The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • A royal slippage of intriguing consequences

    A royal slippage of intriguing consequences

    It is a sign of the times. The economic, political and social insecurities Nigerians have been going through in the last two decades have led to a sense of siege among the various nationalities. There is a dramatic raise of the bar of cultural conformity. What used to be passed off as harmless jokes about your host communities now attract severe verbal sanctions or even worse. Deliberate infractions invite aggressive and threatening behavior or severe verbal thrashing. If you are unlucky, things may get physical. Among the normally liberal and accommodating Yoruba race, you dare not joke about the sacred customs of the people and hope to get away with it lightly. There are cultural police and traffic wardens of compliance everywhere. People seem to take exception to the invasion and desecration of their sacred tradition which is the realm of their metaphysical prowess and the armoury of their mystique and general wellbeing. When and where the offender happens to be a traditional ruler who is the custodian and ultimate defender and Praetorian guard of the selfsame tradition, then all hell is let loose.

      Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, a revered monarch and visionary leader of his people who transformed his native Ijebu-Ode from a rural municipality to a thriving and bustling modern city, has found himself in the crosshairs of the fierce artillery bombardment of his own people and many other concerned Yoruba cultural patriots for his startling and astonishing indiscretions about the customs of his people and the traditional rites of coming and passage of the king. If as a youthful twenty six year old prince repatriated from England, the late Awujale had no control over the rites of initiation, he has taken his revenge by making sure he was buried according to his private wish as a Muslim. The handful adherents of traditional customs who showed up at the interment were treated like orphans from the nearest orphanage. After that all hell broke loose with some folks calling for the head of the late Oba even in death since he acceded to the throne by deception.

    Read Also: Royal families defend Oluwo

     Let our royal fathers beware of incurring the wrath and ire of their own people in these testy times. In fact if verbal fusillades could wake up a dead king, the Awujale would have been back in the storied comfort of the royal boudoir. A man of plucky courage and amazing forthrightness, the Awujale was given to equally amazing indiscretions. With characteristic imperial hauteur, he would have dismissed the whole brouhaha as a storm in a royal tea cup stirred up by some of his jobless subjects and other miserable interlopers. It was not that he did not give enough hint of what was to come. In his autobiography published eleven years earlier on his eightieth anniversary, the late Oba openly disemboweled the customs of his people and the sacred rites of royal installation. The quietude among the larger Ijebu populace on both occasions suggests a degree of complicity and conspiracy. Had the Ijebu people been less “civilized”, less tolerant and less accommodating of royal foibles and eccentricities, the entire populace would have risen as one to exhume the royal corpse and subject it to frightening indignities before throwing it away.

       The politically savvy and worldly wise Yoruba people are faced with a conundrum in circumstances of traumatic transition to modernity superintended by both Islamic and Judaic civilizations. While it is not meet or wise for an Oba to be seen championing or openly supervising the desecration of the sacred tradition of his people, nothing can, or as ever stopped, the march of modernity.  While custom is constant, culture is ever evolving ultimately catching up with and forcing custom to accede to its dictates as it struggles to break free of the cobwebs of outworn tradition in all its retarding stupefaction. In overarching traditional societies marked by vibrant sub-cultures, the development is uneven and irregular with some cultures at the frontiers, a few straddling the middle ground while others cling to the certainties of ancient traditions. The wise conclave of Ijebu kingmakers who insisted that after Oba Adesanya the next Awujale should be an educated person knew what risks they were taking by bypassing the father. After the long transformational rule of Sikiru, we dare say that the next Awujale cannot be a throwback to atavistic fantasies and fetishes.   

  • Power without power

    Power without power

    • Whatever power state govts have on power sector is useless if tariffs are still centrally determined.

    IF there is anything that could pass for a good problem, it is the brouhaha sparked by the Enugu Electricity Regulatory Commission’s (EERC) decision to tamper with the extant tariff regime for Band A electricity customers in Enugu State. EERC has decided to review the tariff for the affected customers from N209.5 per kilowatt-hour to N160/kWh. This would have taken effect from August 1, but for the dampener from the sector’s regulator, the Nigerian Electricity Regulatory Commission, (NERC) which said state governments do not have the right to determine power tariffs in so far as they still get power from the so-called national grid.

    Band A customers receive at least 20 hours or more of power supply daily and pay N209.5/kWh.

    The journey to the increased tariff actually started in April 2024 when NERC approved a steep tariff hike for ‘Band A’ electricity consumers, from N68/kWh to N225/kWh. This was later revised to N206.8 and again to N209.5/kWh.

    Band B: minimum 16 hours of electricity supply per day (N63/kwh), Band C: 12 hours (54/kwh), Band D: eight hours (N48/kwh) and Band E: four hours (N43/kwh).

    Power consumers in Band A decried the over 200 per cent hike then to no avail. Even the rich cried and have been crying that the difference of about four hours of power supply daily could not have justified the huge disparity in the tariffs paid by Bands A and B power consumers, respectively.

    This was the situation until July 20 when EERC announced that it had reduced the Band A tariff in the state from N209/kWh to N160/kWh, while keeping tariffs for Bands B, C, D, and E frozen. The commission then issued a new tariff order to MainPower Electricity Distribution Limited, its new subsidiary to this effect.

    According to the Order No. EERC/2025/003, the move was deemed cost-reflective, adding that the tariff must reflect the power generation subsidy by the Federal Government.

    EERC Chairman, Chijioke Okonkwo, explained in an interview with AIT on July 21 that “We have put out regulations that would guide the development of our own state-specific electricity market. One of our regulations happens to be the Tariff Methodology Regulation of 2024.

    “This work on tariff review started over six months ago when we assumed full regulatory oversight over our electricity space in Enugu State. And following that, we have since issued a number of regulations to guide the development of our own state-specific electricity market, including the Tariff Methodology Regulation of 2024,” he said.

    Expectedly, all the stakeholders in the power sector cried foul. The Chief Executive Officer of the Association of Power Generation Companies (GenCos) Joy Ogaji, said that EERC had set a dangerous precedent for other state electricity companies to follow despite the fact that its action did not reflect the true cost of electricity generation.

    Ogaji said “It is imperative to state that there is no FGN policy on subsidies. It is a debt accumulation,” she stated, warning ”that the N45 per kWh being covered leaves a 60 per cent cost gap that EERC assumed would be filled by the Federal Government, despite no official or cash-backed subsidies in place.

    Enugu State is the first state to come up with this type of decision.

    At this juncture it is appropriate to point out that EERC and indeed other state governments that are now trying to assert themselves in the power equation derive their power from the signing into law of some 16 amendments to the constitution by then President Muhammadu Buhari in 2023. The good news came via a tweet by the presidential media spokesperson, Tolu Ogunlesi.

     “Another landmark change: By virtue of the presidential assent, Nigerian states can now generate, transmit and distribute electricity in areas covered by the national grid. (This) wasn’t allowed pre-amendment. This is genuine, realistic restructuring — through the constitution.”

    Read ALso: Traders count losses as power outage ruins businesses at Osun’s biggest shopping complex

    Expectedly, too, some other states have said they would review the tariff regime, especially for Band A customers. Inasmuch as all the states in the country now have the power to generate and distribute electricity, at least seven states, according to the NERC now control their electricity markets in accordance with the Electricity Act 2023.

    As we speak, some of the states are beginning to indicate their desire to also reduce the tariffs. These include Plateau State Electricity Commission. The chairman of the commission, Bagudu Hirse, said “We are working towards making life better for the citizens of Plateau State, and we will bring down the electricity tariff for our people. Take it from me, as soon as we resume, that will be our focus,” Hirse stated.

    On its part, the Lagos State Commissioner for Energy and Mineral Resources, Biodun Ogunleye, said Lagos was studying the tariff plan and that it would announce its own soon. “We are studying what they (EERC) have released. We are looking at the number, and we are going to make some pronouncements shortly”.

    Also, the Ondo State Government said it would soon reduce electricity tariffs like Enugu State. The state commissioner for energy and mineral resources, Johnson Alabi, said “We are the first in all ramifications to carry out this kind of thing; others are only learning from us. What is happening in Enugu is already happening here. The only thing is that we have not spoken to the media about what we are doing…

    “Once we sign our power purchase agreement, we will determine what the tariff will be. We will determine it by ourselves. We are already determining tariffs for some would-be investors who are here because we are buying our energy ourselves, which is strange for any state so far. It is only in those states that have initiated electricity market operation whereby we purchase our power directly from the Transmission Company of Nigeria.”

    I want to see the new development spawned by EERC’s tariff review for Band A downward as a good problem because this would probably be the first time that DisCos are having the heat really turned on them. And that is part of the beauty of liberalisation. All over the world, the customer is said to be king. Not in Nigeria; specifically not with the DisCos. They have always served as the accuser, the policeman and judge in matters affecting them and their customers.

    There is no doubt that EERC may be wrong in its assumptions about what should constitute the real elements of the Band A billing. Just as there is also no doubt that other states that may carry out similar reviews may also not be entirely right. But the undeniable fact too is that the DisCos have been generally a bundle of disappointment as far as many Nigerians are concerned. We do not have any cause not to doubt too that the so-called Band A tariff is not overpriced.

    As a matter of fact, even the Minister of Power, Adebayo Adelabu, saw this ambiguity and announced government’s intention to regularise it sometime ago. Apparently this has not been possible because of threats from Labour and perhaps other pressure groups.

    But my advice to the state governments and other serious-minded entities that may want to take advantage of this Buhari law on power is that they should find every possible way to boycott particularly the DisCos because that is the only way this country can break from the shackles of darkness. Our experience with them has shown that they cannot take us anywhere. 

    Indeed, I am not surprised that they are already vehemently opposing EERC’s idea. It could not have been otherwise for DisCos that have been spoon-fed ever since their so-called privatisation by the Goodluck Jonathan administration in 2013.

    These are mostly entities that lacked both the technical and financial capacities but were just handed over the organisations on ‘paddy-paddy’ basis. And everybody seems to be saying this, yet, successive governments seem comfy with tolerating them at the expense of Nigerians.

    Ever since I was born, we never bought electricity meters in Nigeria until the DisCos came. Now you buy meters that you cannot take away from one location to the other when you are changing apartments (because it is not all the time that landlords pay for these meters).  A tenant that pays for his meter forfeits that meter when changing apartment. In fact,  the whole arrangement is just ridiculous. These are entities that know little or nothing about good corporate governance. I doubt if what the NERC is now saying was what Buhari had in mind when he further liberalised the sector by granting the state governments the autonomy to generate and distribute power.

    Pricing has remained contentious in the power equation for decades. That is why any independence given the state governments to take charge of power supply in their respective domains is useless if they cannot determine the tariff. Only those who handed us the current tariffs know the basis of their computation. The suspicion of most Nigerians is that we are paying for every affliction that the DisCos in particular suffer from — corruption, inefficiency, incompetence and what have you.

    But, why did we get this far before the state regulatory agencies are realising that they cannot fix tariff? Did they not go through the deals they signed with the NERC before they got their licences?

    Anyway, we should first drive away the thief before chastising the owner of the stolen property that he too did not keep his property well.

    With this depressing development from NERC what the situation calls for is for the state governments to look well into the agreements that they signed while they were being handed their independence and see if there is a way they could challenge the NERC’s position in court.

    At any rate, NERC could even be right by law; but that legal position cannot take the country anywhere, especially if we are truly desirous of achieving the $200bn economy by 2030.

    Alternatively, the state governments should put on their thinking caps and begin to look for ways to bypass the DisCos by having entities that can compete with them, however they do that.

    Even the minister said in February that ”They (DisCos) have refused to invest in this sector. Fine, it can be explained in a way…” I don’t know what can be explained in any way beyond the fact that the companies got their licences on a platter, with Nigerians now being forced to subsidise their operations. Rather than go to bank to source for funds, they extort all manner of charges from customers only to start repaying with electricity units in cases where the customers have a voice. Only God knows how many voiceless Nigerians the DisCos have got their money under false pretense.

    I have always said it; that Nigerians do not have to die for DisCos to live. This is what successive governments have been doing pampering them. It should not continue under our Renewed Hope Agenda.

    Whatever independence the state governments have on power supply is meaningless if they cannot determine tariff. If these DisCos are the ones to take us to the promised land, it would’ve been so evident in the last 12 years.

  • Constitutional matters

    Constitutional matters

    Apart from a flag, an anthem and a seat on the United Nations, the one other thing that was needed to define a new nation was a written constitution. There was a time when a national airline was another fixture of a new nation status but that seems to have passed out of fashion now, as the ownership of airlines, has been cornered by a few Middle East countries.  But when Nigeria became independent all those many years ago, she came equipped with an airline which like many things associated with that period has subsequently become extinct. There was also a time when even the Nigerian constitution like the Nigerian Airways was simply swept aside or if the truth be told, just discarded like a spent rag by home-grown coup makers.

    When Nigeria became independent in 1960, she had a brand-new constitution to go with that status. That constitution was painstakingly put together under British supervision at Lancaster House in London, the traditional venue of other Commonwealth constitutional talks. There, Nigerian political leaders and traditional rulers; emirs, obas and ezes, from each of the existing three regions met to produce the document which was to lay down the principles which were to guide the new country on what was hoped was the path of peace, progress and unity. At least, that was the aim of that exercise.

    In deference to the ethnic and other diversities which governed the country, it was decided that a federal system based on the three regions existing at the time should be adopted. The desire to create a Federation was dictated by the need to protect the autonomy of the three regions which existed at the time. Other salient points adopted included a parliamentary system of government with a bicameral legislature, three regional governments as well as a ceremonial head of state who at independence was also the representative of the English crown in Nigeria. It was by no means a perfect document, but it was far from being a complete disaster when it came into operation. However, there were also signs of stress from the get-go. But these could be appreciated for what they were or appeared to be; teething problems. In any case, the Independence constitution had been designed with a life span of no more than three years as it expired quietly in 1963 to be replaced by the Republican constitution when Nigeria was transformed into a Republic within what was known at the time as the British Commonwealth.

    The first serious challenge to the new constitution was mounted predictably, some may say, by forces in the Western Region, the seat of the of the official (loyal) opposition to the Federal government. Following the inconclusive Federal elections of December 1959, the NPC made up of Northern elements formed a governing alliance with the NCNC, the ruling party in the Eastern Region leaving the AG from the West in opposition. Within a few months however, the AG imploded and plunged the Western Region into crisis which led to the declaration of a state of emergency by the opposition Federal government as early as 1962. From this point on, the Federation began to unravel, principally along ethnic lines, leaving the constitution in tatters. From then on, crisis after crisis undermined the viability of the Federation and then the Republic, to such an extent that by January 1966, the military overthrew the civilian government and tossed the constitution into the dustbin. Sixty years later, we have not yet come to terms with settling a viable constitutional agenda for Nigeria, a situation which has hamstrung our national development to a significant extent.

    For all the noise over ⁷written national constitutions these days, one may be forgiven for not knowing that they are a modern invention. The first constitution that was made to measure was put together by the framers of the American constitution which was designed to monitor the interaction between American citizens living in one of the states on the eastern seaboard of the nascent country now known as the United States. It also regulated the relationship between the various states which made up the new country. Virtually all countries since then has arrived fully clothed with a written constitution.

    Read Also: Patriots demand new constitution, support independent candidature 

    By far the most memorable words of the American constitution as frequently pointed out by Nigerian commentators are the first three words; ‘We, the people’. These are the same words on the Nigerian constitution. They are there to give ownership of the constitution to the people for whom the document was written as it was supposed to have done to the original users of those words. But who indeed are the people referred to here? In the case of the American constitution, it is clear that a significant number of people, if not a majority of them were excluded from consideration as people. Women and Blacks were, for example not enfranchised members of the community. Women were denied the vote until 1920 and there are still parts of the USA where black people cannot take their voting rights for granted. As for the men, most of them were excluded from the process of constitution making as only the members of the elite were even aware that there were people who had been saddled with the responsibility of producing a constitution to be used to guide the affairs of the new republic. The writers of the American constitution were representatives of the original states which made up the republic in 1783. However it would be stretching things too far to refer to them as the people. As for the constitution of Nigeria, it was put together by a committee which was handpicked by military governments, first in 1979 and then in 1999. This may explain why the respective constitutions which were fostered on the country were virtual copies of each other. From this point of view, those who question the legitimacy of ascribing the Nigerian constitution to the people of Nigeria have a valid case in point. It can be argued that there is no way that a document generated at the behest of the unrepresentative Nigerian military can be ascribed to ‘we the people’ of Nigeria.

    The first military constitution of 1979 prescribed the presidential system of government for Nigeria in the imitation of what is practised in the USA, complete with state governors, bicameral legislature, an independent Judiciary as well a separation of powers between the Presidency, the Legislature and the Judiciary.

    The Republican constitution was trashed in 1966 and replaced with a unitary system with twelve states, the number of which had increased to nineteen by the time that the military handed over power to civilians under the 1979 constitution. This put an end to the elaborate Regional system which had been designed to manage the diverse ethnic and religious differences which existed within the country. There are many who think that the inadequacies of that constitution were responsible for the abject failure of the civilian government which had been put in place to rule the country on its basis. A shade over four years after the return to civil rule, the military were back, barking orders at the civil population. Within a few months after the military seized the power they had only recently relinquished, it was clear that they were out of their depth as they stumbled from one fiasco to the other. Since they were adept at the management of violence however, there was little if anything that the powerless civilians could do to ameliorate the discomforts of those days. Consequently, for sixteen sterile years, the military rode rough shod over the rest of us. And when they were finally shamed into dropping the reins of power, they had no qualms about dusting off the 1979 constitution which had failed so spectacularly and hanging it around our collective neck. 

    • To be continued.
  • Yusuf Buhari: Dining with elders

    Yusuf Buhari: Dining with elders

    As a Yoruba saying goes, “When a young person knows how to wash their own hands, they dine with elders.” The funeral rites of and tributes to President Muhammadu Buhari involved an array of elders and leaders of this nation. But it also had a place for the youth. For example, Seyi Tinubu, Nigeria’s President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s son, could be seen ‘standing sentry’ to his father at the graveyard of our late president. Even more notably, Yusuf Buhari, the late President Muhammadu Buhari’s son, was seen taking part in the most sacred physical, religious and spiritual duties of the interment of his father.

    Yusuf came into national consciousness after he had a near-fatal accident on a power-bike in Abuja on Tuesday, 26 December, 2017, while playing one of the games that children of well-to-do parents play.  Following that incident, he seemed to have appreciably disappeared from public view. Then on Friday, 20 August, 2021, he re-emerged for his wedding. He was again in the public glare on 13 July, 2025 taking brisk steps and with an unflappable disposition in the London Clinic where his father had just passed away.

    Most noticeably, Yusuf captured public imagination at the burial of his father on 15 July, 2025, where he was seemingly the Chief Mourner to President Buhari. Yusuf showed how suddenly a young person could have thrust upon them the responsibilities of a much older person. And he discharged those responsibilities with grace and remarkable composure.

    Taking part in the interment of a departed Muslim is believed to be a most spiritually rewarding act. Adherents of Islam therefore strive not to let the opportunity to take part in the performance of that sacred duty pass them by, wherever and whenever they can. When a person is a close relative, or, as in Yusuf’s case, a son to the departed, that duty assumes an even grander significance.

    Yusuf could be seen, along with others, receiving the body of his father shorn of all appurtenances of office and worldly embellishments, and lowering him, with all sacredness, into the simple grave that had been dug as his last worldly abode. Following this, there was the arrangement of planks and the laying of mats on them to prevent heaping sand directly on the body. Next was the mud-dressing of the grave.

    At this point, Yusuf himself seemed to have risen above worldly care. With the sleeves of his kaftan rolled up, and kneeling down to ensure that he could reach the right points of the grave, he received mud from the late President Buhari’s Minister of Communications and Digital Economy, Malam Isa Ali Ibrahim, otherwise called Isa Ali Pantami, who is an Islamic scholar in his own right, and performed the sacred duty to his father. In his company at this sobering moment was also the teary and profusely sweating Governor of Katsina State, Malam Dikko Umar Radda.

    When the dressing of the lower part of the top of the grave was completed, the Vice-President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, His Excellency Kashim Shettima, among others, took a shovel and partook in the final spread of sand on the grave, symbolising the Federal Government’s optimal discharge of one of its most sacred duties to our departed President.

    If a dead person can see what those they left behind are doing, President Muhammadu Buhari must be proud of the solemn honour that his dear son had done him. Hajiya Aisha Buhari, the former First Lady of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, must also be comforted to see the demonstration of her successful motherhood, seeing Yusuf come of age so admirably in the family’s moment of trial. And Yusuf’s sisters must be pleased seeing how competently he was assuming the role of the man of the house. The Daura Emirate must also be reassured that they acted right in conferring on Yusuf the title of Talban Daura, a top traditional position, in 2021.

    In the continuing performance of his duty to his departed father, Yusuf was with and spoke for the family at the Special Expanded Federal Executive Council Meeting held in honour of the late President. President Tinubu had endearingly spoken about President Muhammed Buhari.

    In deep appreciation of all of the care, sympathies, accolades, and honour, Yusuf Buhari read the following prepared speech:

    “Good evening, everyone. I would like to acknowledge the protocols already established. On behalf of the entire members of the family of the late Muhammadu Buhari, …  I wish to sincerely extend our deepest gratitude to Mr. President, His Excellency Bola Ahmed Tinubu, the First Lady Senator Oluremi Tinubu, the Vice-President, His Excellency Kashim Shettima, and his wife, Hajiya Nana Kashim, for your outstanding support [to] the family from the time he took ill until he peacefully passed on … on Sunday 13th July, 2025.

     “It has shown that he was regarded [as] far more than a politician, but regarded as a friend, and a father to all members of the Federal Executive Council. For the care and befitting burial accorded to our late father, we appreciate you all.

    “I also wish to thank the Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, and all the distinguished and honourable members of the National Assembly for honouring the memory of our late father during the state burial in Daura. I will also not forget to mention and convey our appreciation for the support from the Attorney-General of the Federation and members of the Judiciary, Honourable Minister of Foreign Affairs, Nigeria High Commission in London, the Governor of Katsina State, Borno State as well, and all his colleagues for identifying and standing firmly with us during this difficult period.

    Read Also: Yusuf Buhari not flown to Germany – Presidency

    “Let me specially and specifically acknowledge the Chief of Defence Staff, the Service Chiefs, Heads of Security and Law Enforcement Agencies, as well as all members of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, our late father’s first and primary constituency, for the esprit de corps, solidarity and the befitting military burial given to our late father.

    “Finally, we thank all members of the diplomatic corps, traditional and religious leaders, political associates, friends, family members, the press and indeed all Nigerians at home and in diaspora for the numerous calls, messages, condolence visits and prayers offered for the repose of the gentle soul of our departed father. Your visits, calls, and prayers symbolise a great honour to the memory of our late father and we’re sincerely grateful for all the support and solidarity extended to the family. May Allah continue to bless us all and to bless all of us.

    “Thank you, daddy. Thank you, daddy. Thank you, daddy. May Allah continue to bless, guide and protect you throughout your tenure successfully. Long live Mr. President and long live the Federal Republic of Nigeria. Thank you.”

    The comprehensive appreciation was a fine speech for a 33-year old man addressing a rare major public forum for the first time, and it accordingly generated resounding applause.  

    Before the programme ended, President Tinubu proposed: “In honour of his memory, with this Special Session of the Federal Executive Council (Expanded), can we adopt the renaming of University of Maiduguri … as Muhammadu Buhari University, Maiduguri.” The proposal was approved with thunderous applause.

    Muhammadu Buhari University, Maiduguri

    The Federal Government’s decision to rename the University of Maiduguri after President Buhari has elicited different reactions. Some have received the decision with excitement and have commended the government. Such supporters have cited the fact that he was the military Governor of North-Eastern State with its capital in Maiduguri and he was the first military Governor of Borno State, and that he had repelled Chadian soldiers who invaded parts of Borno State in the past. They also noted that, even as President, Buhari showed strong affinity with the state and most likely visited it more than he did any other state in the country.

    However, some have condemned the decision. For example, in a 24 July, 2025 set of resolutions of the University of Maiduguri Branch of the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), the union states as follows: “Congress views any attempt to rename the University of Maiduguri after fifty (50) years of esteemed existence as a flagrant disregard for University Autonomy, a disruption of cherished academic traditions and a direct affront to the collective heritage and identity of the University Community.”

    The union also said: “Congress mandates the ASUU-UNIMAID Executive Committee (EXCO) to explore all available legal avenues to challenge the renaming and ensure that the University’s original identity is preserved.”

    The UNIMAID Branch of ASUU further stated: “The Congress calls upon ASUU at the branches, zone and national levels to urgently engaged the National Assembly, Civil Society Organizations, and other relevant stakeholders, including students to resist any legislative endorsement of the renaming.”

    Time will tell how this will pan out. Meanwhile, it is important to note that the University of Maiduguri itself has honoured President Buhari by naming the Senate Building of the University after him. Moreover, the Maiduguri International Airport has been named after him. Some of those who oppose the renaming of the University of Maiduguri after President Muhammadu Buhari argue that it is superfluous to rename the university after him.

    Regarding this argument, it is important to note that naming one thing after a public figure of note does not preclude naming other things after the same person. A good example of this is former United States President J.F. Kennedy. Several things including an airport, a university, or key units of universities have been named after him, even outside the United States. Looking at the various things named after him, it would be noticed that there is a gradation of honours.

    With respect to President Buhari, the naming of the University of Maiduguri after him could be regarded as a magnum opus – the greatest of the honours that could be done to him, given the wider global reach of a university and the rarity of President Buhari’s globally acknowledged personal character. This point is important, because one of the cancers eating up every part of Nigeria’s body politic is corruption.

    President Muhammadu Buhari’s rare public morality would therefore be a wonderful subject of intellectual inquiry, which can produce results which could help to get Nigeria out of its moral morass. Indeed, if the renaming of the University of Maiduguri stands, it could be an opportunity for establishing the university or any of its set of appropriate units as a Centre of Excellence in Public Ethics.    

  • APC acquiring political depth

    APC acquiring political depth

    For the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), the past one or two weeks have been the most exhilarating. In contrast, for the opposition parties, especially the coalition platform called the African Democratic Congress (ADC), the same period has been disconcerting. The opposition parties are snarled up in internal strife or bewildered by legal conundrums, and have begun to philosophise away their troubles and anxieties. The main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), which had lived in denial for years, has started to accept the reality of their condition, particularly the defections they have suffered in the past few months. The APC is not just ecstatic about the troubles bedeviling the opposition, they are also keeping their powder dry, waiting for advantageous moments to spring lethal surprises.

    But far beyond the tit for tat that has characterised its relationship with the opposition, the APC appears to be acquiring substantial political depth in terms of its internal organisation and external relations. In a 109-member Senate, they now have 70 seats after waves of defections saw them gain about 11 senators, just three seats shy of the mythical majority needed to railroad mandates, programmes, and agenda through the Senate. They are, however, unlikely to want to capitalise on that backdoor method to swell their ranks in the lower chamber because they appreciate the difficulty of achieving the same feat or having the same latitude. Last month, they had some 207 members in the House of Representatives, and 23 governors. The ruling party has largely bled the main opposition party to get the number they now boast of. With such commanding presence in the states and National Assembly, the APC has managed, admittedly by unorthodox methods, to acquire significant depth to confidently propose earthshaking legislations. If they are reluctant to do so, it will be because they are dissuaded by Nigeria’s ethnic and religious peculiarities.

    Despite the unending bad press the ruling party still seems fated to attract, mainly because of the radical policies it is administering on the country in order to reset the economy, it probably has the highest number of technocrats in government than at any time in the country’s history. This has led them to courageously propound and defend policies in nearly all sectors of the economy, be they in education, health or tax sectors. It is likely that in the months ahead, they may shock the nation on law reforms. They are sufficiently strong in the legislature to drive these newfangled but effective and proactive policies. Even though the former APC national chairman, Abdullahi Ganduje, is a PhD holder, the new one, an engineering professor, is one notch higher. The deputy national secretary of the party, Abdulkarim Kana, is a Law professor and former Dean of the Faculty of Law, Nasarawa State University. He will doubtless bring his training to the job. The party now in fact has distinguished thinkers at the helm of their organisation. If they fail, it will not be because they cannot think or solve problems, it will be because of other failings, perhaps relating to character issues.

    Read Also: FG issues new cash advance thresholds

    The presidency is not exempted from the policy and organisational depth permeating the APC. The president and vice president are highly educated, with both possessing strong personalities that ordinarily make it tasking for them not to rub each other up the wrong way during policy debates and appointment considerations. There are speculations already that the relationship between the two may be a little awkward. That is expected of intellectuals. Hopefully they will find ways of managing their mutual awkwardness in the midst of political permutations in the gossip-ridden and ethnic-baiting corridors of power. With depth in the legislature, in the ruling party, and in the executive itself, the APC may be in a position to influence, if not dominate, Nigerian politics for decades to come. They may not always win elections, or form the government, but if they produce fewer charlatans than the other parties, they stand a good chance of overseeing politics in these parts for a long time and exporting their know-how to the rest of Africa.

    In fact, here precisely is where the depth they are acquiring becomes useful. Eminent scholar and political scientist, Richard Sklar, once described the defunct Action Group (AG) of the Western Region as “the best organised, best financed, and most efficiently run political party in Nigeria.” If the APC desires that label and is ambitious and visionary enough, it could aspire to become the modern equivalent of what the AG was in the 1950s and 1960s. There is of course public misgiving regarding how the APC is run, with some critics accusing President Tinubu of dominating the party and moulding it after his own image. Great parties, however, seldom escape the imbuement of their foundational leader’s characteristics and worldview. And so, whether Obafemi Awolowo or Kwame Nkrumah, or Chinese presidents starting from Mao Zedong and later Deng Xiaoping, a party often reflects the image of its birth leader. This does not of course excuse irrational influences or tyrannical overreach. But given the depth the APC is beginning to develop, President Tinbu has the opportunity to be deliberate, futuristic, and methodical about configuring the ruling party.

    The late ex-president Muhammadu Buhari, sadly, paid little attention to the party, preferring to run it ad hoc, and allowing small cabals to push and pull the party in different directions. President Tinubu should rather develop a new approach to running the APC, far better and more coherently than he did with the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN). The PDP was eclectic and the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC) chaotic and insular. This was why the PDP eventually came to grief when it mattered most, for the Fourth Republic’s foundational president, Olusegun Obasanjo, had no innate gift to found or run a party, let alone imbue it with anything noble or lasting. President Tinubu will be sorely tempted to exercise iron grip on the party; he should resist the temptation, despite the presence of many barracudas in the party who want to exploit and hijack it for short-term gains. He should be less paranoid about what former vice president Atiku Abubakar and others are doing in any other hijacked party, including the ADC and the now fractured Social Democratic Party (SDP). Alhaji Atiku does not found parties and lacks the temper to run them, for he specialises in pulling down structures than in building them.

    There are already indications that the APC is beginning to be managed by administrators gifted with the depth and temper to run things. There are also indications that the party is becoming a fairly disciplined organisation capable of fighting and winning political battles. President Tinubu should have his eyes on the future in a way that Chief Obasanjo did not do with the PDP. Not only should the president encourage all the organs to function well, he should equally pay attention to the party’s internal democracy, a culture the APC has not so far shown the capacity to exude. The last few primaries the party conducted, including for the Lagos local government poll, were shambolic and disappointing. If the APC is to go into the next defining battle in the 2027 elections as a disciplined force, then the president must inescapably ensure that all the dross that soils its methods and image are removed. He must convince himself of what he wants and how best to achieve it. Above all, seeing that the party has begun to develop depth, it may be time he got the party to build and manage a leadership academy that would produce the next generation of Nigerian leaders. He can conceive it; and the APC has the wherewithal to execute it.

  • Civil societies inciting rebellion

    Civil societies inciting rebellion

    The Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) has been consistent in its opposition to the government of the day, particularly right from the days of the Muhammadu Buhari administration. But much more than its consistency, it has also been hyperbolic. Virtually every statement its spokesmen issue has been tinged with hysterical denunciation of the administrations, with some of the statements bordering on incitement. Like any other civil society organisation, HURIWA has the constitutional right to advocate any cause intended to promote democracy and good and accountable governance. But to veer to incitement, knowingly or otherwise, is indefensible. Indeed, the organisation’s hysterical response to the long-standing culture of political defections is difficult to justify.

    Last week, in their attempt to discourage defections, HURIWA attempted to correlate the migration of some lawmakers and even governors to the ruling party with a crime worthy of a coup d’etat. It is far-fetched, but the group’s national coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko, managed to find corollaries to justify his inciting conclusions. “We are sounding a strong note of warning and a profound caution to Nigeria’s legislators to comply with the constitutional provisions on defections,” he began impatiently, “and stop the current political insanity represented by their unbridled cross-carpeting from their original parties into the ruling All Progressive Congress (APC).” He then added: “This anti-constitutional practice by the politicians constitute a dangerous threat to multiparty democracy, even as this politically sinister tendency of defecting from their parties to the ruling party could provide the needed motivation and elixir for coupists to attempt to torpedo democracy.”

    Apart from the value judgements that surreptitiously filtered into the statement, it is not also clear whether Mr Onwubiko understood that he was also planting the seed of a forcible overthrow of the government, and by implication democracy, in the minds of ambitious coupists. Defections have been rife in Nigeria since ages, the Fourth Republic not excluded. More importantly, the defections have in the past two decades and more not been unidirectional. So, how on earth could this set of ongoing defections lead both to a one-party state, not to talk of attract a coup d’etat? And just in case anyone thought Mr Onwubiko minced words, he repeated himself by condemning those he described as “these anti-constitutional and anti-democratic forces embedded in the National Assembly for flagrantly flouting the law with the hidden agenda to motivate ambitious people within the military to try to overthrow constitutional democracy.”

    Read Also: Terrorists kill four soldiers in fresh attack on Shiroro communities

    Anyone or group can openly or secretly admire any political party or party leader, as Mr Onwubiko is obviously doing. And they also have the constitutional right to support or oppose anyone or view or position. But they do not have the right to incite the overthrow of constitutional order. Since its formation in 2007, HURIWA has not been known for measured responses. If they are not strident today, they are apocalyptic tomorrow, and their reasoning and conclusions are sometimes excessive and illogical. More, they have found it difficult to resist being politically prejudiced. As a civil society group, nothing stops them from testing in court the defections that have drawn their ire. As a matter of fact, there are many civil and democratic options available to them, assuming they have not already made up their minds, as some CSOs have done in the past few years, to incite and insinuate the collapse of the democracy they insincerely claim to be promoting and defending.

  • Creation of states nonsensical, counterproductive

    Creation of states nonsensical, counterproductive

    Last February, the Senate Committee on Constitution Review (CRC) indicated that they had received requests for the creation of 31 additional states and 18 more local government areas. Last week, Senate President Godswill Akpabio, however, announced that the requests for more states had grown to some 42. Whatever the number of states and LGs Nigerians are campaigning for, there is no doubt that all the six geopolitical zones are keen on the creation of more states and LGs which they see as the only way to engender inclusivity and development. Their developmental paradigms are, however, wrong. How they think fragmentation of states and local governments have positive correlation with development is hard to explain. But some Nigerians seem persuaded that a direct correlation exists between creation of states and development, and are unwilling to yield to any other paradigm, no matter how sensible.

    The six zones are hopeful that some additional states and local governments will be created at the end of the constitution review. The review process may be laborious and serpentine, as the senate president argued last week in his response to unfounded speculations that some states had already been recommended for creation, or insurmountable, as everything appears to indicate, but Nigerians are hopeful that they will get their wish. No geopolitical zone wants to be left out, regardless of land size and population, while national lawmakers continue to stoke the campaign. But if Sen. Akpabio’s misgivings are anything to go by, he suggests that the proponents of creation of states are chasing a chimera. In the end, other parts of the constitution review may likely get more and faster attention than the exercise of creating more states and local governments.

    Responding to media queries last week, former Works minister and ex-Lagos State Governor Babatunde Fashola told his interviewer it was constitutionally anomalous to talk of local government autonomy. He argued that since state Houses of Assembly still legislate for the LGs, it was contradictory to crave autonomy for them. Though the LG autonomy spoken about by the executive branch and sanctioned by the Supreme Court last year relates to the management of LG finances, and not their administration, it is difficult to draw a line between the two. But taken together, the creation of states campaign and the controversial LG autonomy project indicate that fundamentally, Nigerians exhibit a poor understanding of the dynamics of federalism. Even if more states and LGs are created, it will not solve the existential crisis the country has been immersed in since independence. Most of the states and local governments are unsustainable, and are unable to fund themselves. Unsustainable states exist because national earnings are pooled and distributed, thus enabling entitlement and inefficiency, and powering the needless campaigns to create many more.

    Read Also: FG issues new cash advance thresholds

    There will not be any controversy over LG autonomy if the LGs were generating their own funds and spending their own money. There will not be unrelenting campaigns for more states if no centralised arrangement exists to allocate funds for their sustenance. As long as the country’s political structure is misshapen, and states and LGs depend almost wholly on so-called federal allocations, a sense of entitlement will continue to fuel the campaign for creation of states, while creation of additional LGs will be considered an advantage to buoy up state revenue. State executive branch and LGs will also continue to battle for a larger share of the freebies allocated to their states.

    Given the size of the Nigerian economy and its untenable political structure, the country is too balkanised to be run successfully under stifling and unitary arrangement. Not only is the country predisposed to gross inefficiency, it is also hamstrung by superfluous and retrogressive religious considerations as well as needless ethnic rivalry and unproductive competition. The problem of Nigeria is not the availability of resources or the skills needed to turn these endowments into wealth. If it is encumbered by mindless corruption, electoral chicaneries, poor allocation of resources, and all other issues that hobble or even retard progress, it is because the superstructure is hopelessly incapable of sustaining progress and stability. Hoping that additional states and LGs would help re-engineer and drive development is absolutely nonsensical. The constitution review exercise and legislature are barking up the wrong tree, and the entire country is simply putting off the evil day. President Tinubu will not touch the creation of more states and LGs with a long pole in the next two years. It is even doubtful whether after his reelection he would accede to the requests rather than restructure and rationalise a country that is at present so structurally disfigured and alienating that only few are committed to it.

  • The challenge of constitution review (1)

    The challenge of constitution review (1)

    The National Assembly is, once again, taking Nigeria through another round of constitution amendment. In the past, the periodic exercise yielded only token results. Would the outcome of the piecemeal review be different this time round?

    The need for a review is premised on the discovery of certain gaps, omissions, and defects in the 1999 Constitution, which have always elicited complaints and criticisms among the various stakeholders.

    The constitution has been variously described as a unitary project, an imposition by the military, and a document that stifles federalism. It has been viewed as an inexplicable instrument for strengthening the centre to the detriment of the sub-national units that are expected to be coordinated with the distant, powerful central authority.

    The national document stipulates the fundamental principles the country must abide by and the direction the people should collectively take in the course of their governance journey. But it appears Nigerians, from the First Republic, have not collectively produced a truly “people’s constitution”.

    The 1999 Constitution has also come under attack for sustaining the imbalances in the so-called federal structure characterised by lopsided state and local government distribution among the over 250 ethnic groups lumped together by the colonial interlopers.

    For 26 years now, it has remained the bone of contention because of its inability to reshape fiscal relationships between the two critical tiers and guarantee a miniature opportunity for measurable resource control.

    The late legal luminary, Chief Rotimi Williams (SAN), once said that the constitution lied against itself when in its introductory passage it stated that “we the people,” when it was obvious that a military decree gave birth to it.

    The operators from 1999 to date have been lukewarm in redirecting energy to fundamental amendments that should lead to the devolution or decentralisation of power. While there is a consensus about the urgency of state police as a baseline for tackling insecurity, it is only being pursued at a snail’s speed.

    But, the meagre amendment recorded in the recent past has paled into an improvement on paper. While rail transportation has been decentralised, the states or groups of states at the regions are not exploring the opportunity for the growth of their domains.

    Read Also: Customs issues 21-day ultimatum to tap defaulters over N379.6bn bond breach

    Other initiatives, including the mechanisms of federal character, catchment area, and quota system introduced to foster equity or convey an impression of non-exclusion and non-marginalisation, have not added up. Critics allude to the elimination of merit and blockage of growth in certain regions to facilitate the progression to development in other regions.

    There is also the argument in some quarters that the constitution is not the problem; the obstacles, they say, are the operators. While the perceived flawed constitution is taken to the cleaners, the sub-national units are not eager or willing to really subject it to a judicial test, thereby depriving the country of a final pronouncement by the arbiter on some contentious issues generated by the document.

    There is the subsisting tension between the National Assembly, which is constitutionally empowered to review the document, and eminent Nigerians pushing for a new constitution under the banner of ‘The Patriots.’

    Among the Patriots are distinguished Nigerians who are former operators of the constitution, and those who defended the operation while they were in power. These include former ministers, governors, legislators, advisers, and ruling and opposition party chiefs. Also among The Patriots are retired diplomats of global repute, leaders of ethnic mouthpieces, rights activists, labour representatives, some traditional rulers, professionals, critics and other members of civil society. The feeling is that, although it is not an elected body and, therefore, may not pass the test of representativeness because a democratic mandate is doubtful, they mean well for the country.

    While it is hard for the ’eminent personalities group’ to deny the existence of a democratically elected central legislature, they are unwilling to submit their recommendations or proposal to it in the course of the review. Some critics prefer to intimidate the parliament with the nebulous argument that the legislators are products of defective elections. Yet, it is becoming increasingly hard to organise another jamboree and capital-intensive constitutional conference when the anticipated report may not be significantly different from the reports of the 2004 and 2014 confabs that are gathering dust.

    Certain categories of Nigerians derive pleasure from being delegates to the successive constitutional conferences. Instead of agitating for the implementation of previously accumulated reports, they are calling for a repeated conference and trying to blackmail the government into acceding to their proposal.

    Those pushing for another brand of parley, which is the Sovereign National Conference (SNC), are taking the country back to 1914, with the appeal that the basis for peaceful co-existence has not been properly agreed upon by the diverse ethnic groups in this highly heterogeneous country. They cleverly avoid the fact that in the fifties, the founding fathers – Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, and Nnamdi Azikiwe, among others – agreed on some basic principles.

    The argument of the proponents of the SNC is that federalism is the answer. This is correct, as it tallies with the vision of the pathfinders of history. That is why President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, who believes in federalism, should not spare efforts in making the Federal Government to fully devolve power to the sub-units in a constitutional manner. 

    But their call for regionalism has taken many Nigerians aback. While states in a region can cooperate and achieve economic integration, the call for the dismantling of the states and reversion to the regional structure of the pre-and independence era is illogical. The goals of unity in diversity and preservation of identities are defeated when, for example, the Igbo of Asaba, Urhobo, and Itshekiri now return to the old capital of Ibadan, and the Kanuri of Borno return to Kaduna. How can marginalisation be averted when the Efik, Ibibio, Ikwere, Ogoni, Andoni, and Ijaw return to Enugu?

    Also, the call for a return to the parliamentary system is misplaced. The circumstances surrounding the adoption of the current presidential system should not be forgotten. Those who recommended the switch in the 1978/’79 Constitution Review Committee and the Constituent Assembly were the operators of the cabinet system of the First Republic who witnessed the tension between President Nnamdi Azikiwe and Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa. Zik retorted that he, as the ceremonial president, could not imagine working with a power-loaded Head of Government. In fact, in 1964, the country was enveloped in apprehension when the President initially refused to call on the Prime Minister to form the government because he was not convinced about the integrity of the nationwide parliamentary elections.

    At the recent public hearings, the outstanding issues – local government autonomy, state and local government creation, boundary disputes, constitutional roles for traditional rulers, and resource control – came to the front burner.

    Despite the court ruling, autonomy for local government remains a burning issue. There was no proper understanding of the elevation of the council system into a third tier. It is an aberration that the local governments created by the states are listed in the Constitution. Autonomy is automatically hampered by the realisation that the Houses of Assembly retain the roles of creation, oversight, and prescription of rules and guidelines for the local governments. The councils were created as units of grassroots governance to cater for local concerns on behalf of the states. They are extensions of the state apparatus for ease of administration at the local level.

    The agitation for state creation is legitimate. The elite are protesting marginalisation, oppression, and exclusion in some states. They want some access to state resources, like their privileged rivals in the respective pre-existing states. But its feasibility is doubtful. The question is: how viable are some states?

    The military had committed the error of a lopsided distribution of states. Redressing the colossal injustice is problematic. In the Southwest, for instance, agitators are calling for six or more states. The pattern of agitation is the same in the other five geopolitical zones. The Southeast has a special case. It is protesting the inequality of five states against seven in the Northwest and six in other zones, despite its comparatively smaller landmass.

    The only solution is not to create more states. Another solution is to create one more state in each of the six regions. The best answer is to remove local government completely from the purview of the Federal Government and allow the states to create more local governments to foster inclusion, a sense of belonging and development.

    Monarchs are clamouring for roles in government, forgetting that their involvement in politics in the past republics created problems for them. Some of them were deposed for operating from the opposition side and treading the path of the inevitabilities of partisanship.

  • Anioma State: history, identity and need for equity

    Anioma State: history, identity and need for equity

    Nigeria has a very interesting even if often paradoxical history. The area that was colonized by the British Empire had in the 19th century like nations consisted of many ethnic groups. Colonialism was principally a political and economic enterprise for the benefit. It was therefore an outcome of colonial strategy that the British took certain political decisions for both political and economic expediencies.

    The political dominance of the three ethnic groups possibly based on population has since remained the albatross of development in Nigeria. The post-independence military coups had ethnic colorations and since then in the words of legendary literary icon, Chinua Achebe, politics has become the proverbial knife that has cut what held the Nigerian people together and things have fallen apart.

    The 1967 civil war set the stage for further ethnic divide and mutual suspicion in the larger Nigerian state. Both military and civilian governments have been tainted by both ethnic and religious allegiances that have never translated to development. The effects of Nigerian/Biafran civil war between 1967-1970 still reverberates in the Nigerian polity in ways that political historians and economists have agreed must be redressed .

    Even though the then Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon (Rtd.) promised the three Rs, Reconciliation, Rehabilitation and Reconstruction post-civil war, many analysts believe it has been mere socio-political rhetoric devoid of sincerity and an eye for real reconciliation and development. In fact many believe that the Igbos with historical evidences have been handed the shortest end of the stick.

    The paradox remains that while the mantra seems to be that the three major ethnic groups are equal, for some reasons Ndigbo have solid reasons to feel marginalized in the Nigerian project. State creation   has been one socio-political and economic tool. From 1967 – 1998, the various governments have created 36 states. Gowon administration sought to split the Eastern region as a political and economic tool. Today, the North has 19 states while the South has 17.  Most regions have 6 states apiece and even the North West has seven states while only the South East has just 5 states.

     State creation is a political action that has both socio-political and economic implications. The agitation for the creation of Anioma state predates the present republic. It emerged from the voices of indigenes seeking a reunification with their kits and kin spread across the country due to migration, trade and the civil war, a re-affirmation of socio-cultural identity and a solid base for generational identity and self pride.

    Read Also: Education under Renewed Hope Agenda undergoing transformation – Shettima

    The Roundtable Conversation had engaged with a wide network of Ndigbo and socio-cultural groups both at home and in the diaspora and there is unanimity of demand for an Anioma state.  Prof. Pat Okedinachi Utomi is a renowned professor of Political Economy and Management Expert. He is the founder of Center for Values in Leadership.  He traced the efforts of late Dennis Chukwudi Osadebe (1911-1994) whose iconic memory as a politician, journalist and former Premier of the Mid-Western Region of Nigeria looms large in the history of Anioma state creation in the last six decades.

    He recalls that there are Ndigbo in parts of Cross River, Rivers, Benue, Kogi and the five states of the South East. The creation of an Anioma state to him is merely a political action that is long overdue. A huge part of Delta state is home to people of same ancestry, language, culture, food and heritage. He believes that ethnic identity is not bad on its own but political marginalization and manipulation can be veritable sources of conflicts which hampers development. He recalls that as for viability, the Anioma region as the name implies (Good land) has the human resources that is the key element of development. About 80% of the drivers of many indigenous Nigerian banks and notable technocrats trace their ancestry to the Anioma region.

    The late Asagba of Asaba, one of the most revered Nigerian academic and dignified Royal Father, late Prof. Chike Edozien was a very vocal advocate of Anioma state.  He was a direct descendant of Nnebisi, the founder of Asaba. It was not surprising that he was a passionate promoter of Igbo unity. He was immersed in encouraging the full socio-cultural unity of Ndigbo anywhere they exist. Late Dr. Ralph Uwechue, renowned diplomat became the President General of Ohaneze Ndigbo bringing with him the unity and purposeful leadership that was as admirable as it was functional in promoting Ndigbo causes and unity.  

    A Prof. Pat Utomi insists that on a philosophical level, he believes that the regional system of government was very productive as all regions thrived productively. However, even though many of the governors appear very profligate and poor in maximizing the value of human capital, he believes that a country  like Japan and others that have little natural resources but are in the global high development index.

     Senator Ned Nwoko represents Delta North Senatorial District and is the Sponsor of the Bill for the creation of Anioma state which has the support of most of his colleagues in the present National Assembly.  Asked his motivation for sponsoring such a Bill, he went down memory lane recalling that the agitation predates his present status as a Senator. He said he stands on the shoulders of Anioma citizens that started even before his birth. Today that he has the opportunity to represent his people, the best he can do is to add his voice to those of his progenitors and the living as a way of leaving a legacy for generations. He recalled his war time experiences staying in today’s Abia state as a pre-teen. When his parents decided to get back ‘home’ to today’s Delta area, his young eyes recorded memories that brings him to tears every time.

    The Senator recalls how the then Nigerian soldiers killed and/or raped young girls in his community. At some points, as a survivalist strategy, parents decided to tell their kids to adopt names of Benin and Yoruba people just so their life could be spared. That became the origin of ‘I’m not Igbo’ that is common with a few individuals today.

    This piece of history explains the identity crises  that has lasted over generations. This gave rise to some Igbos being prefixed with; Mid-Western Igbos, Bendel Igbos and today Delta Igbos. He advises  that the creation of Anioma state would be a soothing balm on the psyche of generations. It would spell equity, justice and peace to let Ndigbo reunite as a people and have the solid identity that gives the confidence to feel valued and part of the Nigerian state.

    He feels that the state would be viable because the human/material resources would be maximized. Asked about some people who feel Anioma shouldn’t be created or even it is, it should be attached to the South South, the  Senator said that that all the democratic processes including referendum would take place. This is why the advocates are taking all the legal steps to get the National Assembly do the needful. After all, being representatives of the people  was a product of voting power. That is democracy.

    The Senator believes that the agitation is not just about politics but about the human essence that powers development. It is about righting the wrongs of the past, it is about an inferred restitution of a people that need to reclaim their past. The now globally documented Asaba Massacre of October 1967 remains as a reminder of how deep the hurt is. The massacre was orchestrated by the Nigerian army as punitive measures for the Igbo identity of the people. The Oputa Panel presentations saw survivors still living with the trauma.

    The legislative and legal processes for the creation of Anioma state as the 6th state for the South East cannot be waved off by people who lack what  Rev. Prof. Anthony Akinwale, calls the ‘tedious task of tidy thinking’. It is not about any individual or political process but a very far reaching action that would re-orientate the wounded mindset, restore self-identity and reunite the Igbo people across the country and beyond. As the social mantra goes, ‘Igbo bu Igbo’ which translates to the Igbos everywhere are still Igbos no matter their location.

    The Senator maintains that those who tend to make the argument that the Anioma state would not be viable must remember  that the area in question has huge land mass and is blessed with arable land, huge gas deposits and some of the most productive technocrats and corporate giants in Nigeria. What with the Okonjo-Iwealas, the Tony Elumelus, the Nduka Obiagbenas, the Jim Ovias, the Achuzia, the Odogwus, the Kachikwus, the Okogwus  (in fact former first lady Maryam Babangida is credited with using her influence to get the Asaba as capital for Delta state in respect of her heritage), the Uwechues, the Utomis, the Edoziens and a host of other very brilliant and highly successful individuals that have the torch of progress as evidence of the value of human capital.

    The South East  must not remain a dot in the map according to the late President Buhari who gained a presidential twitter notoriety by claiming that he will treat the people in the ‘language they understand’, a subtle reference to the tragedy of the civil war. After his election, he claimed he would not treat the ‘97% of those who voted for him the same way he will treat the 5% that didn’t, still referencing the South East region, flawed as his statistics was.

    Equitable treatment, justice and fairness must be the bedrock of development. An Anioma state according to both Senator Ned Nwoko and Prof. Pat Utomi will engender leadership legacies that stand individuals out through the actions they take to enhance human flourishing. A Mandela, an Abraham Lincoln,  an Azikiwe, a Martin Luther king, a Ghandi and many others who remain immortal did so by acting on behalf of their people and humanity. The Anioma state creation story continues to intrigue and create room for the values of history and human memories.

    The dialogue continues…

  • Let’s not forget September

    Let’s not forget September

    September is around the corner with great opportunities for those eager to exploit them optimally. For those who may be wondering what this discussion is all about, one must say that September 1 and September 8 could be watershed date in Nigeria’s senior World Cup appearances, beginning with September 1, when the Super Eagles are billed to confront their Rwandan counterparts in one of the 2026 World Cup qualifiers inside the main-bowl of the Stadium of Champions in Uyo in Akwa Ibom State.

    The significance of these two dates (September 1 and September 8) is that for Nigeria’s flag to be hoisted among the comity of soccer-loving countries at the 2026 World Cup, the Super Eagles must beat Rwanda and South Africa to get the designated six points for both fixtures. In the event that the Eagles fail to beat both countries, then we may as well start preparing for the 2030 World. So, all hands must be on the plough. Mind you, not those leprous fingers of our sports administrators.

    It is important to stress here that our September 1 opponents beat the Super Eagles in Uyo, scoring two late goals much to the consternation of Nigerians. Curiously, the Eagles haven’t won a game in Uyo in the four 2026 World Cup qualification games played there. These drawn matches explain largely why Nigeria lies fourth in the group that has South Africa, Rwanda, Republic of Benin, Zimbabwe and Lesotho. Equally instructive is the fact Nigeria couldn’t beat Lesotho and Zimbabwe (no disrespect to them) in Uyo.

    Sadly, instead of our federation chieftains to stew in their mess, they repeatedly keep spinning the tale of a likely three points’ deduction from South Africa’s 13 points haul for fielding an ineligible midfielder Teboho Mokoena who accumulated two yellow cards in the series before their last game against Lesotho. Mokoena was first booked in the qualifying series during their 2-1 home win over the Benin Republic in November 2023. He was cautioned in the 54th minute of the game. The Mamelodi Sundowns midfielder was also booked in the 52nd minute during their 3-1 win over Zimbabwe in June 2024.

    Read Also: Top 12 traditional Nigerian foods for healthy lifestyle

    In releasing this point deduction spill, our federation are hopeful without explaining how points can be deducted from South Africa’s, when Lesotho didn’t file any protest; as if FIFA are Father Christmases. In fact, the hurried protest filed by Lesotho was done out of time, as they say in law. How would FIFA deduct points from South Africa when there is no official protest against them? Who would FIFA award the points to? I smell a rat here. I ask NFF spinners, when would FIFA sit to decide a matter in which no protest was lodged? Is there a precedent matter like this in FIFA’s rulings? We need to know.

    “Protests regarding the eligibility of players selected for matches in the preliminary competition shall be submitted in writing to the FIFA Match Commissioner within two hours of the match in question and followed up with a full written report, including a copy of the original protest, to be submitted to the FIFA Disciplinary Committee in accordance with the applicable provisions of the FIFA Disciplinary Code and by email to qualifiers@fifa.org within 24 hours of the end of the match and shall be dealt with by the FIFA Disciplinary Committee, otherwise they will be disregarded,” FIFA also stipulated.

    With barely 37 days to the resumption of the 2025 World Cup qualification matches in Africa, should this infringement of the rules be decided if indeed it was an offence? Presently, South Africa are topping Group C with 13 points followed by Rwanda (eight points), Republic of Benin (eight points), Nigeria in fourth place with (seven points), Lesotho (six points) with Zimbabwe bringing up the rear with (four points).