The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • IBB’s confession

    IBB’s confession

    • June 12, like 20-year pounded yam, is still steaming hot, 32 years after

    At last, at long last, Nigeria’s former self-styled President, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, has released his long-awaited autobiography. The book, ‘A Journey In Service,’ was launched at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel  in Abuja on Thursday.

    Babangida was Nigeria’s head of state from August 27, 1985 to August 26, 1993, when he was forced to ‘step aside’, following his government’s annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election.

    Babangida’s tenure as military president witnessed several controversies, the most prominent being the June 12, 1993 election. Babangida and his colleagues apparently underrated the likely consequences of the annulment of that election’s result. He admitted that much in his book.

    Anyway, belated or timely, I congratulate Babangida for the courage he eventually summoned to own up on June 12, even if, as many people have observed, he said nothing new. After all, President Muhammadu Buhari had in 2018 posthumously awarded Bashorun Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, the acclaimed winner of the election, the highest national honour for heads of state or presidents in Nigeria, the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic; an affirmation of sort, of Abiola’s victory in the election.

     Indeed, IBB described the annulment of the election as an “accident of history.”

    The truth of the matter is that in governments all over the world there are several dark deeds or ‘accidents of history’. Many things happened in government that the people only got clues to years after the occurrences, or sometimes long after the dramatis personae have passed on. Perhaps June 12 has joined the league of such events in Nigeria.

    IBB’s affirmation of Abiola’s victory is key because he was at the saddle at the time the election was held. Perhaps the only new dimension that Babangida introduced in his book is to mention General Sani Abacha as a critical factor in the annulment.

    “Unfortunately, the forces gathered against him after the June 12 elections were so formidable that I was convinced that if he became President, he would be quickly eliminated by the same very forces who pretended to be his friends,” IBB said.

    Read Also: IBB comes clean, but is far from cleansed

    He added: “Although I am on record to have stated after the election that Abiola may not have won the election, upon deeper reflection and a closer examination of all the available facts, particularly the detailed election results…there was no doubt that MKO Abiola won the June 12 election.”

    Not done, Babangida continued: “Upon closer examination of the original collated figures from the 110,000 polling booths nationwide, it was clear that he satisfied the two main constitutional requirements for winning the presidential elections, mainly majority votes and geographical spread, having obtained 8,128,720 votes against Tofa’s 5,848,247 votes and securing the mandatory one-third of the votes cast in 28 states of the federation, including Abuja.”

    While the more than N17 billion that was realised at the occasion was also significant, I think the fact that he has been able to empty his mind of the heavy burden of his involvement in the annulment of the result of the election  would be more significant to him than the billions.  I want to believe that, by now, Babangida would have realised, like King Solomon in the Bible, that “vanity upon vanity, all is vanity.” That no position is permanent.

     Before his confession, I had always remembered with awe the existence of God Almighty whenever people visited Babangida in his Minna mansion and the man could only receive them sitting down.

     This was the same IBB that radiculopathy did not condemn to a wheel chair. The Babangida that once told Nigerians that they were not only in government, they were also in power. The same Babangida that was bouncing on his legs when he was justifying the annulment of the election on national television a few days after, as if he was on something on that occasion.

    Alhamdulillahi indeed.

    As ‘A Journey In Service’  was being launched on Thursday, I remembered a book that myself and some of my friends were supposed to write on Babangida some years back. If my memory is not failing me, I think the title  was ‘IBB: The one they all call Oga’. There was also a documentary side that was supposed to be handled by another team. Somehow, the idea died. Even if that book had been written, it wouldn’t have carried the same weight as something on June 12 coming straight from the horse’s mouth.

    But I was the first person to opt out of the arrangement. I could not imagine  working for Babangida, the man who proscribed ‘The Punch’ where at a point during the June 12 struggle I was editor. Between Babangida and Abacha, ‘The Punch’ and two other prominent national dailies were proscribed for about 15 months!

    So, on the first day of our formal meeting on the book project at a friend’s office here in Lagos, I announced to the other team members — Olu Awogbemila, Bolade Opaleye and the team leader (name withheld), I think we were just four; that I was not interested in the project. It was as if we had planned it. But we are all long-time friends and what happened after I opted out was not surprising. Awogbemila and Opaleye too said they had thought it over and again and came to the conclusion that they could also not participate. Apparently on June 12 we all stood.

    Apparently too, the team leader, as the main man, could not ‘chicken out’ and he eventually went to Minna, Niger State, to meet Babangida in connection with the project. We were supposed to go together. I remember him saying the man would really have loved to meet me when he told him that a former editor of ‘The Punch’ was in the team. Trust IBB, he was generous to a fault. But if he had ‘settled’ me for the pains of proscription then, how would that have affected the other workers that went on forced holiday without pay as a result of the proscription? I said all of these in my tribute to Maryam Babangida, IBB’s wife when she died in December 2009.

    It is auspicious at a time like this to recount some of these incidents so that some other people who felt IBB’s apology is belated would know that many other people had their own pangs during the June 12 struggle and even after. Yet, they have moved on, knowing the best they could get from Babangida was the apology.

    I was picked up from the sick bed at Holy Trinity Hospital in Ikeja, Lagos, straight to the State Security Service’s (SSS) office in Shangisha, Lagos, over June 12. I also had some days with the police. My predecessor, Bola Bolawole, was detained in his office for about five days. I can’t remember the number of times I had to tuck out my shirt and throw my tie away just to evade arrest right on our premises. Anything could have happened in those days when soldiers could kill and go. Even if we had died somewhere along the other mines we had to tread at the time, it would not have changed anything whether our relatives decide to forgive Babangida or not, now that he has apologised. If multitudes die on Saturday, Christians who go to church on Sunday would still sing songs of praise and thanksgiving to God.

    But this is not to say that critics who feel Babangida’s apology is not enough do not have a point. The price we paid for this democracy. The price! The price!!

    Here, one remembers the pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere. I won’t be surprised if the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) that was formed to fight the military out of power express the same sentiment.

    Indeed, I agree with Afenifere that “However, this long-overdue confession cannot exonerate Babangida and his associates from the monumental betrayal inflicted upon the nation.” And that “It does not restore the lives lost, nor does it atone for the enduring scars of oppression, bloodshed, and the suppression of democracy. The consequences of that reckless annulment remain irreversible.”

    But nothing can.

    Indeed, for me, this is the most crucial aspect of it all. If something is irreversible, what then do we expect the person behind it all to do? Generals these days no longer commit suicide over such matters.

    It is important to note that, before now, many of us have been asking Babangida to say something on June 12, he has not only said something now, he has admitted that he made mistakes and apologised.

    Regrettable as all of the unintended consequences of June 12 were, we just have to accept the irreversibility of certain actions and take life in its strides. As one of my friends would say: eni k’ole sa, o sa; e ni k’o ju t’owo e sile, o ju sile; ki lo tun ku? (You asked a thief to run, he ran; you asked him to drop what he has stolen, he dropped it. Yet, you keep on pursuing him)!

    Nobody can deny the fact that one of the people who fought for this democracy is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Yet, the tone of his speech at the book launch does not convey that pain or bitterness of harassment, up to the point of being hounded into exile. You may say then it was ‘Sad Asiwaju’; today, as president, he is ‘Happy Asiwaju’! May be.

    But, honestly, I think rather than keep sulking over Babangida’s regret or apology, it is the country’s current leaders who have lessons to learn from the IBB episode. Ours is a country where local government chairmen are kings, governors are emperors and presidents are like next-of-kin to God almighty. Babangida had made a grievous mistake in his handling of the June 12 election. We are not in a position to judge whether he is truly repentant or not. We can only assume he is.

    It is our current leaders that we have to hold accountable more for their actions so they too would not wake up sometimes tomorrow to offer belated apologies for their actions or inactions in government.

    Babangida operated in a military era. Despite that, we gave them close marking. We no longer do that and that is why people that we purportedly elected are getting more brazen with all manner of irresponsible behaviours.

     I want to believe that one of the reasons God has spared IBB’s life till this time is to enable him make some  restitution. Nothing can be done to bring back Abiola or those that were mauled down by soldiers for insisting on the de-annulment of the election from the grave; just as nothing can be done to undo the annulment of the election that Abiola worked hard to win such that he could reclaim his mandate. The apology should do

    What is more? Babangida had said that “The June 12 elections were the most challenging of my life. If I have to do it all over again, I’ll do it differently”. Unfortunately, in such circumstance, there is no second chance. At 83, we can only leave him to his conscience.

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

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (VIII)

    The men who led the world into the age of the Industrial revolution were hard headed men who held no truck with niceties of any kind. They kept their eyes on the bottom line and exalted gold to the level of a deity. They saw all human beings only through the prism of profit and every single thing they did was towards the enhancement of their bank balance. They seized every opportunity that came their way and turned it into a tidy profit. Everything considered, there was no point in appealing to their humanity because they had none to speak of but to them had fallen the responsibility of  building an enduring global order. Or, have they, could they?

    It was no coincidence that the industrial revolution took off in England. To start with, England had profited most from the slave trade and therefore had more money in private pockets than any other country including the United States whose economy was based primarily on the production of agricultural products using slave labour. It was becoming clear by the turn of the eighteenth century by which time the industrial revolution had arrived in the Northern states of the Union that the slave economy of the southern states was no longer tenable. However, it took more than sixty years before the debate over slavery was to be resolved on the battle fields of the American civil war. The North, with her almost limitless industrial capacity, at least compared to the South, was of course no match for those hill billies from the South. If they had a little gumption, they would have known that they had no chance against the North but how could anyone tell them that they were swimming against the currents of history and that sooner or later, they would be pulled under the waves. As General Sherman said as he rampaged through the South on his thirty-seven day march from Atlanta to Savannah on the sea, war was hell and Sherman made sure that the Confederates appreciated the meaning of hell as he destroyed all infrastructure in his path and bagged all the food in his path to ensure that his men were well fed and if such food was lost by the rebels, that was good for the Northern cause. He was able to carry out an expedition that has been described as the first action that could be described as modern warfare because of the Industrial base behind him and the lack of modern industry in the South. By the time Sherman reached the sea, it had become clear that the war was over bar the shouting. But I get beyond myself and it would be necessary to go back some seventy years to tell the story of how the USA was dragged into the industrial age.

    Read Also: The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (VII)

    England is said to have set off the Industrial revolution by the middle of the eighteenth century and maintained a monopoly of industrial processes which made sure that English industrialists were much richer than the elites in other European countries and of course the USA which for much of that period was still fighting to gain her independence from the British. The situation changed in 1789 when Samuel Slater migrated to the USA from Derby in the English Midlands carrying in his head the industrial method of producing textiles. He had to memorise this process because there was a law preventing the transfer of this technology to any place outside England and having been able to achieve this transfer, Slater became known as a traitor by the English. By 1807, two brothers, William and John Cocktreil also moved the industrial production process to Belgium and it was not long before the Industrial revolution spread right throughout Europe except Russia which at that time was too backward to appreciate large scale industrial enterprises. It was not until 1865 that serfdom, a form of slavery was abolished in Russia and as was the case in the West Indies and the southern states of the USA, any form of slavery is incompatible with the industrial production of goods.

    It has to be said that apart from the riches from the slave trade which had set up England to be the seat of the industrial revolution, geography was also kind to England in that all the materials and conditions needed for the take-off of the industrial revolution were present. In the first place, coal was found in considerable abundance in several parts of  Britain and this made it possible to switch to steam power as soon as versions of the steam engine were available. Indeed, the first use of the steam engine was in pumping out water from  damp mines before it was adapted to providing power to make the first power looms work to produce textiles on an industrial scale. Apart from the production of textiles perhaps the greatest  boost to the industrial revolution was the invention of the railways which were not only a marvel of engineering in themselves, they also made it possible for goods to be transported cheaply over long distances. Another advantage that England had was the presence of navigable rivers over which raw materials could be transported. In addition to this, the presence of these rivers made it possible for canals which were an additional aid to the movement of goods all around the country to be possible. By this time also all types of raw materials especially cotton were flowing into England from India and parts of China to be used in those early industries. It is also pertinent to add that the financial institutions needed by those early industrialists; banks, joint stock companies, insurance companies, not to talk of a huge merchant navy were at the disposal of those early English industrialists.

    From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution was spreading through Europe with varying degrees of success from one country to another but nowhere was the British success fully replicated. Engineers were required to service the engines used in the new factories and the best engineers were British (and this is one area where the Scots came into their own) and they could be found all over Europe tending to the machines which were driving the industrial revolution. In what could be described as the second stage of the industrial revolution, British engineers could be found all over Europe supervising the laying of railway tracks and servicing the locomotives which hauled the rolling stock. Everywhere they went, the British also took with them their love of football which they spread together with the railroads they were building so that some of the most famous European football teams such as AC Milan and Juventus have some relationship with one Englishman or the other. AC Milan actually started life as Milan Football and Cricket Club! Both Spanish giants Real Madrid and Barcelona  also have considerable English background to their illustrious history.

    This reference to football clubs is actually prelude to something much more serious. It was clear quite early in the industrial revolution that the most successful industrial countries were those that had areas of influence from where they had a guaranteed supply of raw materials and to which they could sell the cheap products from their factories. After all, for all the success of British industry, the most important raw material for textile production was cotton, a material which had to be imported from India and the USA. On the other hand the factories were churning out so many yards of cheap textiles that the local population especially with their low wages could never hope to consume more than a small fraction of the materials produced. The solution to this problem was a secure overseas market. In other words colonies or areas of influence were a prerequisite for industrial success. And once again, Britain with her long association with slave traders in Africa and control of most parts of the Indian sub-continent and China was in pole position in the race for the commercial domination of the world. The industrialised countries of Europe including Britain, France and Germany became locked in the race to acquire colonies wherever they could. They competed furiously against each other in Africa, fought wars against each other in India but cooperated with each other in China where they presented a united front agonist the Chinese emperor. All these manoeuvrings signified the end of the beginning industrialisation and the beginning of colonialism or as Lenin so elegantly put it, the age of imperialism which marked the highest state of capitalism. The point to be made here is that as soon as capitalism enters the stage of imperialism in which capitalists are able to carve out areas of interest abroad, there is great danger to the welfare of the workers in both capitalist countries and those in the periphery to come under lash of the oligarchs which working through giant finance corporations control everything and everyone. The current global situation suggests that we are now entering the period of imperialism bringing out the purest form of capitalism but again I am getting ahead of my narrative and must revert to a discussion on colonialism.

    There is no doubt that Britain was well ahead of other industrializing countries of Europe right up to 1849, the year that The  Communist Manifesto was published and the warning about the spectre of communism haunting Europe delivered. Thereafter however, other countries especially France and the German Empire which was about to be put together by Otto von Bismarck now known to the world as the Iron Chancellor began to catch up with the British. This was competition which was not welcome by the British especially in the case of the German Empire sitting as she was right in the middle of Europe.

    The Germans came late to the party and although they tried to make up for this crippling disadvantage by developing superb engineering skills and inserting themselves into small territories which for one reason or the other had been overlooked by either the French or the British in Africa. They were thus restricted to small territories; Togoland and parts of Cameroon in West Africa, an awful lot of sand in the  practically uninhabitable desert in South West Africa as well as Rwanda, Burundi and Tanganyika in East Africa.

    This situation had the potential of causing a lot of trouble in Europe, trouble which was quite capable of toppling the balance of power in Europe which had been devised to prevent any war in Europe after the turbulent Napoleonic wars which had come close to bringing every European empire to her knees. This arrangement which came to be known as the Concert of Europe had succeeded in preventing any major war in Europe save the Crimean war which was fought in the Crimean peninsular, an area which was not really part of Europe. The war between the newly unified Germany and France was over so quickly that it did not disturb the Concert but it gave warning of the danger to the peace of Europe if disputes were not resolved before armies were mobilised and shots fired. By 1884, it had become clear that the squabbling over Africa had the potential to profoundly disturbing peace in Europe. This formed the impetus for Otto von Bismarck to invite fourteen countries including the USA to Berlin in 1884 for what has come to be known as the Berlin Conference.

  • Is Atiku Abubakar a glutton for punishment the way he keeps running to Obasanjo

    Is Atiku Abubakar a glutton for punishment the way he keeps running to Obasanjo

    What I did not know, which came glaringly later, was his parental background which was somewhat shadowy, his propensity to corruption, his tendency to disloyalty, his inability to say and stick to the truth all the time, a propensity for poor judgement, his belief and reliance on marabouts, his lack of transparency, his trust in money to buy his way out of all issues and his readiness to sacrifice morality, integrity, propriety, truth, and national interest for self and selfish interest” – President Obasanjo on his one – time Vice, Waziri Atiku Abubakar, in his book “MY WATCH”.

    In my part of the country, anybody so literally incinerated, would never remember that the person who so vaporised him exists, ever again.

    It is part of our Omoluabi ethos.

    But regrettably, the Waziri Adamawa is not cut from that cloth.

    He, therefore, goes forth and back to former President Segun Obasanjo like he had been told the latter is his sole access to the Nigerian presidency.

    Atiku Abubakar’s persistent pursuit of the presidency, despite facing numerous setbacks, has led many to wonder if he’s a glutton for punishment, just naive or too driven by the now hackneyed prediction of those marabouts Obasanjo was first to reveal.

    Or why, after seeing his many  visits to  Obasanjo, once with two bishops in tow, collapse like a pack of cards, would he again head to Ota, this time with mere mortals like Senator Abdul Ningi, former Cross River governor, Liyel Imoke, former Sokoto State Governor, Aminu Tambuwal and, to really have Obasanjo’s ears, Otunba Oyewole Fasawe, Obasanjo’s one time very close associate.

    Atiku’s convoluted relationship with  President Olusegun Obasanjo is particularly intriguing, galling in fact, given their complicated history.

    Read Also: NNPC, Oando and Atiku Abubakar’s attacks, by Temitope Ajayi

    His determination to seek Obasanjo’s support, despite the latter’s apparent reluctance, raises questions about his motivations. Is he driven by a genuine desire to lead the country, or is it a personal vendetta? To understand this dynamic, it is essential to examine the genesis of the Obasanjo-Atiku controversy.

    The feud had began on the eve of the 2003 PDP primaries, when Atiku was pressured to leave Obasanjo’s side and contest the presidency. That Atiku succumbed to that pressure sparked Obasanjo’s ire, setting the stage for a protracted and tumultuous relationship.

    Fast-forward then  to the present, and Atiku’s actions seem to be driven by a desire invigorated by the marabouts’ say so.

    To properly contextualise matters, long before Atiku became anything outside of Nigerian customs, that is politically, marabouts had told him he would be elected governor of his state, never rule as such, but become the President after a brief time as Vice- President.

    Pity, he never escaped that entrapment.

    His repeated overtures to Obasanjo, despite the latter’s obvious disinterest, and continuous denigration of the supplicant, suggest a deep-seated, unalterable ambition. This behavior is perplexing, given Atiku’s extensive experience, popularity and  undeniable accomplishments both in politics and business.

    His critics argue that his actions are motivated by a sense of entitlement, rather than a genuine desire to serve the country.

    His recent criticisms of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration, for instance, have been characterised as “harebrained propositions devoid of realistic alternatives” but aimed majorly at being in the limelight, especially as, rightly or wrongly, Peter Obi of the Labour party, considers himself  head of the opposition.

    Moreover, Atiku’s economic proposals have been serially dismissed as efette and lacking in substance. For instance,  his suggestion to privatise the four government-owned refineries has been criticised as a rehash of old ideas.

    Nigerians have also not forgotten the mess he made of the Privatisation programme of the Obasanjo government, as the man in charge, when between him,  Obasanjo and El Rufai, they sold about 147 enterprises worth around N100B, to cronies, for not even a fifth of that amount.

    Nor can we forget the PTDF cesspit.

    In the light of all these, it is reasonable to ask whether Atiku’s persistence is driven by a desire to prove himself or a genuine commitment to public service. His actions seem to be motivated by a need for validation, rather than a desire to address the country’s pressing challenges.

    This view is further reinforced by his visit to former President Ibahim Babangida this past week.

    Apparently to sell a dummy to Nigerians he visited former President Ibrahim Babangida in Minna, calling it a courtesy call ahead of the former’s  book launch of Thursday, 20 February, a bare 48 hours or so away.

    The  Waziri very easily gives himself away. If he would meet IBB a mere 48 hours or less away, why this rush, if not in furtherance of his subterranean 2027 ambitions?

    But, indeed, why visit Obasanjo or IBB anyway? When last did the candidates supported by these two titans last win any election?

    Atiku just loves to be in the limelight even if such would come to naught. What a pity for a once glamorous, and respected, politician until he demonstrated what a selfish politician he is; angling  so audaciously to see himself, a Northerner, succeed President Muhammadu Buhari, another Northerner,  who had just completed two terms of 8 years on the platform of a political party, PDP, which has zoning enshrined in its constitution.

    Ultimately, Atiku’s decision to continue seeking Obasanjo’s support, despite the latter’s apparent reluctance, raises questions about his judgment and motivations. Is he a glutton for punishment, driven by a desire for validation and acceptance? Or is he a genuine leader, committed to serving the country?

    Like a child running after lolly, Atiku continues to run to a man who not only serially rubbishes him, but had the temerity to insinuate his parental background into what, essentially, was nothing more than a political contestation.

    What insult will Atiku not take in his millennial pursuit of Aso Villa residency?

    If he didn’t know at that time, hasn’t he been privileged to read the highly respected Awujale’s views on Obasanjo?

    I can understand a  Peter Obi tying himself to Obasanjo’s apron strings, not an experienced Atiku, who would soon be 80 years on terra firma.

    Meanwhile he continues to further deepen the hostilities tearing the PDP, his only legitimate route to the Presidency, apart. He obviously would have acted differently, if only he had realised that come 2027, no amount of money will shake off the young turks now angling for the party”s leadership, if it manages to survive its current duel unto death. 

    All said, Wazirin Abubakar appears like his own worst enemy, not only by his political gallivanting, but more because he has never shown the inclination to help deepen, and get firmly rooted, any party to which he belongs, knowing full well he hasn’t the qualities to found one, yet always fighting to the death to emerge the Presidential candidate.

    Nigerians are waiting with bated breath, for that day when he would see himself as an elder statesman.

  • Malcolm X’s moral dilemmas

    Malcolm X’s moral dilemmas

    Malcolm X, the famous African-American civil rights defender, abhorred hypocrisy in whatever form and from whatever source. He believed that White America was systematically prosecuting psychological warfare against Blacks in the country by portraying everything black negatively and demonising efforts at resisting the oppression. Malcolm also believed that some Blacks were, advertently or inadvertently, collaborating or conniving with their oppressors by displaying lack of self-pride and race-pride and facilitating the divide-and-conquer tactic. He cited the example of White America setting up Black comedians, dancers, baseball players and similar stooges, puppets and clowns, making them celebrities and calling them Black leaders, who then said exactly what the White people wanted to hear.

    A dilemma Malcolm faced was thus that those whom he and his mentor Elijah Muhammad, among others, were struggling to protect against oppression were themselves fascinated with the nature of the White oppressors. In his 27 April, 1962 speech titled “Malcolm X’s Fiery Speech Addressing Police Brutality,” he exhorted his audience to Black pride, by asking rhetorically: “Who taught you, please, to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin to such extent that you bleach to get like the White man? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lip?  Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate the race that you belong to so much so that you don’t want to be around each other?   No, before you come asking Mr. Muhammad does he teach hate, you should ask who yourself who taught you to hate being what God gave you?”

    In further defence of Elijah Muhammad, in an interview on YouTube titled “Malcolm X first interview for British TV (1963),” when a British journalist asked him whether “the Black Muslim Prophet,” was preaching race hatred, Malcolm replied: “He’s not teaching hate; he’s teaching history. And since the American White man has used his control over the press and over the textbooks and over all forms of media to make it appear that he has done us a favor by bringing us here and enslaving us, then the Honorable Elijah Muhammad has to rewrite history or retell history. And since the White man can’t dispute this truth, he tries to defend himself by saying that Mr. Muhammad is teaching hate. It’s not hate to say that we were kidnapped and brought here. It’s truth, not hate, to say that the Supreme Court which is the highest court in this country came up with a hypocritical desegregation decision nine years ago which they haven’t enforced yet. That’s not hate, that’s true.”

    Malcolm underscored the hypocrisy in passing a desegregation legislation in 1954 and refusing to enforce it even as at 1963 and of passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with Blacks murdered shortly after, without consequence.  Malcolm then said at a 3 December, 1964 Oxford University debate: “America … is … as racist as South Africa … The only difference between it and South Africa, South Africa preaches separation and practices separation, America preaches integration and practices segregation. … I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong than one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.”

    In an unsympathetic 5 March, 1965 TIME magazine article titled “Malcolm X assassination report: Death and transfiguration,” he was described as follows: “Malcolm had been a pimp, a cocaine addict and a thief. He was an unashamed demagogue. His gospel was hatred: ‘Your little babies will have polio!’ he cried to the ‘white devils.’ His creed was violence: ‘If ballots won’t work, bullets will.’” As a 9 May, 1999 entry by Lawrence A. Mamiya entitled “Malcolm X” in Encyclopedia Britannica put it, “Malcolm quit smoking and gambling and refused to eat pork in keeping with the Nation’s dietary restrictions. … Following Nation tradition, he replaced his surname ‘Little,’ with an ‘X,’ a custom among Nation of Islam followers who considered their family names to have originated with white slaveholders.”

    Malcolm could therefore be said to have undergone moral moulting and psychological reconditioning. And he credited Elijah Muhammad with cleaning him up through the message of Islam. Malcolm therefore established the newspaper “Muhammad Speaks” to spread the message and teachings of Elijah Muhammad. Moreover, in a 6 August, 1964 interview with Mike Wallace of CBS, Malcolm said: “Everything that I said always was designed to protect Mr. Muhammad himself primarily because the image that he had created was the image that enabled his followers to remain strong in faith and things of that sort and I didn’t want to see adverse effect or negative result develop in the faith of all of his followers.”

    Read Also: Malcolm X’s family releases letter alleging FBI, police role in his death

    Malcolm also said: “If you notice the stake that I always use in presenting, representing and defending the Muslim movement was the fact that it had the ability to reform the morals of the so-called Negro community. It eliminated drug addiction, alcoholism, fornication, adultery, loose sexual behavior; which meant that it eliminated bastard babies, illegitimate children … We had a law which was that whenever any Muslim became involved in any kind of sexual relationship with someone to whom they weren’t married, that person would be brought before the Muslim community, humiliated and then isolated for one to five years. … In 1954, a teenage sister left Detroit and became one of Mr. Muhammad’s personal secretaries. And there in the Chicago office, she became pregnant after being there for a year. She was brought before the Muslim community and humiliated and isolated.”

    Malcolm noted that because the man involved was not brought forward during the court session, it was assumed that he was not a Muslim. The same thing happened in respect of five other girls. In total, the six girls had eight babies out of wedlock. He was morally shocked to discover that Elijah Muhammad was the man who impregnated all of the six sisters. Malcolm was now between the devil and the deep blue sea. Should he stand with the man he had spent a greater part of his reformed life seeing in cosmic terms, leave him morally unencumbered and thereby rubbish his own hard-earned credentials as an uncompromising fighter against oppression? Or should he stand with the young sisters who were inequitably carrying the burden of shame and thereby face the moral charge of biting the Elijah Muhammad finger that fed him, metaphorically-speaking? Malcolm chose to stand up in defence of the dignity of the helpless young women.

    His revelation of the unfair treatment of the young sisters and the impunity of the charismatic Elijah Muhammed earned Malcolm enmity from even his erstwhile mentees, friends and admirers, like Louis Farrakhan and Muhammed Ali, and they didn’t mind if he died. They believed that Malcolm was a rebel, a hypocrite and an ingrate, considering the fact that it was Elijah Muhammad who “cleaned him up” and gave him the platform that made him widely known. Asked in a media interview whether he was worried about the intense hostility against him, Malcolm replied: “No, I don’t worry … I tell you, I’m a man who believes that I died 20 years ago and I live like a man who is dead already. I have no fear whatsoever of anybody or anything.” On 21 February, 1965, Malcolm was assassinated by at least one member of the Nation of Islam.

    Malcolm was a victim of the White establishment in America who thought his Black consciousness-raising campaigns were dangerous. In fact, it was alleged that once they noticed a rift between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm, the White authorities were impersonating each of the feuding sides and sending the other side incendiary fake messages to aggravate the crisis. Malcolm was also a victim of the Christian Afro-American elite who thought his style was abrasive and could jeopardise their tokenistic privileges. Malcolm was concurrently the victim of the envy of his fellow members of the Nation of Islam who thought his rising profile was supplanting theirs, and so worked against reconciliation.

    There was an ironical convergence between TIME magazine and Malcolm’s erstwhile mentor, the embittered Elijah Muhammad. Asked, in an Associated Press interview on 22 February, 1965, a day after Malcolm’s assassination, what the point of disagreement between him and Malcom was, Elijah Muhammad said, in a repudiation of Malcolm who had regularly stoutly defended him against the same charge of violence: “Malcolm wanted to use arms, and I disagreed with him. … Malcolm is the victim of his own preaching. He preached violence and so he became the victim of it.” But if the logic were that simple, then Martin Luther King Jr should not have been assassinated, because he preached peace so much that he earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Yet, he was murdered in 1964 by a White man.

    Ossie Davis, in his eulogy on Malcolm on 27 February, 1965, said: “There are those who will consider it their duty, as friends of the Negro people, to tell us to revile him, to flee, even from the presence of his memory, to save ourselves by writing him out of the history of our turbulent times. Many will ask what Harlem finds to honor in this stormy, controversial and bold young captain – and we will smile. Many will say turn away – away from this man, for he is not a man but a demon, a monster, a subverter and an enemy of the black man – and we will smile. They will say that he is of hate – a fanatic, a racist – who can only bring evil to the cause for which you struggle! And we will answer and say to them: Did you ever talk to Brother Malcolm? Did you ever touch him, or have him smile at you? Did you ever really listen to him? Did he ever do a mean thing? Was he ever himself associated with violence or any public disturbance? For if you did you would know him. And if you knew him you would know why we must honor him.”

    “Gold is tried in fire,” and Malcolm had gone through fiery refinement, and had become morally gold-pure. Malcolm died young because he probably had become too pure to live long. He couldn’t afford the compromises that make longevity easier to attain. Yes, America is a nation of laws; but Malcolm was probably too naïve to accept the reality that some personages outgrow mundane laws. To him, equity was immutable. In another milieu and in another circumstance, Malcolm would likely have been canonised.

  • Tinubu’s wake-up call to Africa: Time to build, not beg

    Tinubu’s wake-up call to Africa: Time to build, not beg

    There is something deeply symbolic about the way history repeats itself—offering lessons to those willing to learn and issuing stark warnings to those who refuse to listen. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent remarks at the presentation of former Military President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s autobiography and the launch of his presidential library carried one such warning, not just for Nigeria, but for Africa as a whole.

    At a time when Africans, including Nigerians, are facing increasingly hostile receptions in the West—turned back at sea, subjected to dehumanizing treatment, and, most recently, deported in shackles from the United States—Tinubu made it clear: these indignities should not just be condemned; they should be received as a wake-up call.

    His message was blunt but necessary: Africa must stop looking outward for solutions to problems that must be solved from within. The recent wave of deportations, particularly under U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, is not just about immigration policy; it is a stark reminder of how Africa is perceived on the global stage. If we do not fix our own house, the world will continue to treat us as tenants with no place to belong.

    In the past decade, images of Africans crammed into boats, risking their lives in the Mediterranean, have become all too familiar. Many never make it. Those who do often arrive in countries that do not want them, treated as burdens rather than as people seeking a better life. The desperation behind these journeys tells a painful truth: many Africans, especially young people, have lost faith in their governments’ ability to provide them with opportunities at home.

    Tinubu’s words at the Abuja gathering reflected an urgent realization—if African leaders do not act decisively, the continent will continue to export its human capital in search of hope elsewhere. “It’s telling us to wake up, to make Africa a better place, particularly this country, Nigeria”, he said. This was not just a political statement; it was a direct challenge to his own administration and those of his counterparts across Africa.

    It is easy for leaders to call for change; it is much harder to take the painful steps required to make that change happen. Tinubu acknowledged this, vowing to make the difficult, but necessary decisions to reposition Nigeria for a better future.

    Read Also: Tinubu: It’s time to implement strict local government autonomy

    “All I can promise, as the President, is to strive to do the best, put the best forward, take decisions—no matter how difficult they are—in the interest of the country”, he said.

    This is where the real test lies. The reality is that transforming Nigeria—or any African nation—into a place where people no longer feel compelled to leave will demand radical reforms. It will mean confronting entrenched interests, uprooting corruption, and making investments that may not yield immediate political gains.

    It will also require a shift in mindset—not just from leaders, but from citizens as well. For too long, Africa has been treated as a charity case by the West. The expectation that foreign aid, debt relief, or economic partnerships will somehow solve the continent’s problems has only delayed the hard work that must be done at home.

    Tinubu’s praise of Babangida’s economic policies, particularly the liberalization of Nigeria’s banking sector, serves as a reminder that bold leadership can change the course of a nation. When Babangida issued licenses to new-generation banks, it fundamentally altered Nigeria’s financial landscape. Today, Nigeria boasts some of the strongest banks in Africa.

    If similar boldness is applied to other sectors—particularly agriculture, infrastructure, and industrialization—Nigeria can create jobs, retain its brightest minds, and become a nation that attracts talent rather than loses it.

    Tinubu’s reference to South Korea is particularly instructive. In the 1960s, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. Through strategic government intervention, including targeted investments in industry and technology, it transformed itself into a global economic powerhouse.

    Africa has the potential to do the same. Nigeria, with its vast resources and young population, should be leading this charge. But potential alone is not enough—it must be matched with action.

    Beyond economics, this is about dignity. A nation that cannot provide for its people will always find them knocking on the doors of others, often to be turned away. A continent that does not take itself seriously will never be taken seriously by others.

    President Tinubu has made a promise. He has acknowledged the challenges and vowed to take decisive action. Now, Nigerians will be watching closely to see if these words translate into policies that will make a real difference.

    The deportations, the hostility, and the rejection that many Africans face abroad should not just make us angry; they should make us act. The future of Africa cannot be built on pleas for acceptance from the West. It must be built on a foundation of self-reliance, strong institutions, and a commitment to creating opportunities at home.

    If Tinubu and his fellow African leaders truly heed this wake-up call, perhaps one day, the only migration we will see is that of Africans returning home—not because they are forced to, but because they want to.

    Tinubu’s Week: Mourning Leaders, Strengthening Institutions

    The week was not just about the Babangida outing for the President, there were Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday before the former Military President assembled the crème of the Nigerian political and business classes for his special occasion. After Thursday, there were Friday and yesterday, Saturday, days he dedicated to other relevat events and activities.

    Leadership, at its core, is about presence—being there in moments of triumph and loss, making tough decisions, and ensuring the ship of state stays steady. President Tinubu demonstrated that this past week, like he has consistently done since he assumed office, navigating diplomacy, governance, and national mourning with the balance of a leader keenly aware of his responsibilities.

    Fresh from Addis Ababa, where he attended the 38th Ordinary Session of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government, Tinubu returned to Nigeria on Monday and immediately turned his attention to matters at home. His first order of business was addressing the loss of two towering figures in Nigeria’s socio-political landscape: Chief Ayo Adebanjo and Chief Edwin Clark.

    Adebanjo, the Afenifere chieftain, passed away at 96 in Lagos, while Clark, the revered leader of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), died at 97. Tinubu, in a deeply personal move, penned heartfelt tributes to both men, recognizing their unwavering commitment to their people and the country. These weren’t just perfunctory condolence messages; they were reflections of a leader who understood the weight of their legacies and the vacuum their departure left behind.

    In an era where leaders often communicate through official channels, Tinubu’s choice to write these tributes himself was telling. It was a gesture that underscored respect—not just for the men, but for what they stood for. Adebanjo and Clark were not always on the same political wavelength as Tinubu, yet he acknowledged their impact on Nigeria’s democratic journey. That’s the mark of a leader, secure in his role: one who honours adversaries and allies alike.

    But governance does not pause for grief. By Tuesday, Tinubu was back to the grind, holding private meetings with Senate President Godswill Akpabio at the Presidential Villa. While details of their discussions remain undisclosed, their repeated engagements suggest deliberations on key legislative matters. The Executive-Legislative relationship is the backbone of any administration’s success, and Tinubu’s proactive engagement with Akpabio signals a government keen on coordination rather than confrontation.

    Then came the appointments. On Wednesday, Tinubu named Dr. Danjuma Adamu as Rector and Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian College of Aviation Technology (NCAT), Zaria. Aviation is a crucial sector, and NCAT, as the nation’s premier aviation training institution, plays a pivotal role in producing skilled professionals. The appointment of Adamu, an aviation expert, indicates a focus on merit—a welcome trend in Nigerian public service appointments.

    On Thursday, Tinubu also appointed Dr. Saviour Enyiekere as Chairman of the National Assembly Service Commission (NASC), along with twelve commissioners from across the six geopolitical zones. The NASC, responsible for managing legislative staff and ensuring the smooth running of the National Assembly, is a key institution in Nigeria’s democracy. By filling these positions, Tinubu reaffirmed his commitment to institutional stability.

    During the week, the President juggled diplomacy, national grief, governance, and appointments with characteristic resolve. It was a reminder that leadership is not about doing one thing at a time, but managing multiple priorities—each demanding, each essential.

    As the new week starts, we should expect to see lots of activities, as usual, many of them not done before the camera, keeping the values of such activities as pristine as what is a surprise. Hang on.

  • Senator Tambuwal, when the kettle calls the pot black

    Senator Tambuwal, when the kettle calls the pot black

    In the absurd theatre of Nigerian politics, where ideological fluidity has long become the norm rather than the exception, certain political actors have distinguished themselves as veterans of political tumbling and somersaulting. Among this elite cadre of political gymnasts, a former Speaker of the House of Representatives, former Governor of Sokoto State and now a sitting senator, Senator Aminu Waziri Tambuwal stands in a class of his own – a grandmaster of defection politics who has now, paradoxically, appointed himself the moral custodian of political loyalty.

    The recent broadside launched by the former Sokoto State governor against  recent defectors to the All Progressives Congress (APC) represents the height of political irony in our nation’s contemporary history. It is akin to the proverbial pot embarking on a verbose dissertation about the blackness of kettles.

    Tambuwal had while speaking to journalists after the Northwest PDP National Executive Council meeting in Kaduna, had in a straight face and apparently without a trace of self-awareness, declared that “politicians who have conscience cannot defect to the ruling party.” One is compelled to wonder whether the distinguished Senator was engaging in self-deprecating humor or if this was simply a case of selective political amnesia, one warranting that we rush Tambuwal to the nearest hospital for immediate check up.

    This is the same Senator Tambuwal who owing to his legacy of political nomadism did earn the sobriquet “Minister of Transport” for his unmatched expertise in transporting his political loyalty from one partisan vehicle to another with remarkable dexterity. His political trajectory looks like a roadmap of opportunistic realignments, each calibrated to advance personal ambitions rather than ideological convictions.

    Read Also: Ubandoma congratulates Tambuwal, other PDP senatorial candidates

    Tambuwal’s political parambulating  have been so numerous and equally strategically timed that they constitute a classical in the art of political hedge-betting. For a man whose political biography could be titled “The Biography of A Serial Defectee,” to now castigate others for following his well-trodden path represents the apotheosis of political hypocrisy.

    In his critique, Senator Tambuwal posited an interesting economic theory of political defection, suggesting that the current economic situation under the Tinubu administration should make membership of the APC unattractive. According to this curious postulation, and motivated by the ‘Irunmole to nje jollof rice’ coinage, Tambuwal asserts that these defectors are primarily motivated by “stomach infrastructure” rather than genuine concern for the citizenry.

    Tambuwal accepts that there are a number of reasons for defecting, how he sadly pontificates that these defections are not based on the interest of the people but based on stomach infrastructure is reflective on the character of the former governor, could he be speaking out of his rich experience as a serial defectee?

    This theory of economic determinism of political allegiance  from Tambuwal raises profound questions. If indeed it is only economic performance that should dictate party loyalty, one wonders whether it was this same set of  economic indicators that informed his own multiple defections. Were his numerous party hop, step and jump theatrics guided by some sophisticated macroeconomic analyses, or were they perhaps influenced by these same stomach infrastructure attributes he now seeks to unfairly confer on others?

    As one who has studied Aminu Tambuwal’s kind of politics, I am certainly not amused nor taken in by his dissimulation. For all i know, Tambuwal remains the poster boy for political haggling in Nigeria.

    Perhaps the most egregious demonstration of Senator Tambuwal’s political opportunism was his notorious betrayal of Governor Nyesom Wike, a political episode that still reverberates through the corridors of power. In 2019, Wike had magnanimously placed his robust political machinery and substantial financial resources at Tambuwal’s disposal during the latter’s ill-fated presidential bid at the PDP primaries.

    To the consternation of all, the nation watched, stunned, as Tambuwal later repaid this extraordinary generosity with a public betrayal on national television, executed without the slightest pretense of moral justification. This act of political perfidy, performed with clinical coldness, represented not merely a betrayal of political alliance but a fundamental breach of the unwritten code of honor that should govern even the most pragmatic of political relationships.

    That the same Senator Tambuwal to now position himself as an arbiter of political morality after such a display of ingratitude demonstrates either remarkable audacity or a troubling disconnect from political reality.

    Now to Tambuwal’s insistence that defectors are streaming into the ruling APC for their stomachs, this may not be the case as pointed out by Senator Ajibola Basiru who in his riposte noted that Tambuwal’s party, the PDP (For Now) suffers astutely from a fundamental trust deficit, a trend started by the likes of Tambuwal at the 2022 Convention.

    Tambuwal’s apparent metasis misses the point as the PDP’s dwindling fortunes cannot be attributed to any magnetic pull of the APC but rather to the lack of internal cohesion – a process to which Tambuwal’s own political vacillations have significantly contributed.

    While i have as a person frowned at the concept of defecting, especially those borne out of crass opportunism rather than on just causes, one wonders why Tambuwal would frown at the  APC opening its doors to accommodate defectors from opposition parties, a process  that Tambuwal himself has exploited to maximum advantage throughout his career and may still do so in future.

    One can thus deduce that  Tambuwal’s critique is a curious form of political relativism, whereby defection becomes morally reprehensible only when it benefits parties other than his current affiliation. This kind of malleable  ethical framework conveniently contracts or expands based on Tambuwal’s pandering only, anything else cannot stand.

    If we were to accept Tambuwal’s premise that defection indicates a lack of conscience, we would be forced to apply this standard retroactively to his own political journey. By his own metric, what are we to make of his conscience? If defection to the APC amid economic challenges reflects moral compromise, what moral calculus informed his own numerous partisan migrations?

    While the phenomenon of incessant political defections in Nigeria’s democratic landscape remains problematic, the solution cannot emerge from hypocritical posturing by those who have perfected the very practice they now condemn. Political nomadism undermines ideological coherence and erodes public trust in our democratic institutions, but addressing this challenge requires moral authority from those leading the conversation.

    Senator Tambuwal, by virtue of his storied history as arguably the country’s most prominent defectee, has forfeited any moral standing to criticize others who merely follow the blueprint he helped design. As the saying goes, those who have made a career of residing in glass houses would be well-advised to reconsider the wisdom of stone-throwing expeditions.

    In the final analysis, Senator Tambuwal’s criticism of political defectors represents an extraordinary exercise in ironic self-reinvention. Having established himself as the lodestar of political realignment, he now affects outrage at those navigating by his example.

    Senator Tambuwal’s remarkable attempt to rebrand himself as the champion of political constancy would be amusing were it not so transparently disingenuous. In the pantheon of political reinvention, this performance deserves special recognition – not for its persuasiveness, but for its sheer audacity.

    To Senator Tambuwal, one can only say: Haba! Even in Nigeria’s theater of political absurdities, this performance stretches credulity beyond its breaking point.

  • Netherlands and the Benin Bronzes

    Netherlands and the Benin Bronzes

    Last Tuesday, The Netherlands signed an agreement with Nigeria to return some 119 Benin Bronzes looted in 1897 when the British sacked the Kingdom of Benin in present day Nigeria. Some of the artefacts – figurines, tusks, sculptures of Benin’s rulers, and an ivory mask made between the 15th and 19th Centuries – ended up in Dutch Museums. In the agreement signed to return the over 100 items, there was no reference to their being stolen. It is, however, reassuring that after more than a century, the priceless materials are being returned to Nigeria. About three years ago, Germany became the first European country to return some 20 looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria.

    Britain has over 900 looted Nigerian artefacts it has continued to retain, citing some unjustifiable excuses. It is shocking how any country in the 21st century, let alone Britain, can defend stealing under any guise, whether by Empire or by pirates and soldiers of fortune. They may fear that the artefacts will not be treated with the same sophistication and aplomb they are capable of, but nothing justifies the crime of looting or rationalises the argument that the original owners could not be trusted to handle such priceless items with care? Indeed, inexplicably, Britain last April returned some 20 artefacts looted from Ghana in 1874 and 1896 on the condition that the deal would be a long-term loan to Ghana, the original owners. Nigeria will not agree to any such loan deal should it ever be contemplated.

    Read Also: Netherlands to return 119 looted Benin bronzes to Nigeria

    By returning looted artefacts, Netherlands and Germany are coming to terms with their dark colonial past. Until Britain is named and shamed, they will continue to hide behind a nebulous British Museum Act of 1963 that forbids the return of stolen artefacts except in special circumstances to perpetuate centuries-old crime. It is time Nigeria pressed harder to get its looted artefacts back. There is no justification for any country to hold on to property stolen from another country. Had the shoe been on the other foot, Britain would have raised hell to get its property back.

  • Tinubu on el-Rufai at 65

    Tinubu on el-Rufai at 65

    There will be no immediate thaw in the strained relationship between President Bola Tinubu and All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain and former Kaduna State governor, Nasir el-Rufai. Both seem to have crossed the Rubicon when the latter was unable to pin down a place in the federal executive council in 2023. He had been promised a role in government even before the campaigns began, and despite his denial, he looked forward to holding a cabinet position. The rather open manner he seemed to have been rebuffed has led him to the conclusion that they offered him a sword rather than a dove. He has since taken up the gauntlet.

    Last week Mallam el-Rufai turned 65. He is a lucky man, for he is still strong and mentally sharp. He has been in public service since 1998, culminating in the governorship of Kaduna State in 2015, serving two terms. Falling out with the president, of course over his cabinet position rejection, has not prevented his being recognised as a patriot. In the birthday tribute authorised by President Tinubu, presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga said: “Mallam El-Rufai is an administrator, scholar, and politician. He is a founding member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and highly regarded for his resourcefulness and brilliance. He served as governor of Kaduna State for eight years, and prior to elective office, he had served as Director-General of the Bureau of Public Enterprises, and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) from 2003 to 2007. President Tinubu celebrates Mallam El-Rufai on this occasion and commends his endeavours for democracy; his meritorious service to the nation, and mentorship of the younger generation. The President acknowledges Mallam El-Rufai’s role in the dialogues leading up to the formation of the APC and his contributions to the success of the party in the three consecutive elections of 2015, 2019, and 2023.”

    There was nothing the president said about Mallam el-Rufai that was unmerited. The former Kaduna governor’s character may often fail him, especially as he dissembles in the face of repeated challenges and provocations, but his intellect as a first-class scholar remains intact. He may not be adept at building consensuses or standing firm on principles, and may sometimes abridge rules and regulations with the fanaticism of an entitled man and politician, but no assignment has mystified him or proved too much for his comprehension. He has problem with the concept of loyalty, but there is no question that when he is with whoever is his leader at any point in time, he gives his all. His fickleness does not vitiate his humongous capacity for hard work. Once you understand him and accommodate his strengths and limitations, you can always get him to give his best, and that best can be very satisfying to all parties involved.

    In the past few months, shorn of the friendship of political associates and thirsty for the warmth of praise and recognition by notable political leaders, Mallam el-Rufai sallied back into the camp of former vice president Atiku Abubakar. A few days ago, he was in company with the 2023 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate and others when they paid a condolence visit to the family of Edwin Clark, statesman and former Information minister and Ijaw leader, in Abuja. Making prefatory remarks during the visit, Mallam el-Rufai jumped unbelievably to the defence of the former vice president, whom he rhapsodised as a misunderstood leader. “Nobody gives Vice President Atiku Abubakar the credit for leading economic policy-making under the Obasanjo administration. Many of the things that we did…were under his leadership,” said the former governor. It is unclear why he had to make that rhetorical detour at a condolence visit, but that is vintage Mallam el-Rufai. He has begun a new round of blandishments whose end no can guess.

    Read Also: Tinubu flags-off reconstruction of Lagos-Ibadan-Sagamu Expressway

    It is, however, remarkable that whether the former Kaduna governor feels estranged or not, the president’s opinion of his co-labourer in the founding of the APC has not been substantially affected by any political misunderstanding. In addition to attesting to the competence of political foes and allies, hopefully, the day will also come when sitting presidents will publicly, routinely and positively attest to the character of a political ally or political enemy. Nigerians may have settled for the humdrum of applauding politicians’ work and experience, as their elite did at the launch of Ibrahim Babangida’s autobiography ‘A journey in Service’ last week. The country may, however, be yearning for radical change. After all, as everybody knows, and going by the hypocrisy that attends public functions, no one who gives a tribute will take the liberty of denouncing the character of the host.

  • IBB comes clean, but is far from cleansed

    IBB comes clean, but is far from cleansed

    And whilst still talking about a sense of an ending and the perfect symmetry of historical occurrences, let us for now say one or two things about the gathering of Nigeria’s postcolonial and post-civil war ogbologbo that swarmed inside the capacious bowel of the nation’s premier hotel in Abuja this past Thursday. It was a beautiful mid-February morning. It was a year short of the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Murtala Mohammed, the man who willed Abuja into existence from a primeval forest bristling with hard rocks. Virtually, all the surviving military titans from that era were there directly or by proxy, one or two of them now leglessly infirm. Fifty years after they seized power from General Yakubu Gowon, their winning combination was still in place and in power so to speak. The very foundation of Abuja shook with new money and new power. There was hardly any space left for private planes to park.

       There is always something surreal and unnerving about the calm, placid serenity of Abuja. Like an ancient mythical mine, you know that this is a scene of crime. But you also know that it is a site of stupendous and spectacular riches.  Only the deeply criminal can speak to the deeply criminal. Like its Paris counterpart which is known to warehouse about six million dead souls, the Abuja catacomb houses legions of political, economic and military casualties. The survivors go on to lap at the sweet candies of plutocratic wealth and its fragrant bars of pure honey. If a child refuses to die, he must taste bearded meat.

    Read Also: IBB’s ‘Journey in Service’

      This morning, they all thronged the hall to honour and pay compliments to the man who is arguably the most consequential soldier to have ruled post-civil war Nigeria either for good or bad. General Babangida’s charisma, his capacity to attract people and his mesmerizing gifts remain unmatched in Nigeria’s post-civil war political firmament despite being hobbled by old age and sundry ailments. It is hard to imagine the all-powerful Maradona in this state as he came clean and contrite before his abjured compatriots. But judging from some of the scathing and scalding rejoinders, it is obvious that coming clean is not about to cleanse IBB and absolve him of historic responsibility in the conspiracy against Nigeria. It all speaks to the ephemerality of power and its appurtenances. When you have it, use it for the greatest good of the greatest number. Or the infraction against the greatest collection of black souls anywhere in the world will haunt you forever.

  • The time of their time

    The time of their time

    There is a dramatic and faintly mystical quality to their final exit. Elders who have been mumbling and sighing for over a decade that they have arrived at the Departure Lounge and were merely waiting for their boarding passes received the summons to board. Within a week, Nigeria has lost two of her most prominent political gladiators and Old Testament pathfinders, Chief Ayo Adebanjo and Pa Edwin Clark. They were no doubt avatars of the colonial and postcolonial coliseum, that blood-splattered site of agonistic contention. They no doubt hid their bruises and wounds very well, crying in the rain and relentlessly seeking combat and confrontation as if their life depended on the punishing schedule.

    Given their gladiators’ regimen, it is a miracle and a great riddle that they lived for so long and to ripe old age, exceeding their makers allotted timeline of  three scores and ten years by over two decades. When they departed this past week, it began to feel like the end of an era. Perhaps we are beginning to see the final working out of what began sixty three years earlier with the implosion of the fabled Action Group, the subsequent collapse of the First Republic and the seizure of the dominion by the military faction of the ruling group, a seismic development whose ripple effects continue to be felt in the nation’s political firmament.

      Consequently, this piece cannot be a critique of political praxis but a celebration and eulogy of the life and time of four of Nigeria’s greatest sons and daughters ever. These personages were no doubt titans of Nigeria’s modern history. The two aforementioned political giants were severely flawed human-beings and conflicted individuals. But the criticism of their politics can wait until they have been properly interred. It is the time to roll out the gongs and drums of celebration and ululations rather than the whistle of disapproval and disapprobation. Let us enjoy the vignettes, cameos, mementoes, bits and tidbits of their rich, colourful if occasionally controversial life and see if we can come up with tropes of redemption about their storied exertions, their heroic disavowal, their memorable derring-do and their willingness to tempt fate and martyrdom in the pursuit of their ideal of a just and egalitarian society.

      If we are to maintain a fidelity to historical accuracy, it will not be accurate to maintain that the two titans were the first to sign off. Shortly before them, there were two other notable departures, but simply because the other two were not political luminaries, their death has been less heralded. Yet in a curious and mysterious sense, their own departure now seem to complement and reinforce the feeling that an age of giants was winding down and we may just be lucky to capture the last snapshot for posterity. Bidding us a final goodbye a few months short of his ninetieth birthday was the man who wrote the cheques, Chief Olabode Emanuel, the old Gregorian, a vastly successful international businessman and publisher with octopoidal reach and range. There was a ferocious focus and steely armature about him which suggested a man not to be lightly crossed if you are not a feckless yokel from the provinces. On the few occasions one had the honour and privilege of sitting close to him, he came across as a man of immense refinement, cultivation and culture; a citizen of the globe. On those few occasions, the two of us often exchanged wary and cagey glances with each wondering just how much the other knew without letting on. He was a money man for the ages without any hint of extravagance or fiscal incontinence. 

      The last titan and the first to depart a few weeks back is a woman. By the time she departed, Khadijat Adebisi Edionsere had already passed into legend and folklore as a woman of Croesus-like wealth and riches. If you are wondering what a mere woman is doing among a conclave of elders, then you are wrong, dead wrong and you do not understand Yoruba culture. The Yoruba people appreciate the power of power and the means of immense means which they believe is a transgender affair. Certain women become “unsexed”, cultural monument as a result of their wealth and power. As Ebenezer Obey sang sonorously and suggestively: “Agba loto Oro lo o hun niti Iyalode Egba”. A powerful woman can no longer be excluded from the conclave of the Oro cult.

      It was said that in the late sixties, bank officials who were mystified and pleasantly bewildered by the daily haulage of raw cash coming into her accounts promptly nicknamed her as the “cash woman”. It is a golden tradition that harks back to the glorious era of Madam Efunroye Tinubu, Efunsetan Aniwura, Humani Alaga, Bisoye Tejuoso, Janet Alatede, Abibatu Mogaji and some other female figures of remote antiquity such as Moremi and Oya. Last week’s Friday a grateful Egba nation sent off one of its greatest daughters and it was a   carnival-like procession throughout the city ending up in a punishing traffic snarl right up to the main venue of Abeokuta Sports Club. As a frail and autumnal master crooner Ebenezer Obey dished out memorable lyrics from his extraordinary musical tribute to the late magnate, the crowd swooned and applauded.

     At a point, a lithe and winsome lady appeared on stage swinging methodically and aristocratically to Obey’s beat. She was a dead ringer for her late illustrious mother. Many of the state dignitaries that converged on the stage would have been in their infancy when Ebenezer’s Obey’s classic rendition came out at the tail end of 1971. It all goes to show that life   goes on and must go on. Life may often appear like a cruel continuous punishment, or just one damned thing after the other, as an English cynic dismissed it. But it depends on the meaning you give it. This is what makes life bearable, despite its wicked absurdities and brutal contingencies.

    Read Also: Clark: Time to commit to true federalism, says Afenifere

     There are times in life when fate seems to conjoin you with certain colourful and larger than life personalities who can only make meaning out of life by subjecting it to their own eccentric interpretation and idiosyncratic narrative no matter how odd and unhelpful such narratives have become in the light of new developments. Chief Ayo Adebanjo was one of such titanic personages and you always sensed where you stood with him whether he was wearing a benign scowl or his trademark boyish grin. It is fair to conclude that in the in the closing phase of his political career we were in the same book but not on the same page.

    This was to lead to some awkward moments and a particularly nasty public spat at the Tola Adeniyi book launch where this columnist was forced to give the late chief some candid roasting. Moments later, a well-known public intellectual who was not well known to the columnist at that point in time, accosted one and said that he had never imagined that anybody could engage the master pugilist in a toe to toe contention and in public purview, too. But a few weeks after this encounter, the old Action Group stalwart was smiling and winking conspiratorially at his former blue-eyed boy as one sat under the canopy at his  Ijebu Ogbogbo homestead to honour him on his ninetieth birthday. As far as he was concerned, it was all in a day’s work.

    The circumstances of our first meeting were no less awkward but far more heroic and cheering. At one of the exploratory meetings preparatory to the convening of an All Politicians’ Summit in 1995, I was assigned to the task of manning the gates to prevent any embarrassing infiltration or the customary state shenanigans. It was the brainchild of a group of patriots including some top journalists, well-heeled Yoruba tycoons and some topnotch technocrats from the middle belt. After the annulment of the June 12 presidential election, the incarceration of MKO Abiola and the brutal hammering of the political class by General Sani Abacha, this group of patriots came to the conclusion that the military juggernaut was the greatest threat to the civilian class irrespective of whether they were from the north or the south. If they didn’t hang together, they were going to hang separately.

    That night, Chief Adebanjo sauntered into the expansive lobby of the hotel with his friend and constant companion, Chief Olaniwun Ajayi. A cherubic smile of faint disapproval hovered around Adebanjo’s face as he sized one up while Ajayi remained his calm, urbane and diplomatic self. As one ushered them to the hall, Adebanjo cleared his throat. “So tiri awon ara ile ee?” he grunted to his friend. “Have you seen your friends? They say they want friendship and reconciliation and yet they have brought a Fulani boy to come and man the gates here in Lagos. What type of rubbish is this?”  Ajayi merely chuckled diplomatically. Later on as the proceedings got underway, Chief Adebanjo began tirelessly complaining about a briefcase under the table that was getting in his way. Somebody then told him about the owner of the briefcase and that he was the person who had ushered them in. Upon realizing their error, the two old men burst into prolonged laughter that resonated around the hall.

      Let us leave our readers with an incident which showcases Chief Adebanjo’s remarkable sense of irony and his biting humour. After delivering the eighty fifth anniversary lecture of the Yoruba Tennis Club in September, 2001, yours sincerely was hosted to dinner by Yoruba grandees and leaders of business in the vast lobby of the hall. As Chief Adebanjo who had earlier survived a major health scare was about to tuck into a glass of wine, he was cautioned in a low tone by his friend that somebody was around and was indeed approaching. “Ara ile e ti mbo”. It was obviously his doctor. “I am not doing what you asked me not to do oo” Chief Adebanjo mumbled like a child caught in familiar pranks. “Ti e loju”, the doctor observed with a frown and then disappeared. Almost two decades later, yours sincerely inquired about the doctor from his patient. “Ha, you see, he has since gone to join his maker”, the old Action Grouper responded with mischievous solemnity. Papa was one hell of a fellow. May his great soul rest in peace.