omelogor and Zikora. The Guinean woman, Kadiatou, is the most compelling personality in the novel. But all four lament their lives in the United States. Chiamaka is a travel writer who dates white men after white men, and is obsessed by the haughty soul and intellectual pretentions of a black American who has nothing but contempt for her. Zikora bears a child for a successful Ghanaian, Kwame, who doesn’t see her again or the child. Omelogor is a disillusioned banker full of brio and cunning intelligence, who leaves banking in Nigeria to study pornography in the U.S.

    The core of the story is Kadiatou, called Kadi for short. It is the most beautiful part of the story. Sometimes she evokes in my mind David Diop’s Beyond the Door of No Return. Adichie rides high with flair and flow that sometimes surpass Americanah and Half of A Yellow Sun. She immerses limpid prose in rural Guinea and Conakry with familiar mastery, sometimes incantatory, sometimes poetic, but often brilliant. Kadi leaves Guinea with her child to the U.S, and she is sexually molested in a New York topline hotel by a VIP, the story inspired by the true-life story of the IMF chief Dominique Strauss-Kahn, who molested a West African woman. She loses the criminal case even if she reportedly won $6 million in civil settlement. It is a different iteration of older male versus vulnerable female in Kairos by Jenny Erpenbeck. Omelogor is fascinating as a confidante of a bank CEO who perches on a chair where peacock billionaires and indolent politicians launder money in uncountable zeroes of naira. She filches a few to play “Robynhood” to indigent women. It is graphic and Adichie writes like an insider. Unforgettable is Zikora’s mother who deceives husband and daughter of failed pregnancies though she has lost her womb after Zikora’s birth.

    Read Also: Building strong, resilient financial system for economic growth

    The Economist magazine pans Adichie’s novel for being explicit instead of  implicit, being the hallmark of the craft. Adichie has often said you must show rather than tell. There is something to the Economist critique, but the criticism is probably hurt because Dream Count ribs the West’s pharisaic hubris, and it delights to see Adichie act as today’s Moliere as she tears apart phrases and words the West deploys to assure itself as civilisation’s moral and liberal powerhouse.

    Yet, when the West writes glowingly about the novel’s Nigerian women, we must note that they are all Igbo women, nothing wrong with that.  A tribal trope when Omelogor befriends Hauwa to brandish an air of a liberal while she puts down other Fulani employees as little minds, and cannot confide in Hauwa about her “Robynhood” scheme while her Igbo kin know. The writer seems to tease the audience with a character called Jide. The reader may think, at last a Yoruba character. But Jide is short for Jideofor, who cannot land a Lagos job until he presents his name without the Igbo surname but as Jide Thomas. The men in the book lack moral heft or interior nobility, and the women enact the last verdict, as though a novel from the Elizabeth Cady Stanton. That makes Dream Count’s author a sort of feminist czar. The novel begins slowly, sometimes bullying the reader with didactic lines but it wakes up and runs masterfully.