Category: Columnists

  • Between two Peters

    Between two Peters

    Two Peters. Two parallel exploits. But both woven into a tapestry, securing each a seat in the Nigerian football Hall of Fame: Peter Fregene (17 May 1947 – 13 October 2024) and Peter Rufai (24 August – 3 July 2025).

    One parallel is their Niger Delta and Lagos connects. 

    The one — Fregene — was born in Sapele (now in Delta State) but made his soccer hay in Lagos, ironically in two rival Lagos clubs, at the height of their swaggering, bragging and strutting rights: Stationery Stores FC (1967-1968) and ECN (later NEPA) FC (1978-1982).  Though 10 years apart, he won the Nigerian Challenge Cup with both.

    The other — Rufai — hailed from Lagos, though bred in Kaduna.  But the crisis that preceded the Nigerian Civil War (1967-1970) saw Peter and doting mum bolting for the relative safety of Port Harcourt, his mother’s ancestral home.

    There, at Port Harcourt, Rufai cut his first difficult tooth in football. 

    The finished work — more like work-in-progress — would make the paths of the two Peters to cross: the one a beloved mentor; the other the humble, dutiful mentee. 

    The Nigerian national team, across two generations, of Green and Super Eagles, would prove the net-gainer.

    Peter (Fregene) the Cat.  Peter (Rufai) the Rock.  Both stuffs legends were made!

    Another parallel: Stationery Stores and Eagles.

    In 1968, Fregene was “cat” in the Stationery Stores FC of Lagos: a galaxy of stars that blazed the budding sky of Nigerian football, with their rich, arresting twinkle.

    The list — 10 of the starting 11 — speaks for itself, particularly with Nigerian football history aficionados: Peter Fregene, Anthony Igwe, Augustine Ofuokwu, Olusegun Olumodeji, Samuel Opone, Willy Andrews, Peter Anieke, Fred Aryee, Olumuyiwa Oshode and Mohammed Lawal.

    One of them, Anthony Igwe, would win gold with Nigeria at the 1973 2nd All Africa Games in Lagos — Nigeria’s first-ever continental silverware.  Haruna Ilerika, aka “master dribbler”, joined Igwe in that golden team. 

    In 1970, Ilerika won the Lagos Principals’ Cup with the Zumratul-Islamiya Grammar School, Surulere, joined Stores in 1971 and broke into the national team from 1972.  In 1976, when Nigeria won its first bronze at the African Cup of Nations (AFCON), in Dire Dawa, Ethiopia, Ilerika excelled in that team.

    But this dazzling ensemble were only forerunners to the real deal, which climaxed in 1994.  That year, Nigeria became a powerhouse in African football, clinching AFCON for the second time, posting a stellar showing at the USA ‘94 World Cup, and dazzling to Africa’s first Olympic gold medal in men’s football, in Atlanta ‘96, also in USA.

    Back to the Fregene-Rufai parallel.  When Fregene bossed the goal for Stores, it was at the club’s golden age of near-total hegemony, wrapped in sheer poetics of football. 

    Stores not only drew 2-2 with Brazil’s Santos FC of the great Pele — with the genius himself live at the Onikan Stadium, Lagos — the Green Eagles, then dominated by Stores players — nine of the starting 11 — also forced a draw against the Brazil Olympic team, at the Mexico Olympics of 1968.

    But when Rufai met Fregene at the national camp in 1982, and humbly offered to clean Fregene’s boots, as other senior goalkeepers, there had been a cross-reversal.

    Stores, which Rufai joined, were hardly the elite Israel Adebajo Babes of yore, beloved scions of a colourful millionaire owner.  They had slid into “Pooku lowo e” — Yoruba for dirt cheap football plebs, but gritty for glory, adored and fired by fanatical fans!

    In this relative “desert”, Rufai would start building own legacy as Peter the Rock.

    Fregene himself was nowhere in sight in 1980, when the Green Eagles clinched their first AFCON title in style at home, with the late Best Ogedegbe and aging Emmanuel Okala aka Man Mountain, cradling the shots.  It was a glorious win, destroying Algeria 3:0 in the final: a Segun Odegbami brace and a Muda Lawal icing on the cake.

    But it was at the camp build-up to the Libya 1982 AFCON defence that the younger Peter met the older.  Rufai fondly recalled how Fregene taught him the art and science — or even the metaphysics! — of reflexes: the spring, the dive, the jump to save shots.

    That AFCON defence was doomed.  Ghana won.  But back was Fregene: the flying cat, with reflexes like springs, as sharp as ever, even after a 10-year hiatus.

    Rufai in 1998 was the opposite, just four years after his imperious Mondial debut.

    Year 1994: Nigeria were swaggering kings of Africa.  The Eagles not only won AFCON away in Tunisia, they debuted at the World Cup, playing champagne football, next only to Samba-land, Brazil, the eventual winners.  Rufai was central to that, as impregnable rock in goal.  His apogee, it was!

    But 1998 in France?  Yes, Nigeria still pulled some strings, pipping heavy favourites, Spain, 3:2 in a five-goal thriller — Nigeria’s winner, a thunderbolt from Sunday Oliseh, tearing the net behind the legendary Andoni Zubizareta, and retiring him.

    Read Also: NASS committed to laws that protect Nigeria’s sovereignty — Kalu

    But retirement — at least from the national team — was also Rufai’s lot.  In 1998, Rufai’s reflexes were all but gone.  The Round of 16 4:0 drubbing from Denmark was no thanks to those flat reflexes, despite the showboating heroics of another imperious talent, Austine “JayJay” Okocha — so good they named him twice!

    So, enter the last of the Peter-Peter parallels, though in contrasting terms: Fregene retired from the national team after the 1982 disastrous AFCON defence, though still with impressive reflexes. Rufai quit after France ‘98 with suspect craft, though the Eagles gave a fair performance.

    But both legends were made: Fregene the Durable. Rufai the Charismatic.  Legend!

    Still, both cemented their place in history, basically on account of their exploits in local football.

    Fregene never played abroad. Yes, Rufai moved abroad, earned more pay, garnered more fame and staked a claim to global renown.  Still, nowhere abroad was anywhere near the “centre of the universe” in fan adoration and worship as he was in Stores.

    He left Stores for Femo Scorpions — Femo who? — of Eruwa, Oyo State.  Then, to Dragons de I’Oueme of Benin Republic — Dragon what? — as fanatical Stores fans would have scowled.

    Well, in Belgium, Holland, Portugal and Spain, he never hugged such centrality that he enjoyed at home, though he earned far more coins, and did well for himself.

    So, how might Nigerian football have turned out, had it bloomed to its full capacity, with these iconic Peters, among others?

    Would Fregene have bowed to charity, to face old age infirmity, if the industry he had shaped with sheer excellence had grossed him enough cash to afford quality care?

    Rufai too, ever private and dignified. Would he have died at 61 with lingering doubt that, even with his comparative better fortune, not enough was done to save him?

    Two iconic players with contrasting fortunes but the same answer: far better than making hay abroad, develop your country for the great overall harvest.

    But the government must birth the enabling environment for that to be.

  • Buhari’s place in history

    Buhari’s place in history

    By nature, besides our immediate families, we all belong to two groups- our cultural group and as membership of greater society. That we very often first gravitate towards our cultural group is natural because we are products of that culture. Therefore no one should be ashamed of being Igbo, Hausa/Fulani, Yoruba, and Ijaw Ibibio etc. The true test of leadership however is the capacity to break through this cultural barrier and still be fair to all in a multi-cultural and heterogeneous society. This critical test, many have argued, Buhari failed especially during his first coming as a military leader

     It was as if he had come to continue Uthman Dan Fodio, his great forbearer’s unfinished war against the Yoruba nation. He and Tunde Idiagbon, also Fulani, openly lied against Awolowo’s progressive governors of Edo, Ondo, Ogun and Lagos states claiming they confessed to receiving bribes. What happened was that some contractors made donations to the ruling UPN party. The donations were properly documented. And the proceeds were deployed by the governors to build universities, teaching hospitals and other social infrastructures in Edo, Ondo, Ogun and Lagos for the benefit of all Nigerians. But Buhari and Idiagbon went on to sentence  the old men to jail terms ranging from 100 years to 200 years with some of them becoming blind in prison.

    Wole Soyinka, the conscience of the nation was forced to observe that the Buhari coup was a coup against the opposition. First, the characters responsible for the collapse of the second republic were known. Obasanjo publicly admitted he aided the emergence of Shehu Shagari as president in 1979.  MKO Abiola, his fellow Egba kinsman and a business partner of some military leaders was one of those who wrecked the economy between 1999 and 1983 as a beneficiary of indiscriminate issuance of import license to import communication equipment that were never installed. To many, he was a man without moral compass who publicly admitted getting his American ITT chairman drunk to take over as chairman for Africa after sending his pathetic picture to ITT headquarters. The legendary Fela waxed a record about “ITT, international thief thief.”

    Buhari and his military junta could also not have pretended not to know those who rigged the 1983 election with the help of the likes of Walter Ofonagoro with crooked theory of “land and sea-slide victories’ in opposition strong holds “and those who in four years ran the economy aground despite Awolowo’s repeated warning that ‘the economic ship of state was heading towards the rocks’ and those who engaged in massive rigging of the 1983 election.

    Yet President Shagari on whose desk the buck stops was kept under a house arrest in Sokoto while Alex Ekwueme, his VP was in detention  and NPP and NPN coalition partners, who diverted secured foreign infrastructural loans  to setting up private banks and building new houses got away with a slap on the wrist.

    But in spite of Buhari’s failure in the above department, history will record him as a Nigerian patriot who, unlike his illustrious forebears including the revered Uthman dan Fodio, Ahmadu Bello and his fellow nationalists, Nnamdi Azikiwe and Obafemi Awolowo, chose from age 19 to fight and defend the integrity of Nigerian state and remained faithful until his death at 81 last week. Indeed with the exception of Herbert Macaulay who died in the north mobilising Nigerians against the British, long before independence, there is no record of any other Nigerian leader that set out at dawn to defend the integrity of the nation.

    In this regard, let us take a brief journey through recent history.

    Uthman Dan Fodio never pretended to be a Nigerian. He is remembered more as a revered Islamic scholar who following the murder of his host, King Yunfa of Gobir, employed the services of Benue and Plateau professional mercenaries, to carry out a jihad among the Hausa states between 1804 and 1808. He thereafter shared the spoils of war as emirates among his children and brothers.

    While Buhari enjoyed cult life followership among ordinary poor northerners, Ahmadu Bello was a feudal lord who enjoyed the loyalty of his serfs. He never pretended to be a Nigerian. In fact in 1950, he gave the condition for the north to remain part of Nigeria. Between 1960 and 62, he was involved in controversial northernisation policy which saw to the exit of over 2000 Igbo and British expatriates workers from the northern bureaucracy. He was always referring to the 1914 amalgamation of the north and south as the “mistake of 1914”.

    Awolowo said “in spite of his protestation to the contrary, Azikiwe himself was an Ibo jingoist” who gave the game completely away when he, as president of Ibo State Union formed in 1943 declared “it will appear the God of Africa has specifically created the Ibo nation to lead Africa from bondage of all ages”. But when in 1948, the Yoruba intelligentsia after their 16 years Yoruba war with the launching of Egbe Omo Oduduwa in Lagos (not Onitsha or Enugu), Zik’s West African Pilot declared war  “against the Egbe Omo Oduduwa leaders at home, and abroad, uphill and down dale in the streets of Nigeria and residences of its leaders with Zikist youths in the manner of today’s ‘Obidients’ attacking the persons and properties of leaders like Sir Adeyemo Alakija, Dr Akinola Maja, Sir Kofo Abayomi, Bode Thomas and others.

    Chief Awolowo along with his lieutenants SL Akintola, Bode Thomas, Adekunle Ajasin etc. were foremost Nigerian nationalists and federalists. While their world view is “wanting the best for others as they want for themselves”, they never believed any other culture was superior to their Yoruba culture in Nigeria. It was on account of this they came up with regionalism, which they claimed will prevent the nation from being ruled by one-eyed king.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s rebased GDP hits 3.13 percent in Q1 2025

    Buhari was the only Nigerian who set out at dawn to protect the unity of Nigeria. At 19, he was indoctrinated to march from Makurdi to Enugu believing he was fighting a war to keep Nigeria united when in fact the war was initially between the Hausa Fulani and Igbo. At 21, his commitment to the Nigerian nation became only consolidated when the Igbo rebels rather than confront their attackers from the northern front, chose to overrun Benin where they appointed an Igbo administrator.

    Then they entered the West through Ore with eyes on Lagos whose administrator, Emeka Ojukwu arrogantly declared he would appoint after its pacification. In fact, Obasanjo was to admit it was the Biafra misadventure that turned the table against the Igbos with Yoruba youths joining the military in droves to meet the shortfall of less than 50 Yoruba foot soldiers on January 16 1966 when Igbo and Hausa Fulani soldiers turned our historic cities of Ibadan, Abeokuta and Lagos to cities of blood and pain.

    During his first coming in 1983, there was no doubt Buhari fell fighting on behalf of Nigeria. His rejection of IMF loan including devaluation of naira, opening of our market to labour of other societies, removal of fuel subsidy and stoppage of importation of wheat and attracted the IBB-CIA sponsored palace coup that led to his incarceration for three years while IBB fulfilled IMF demand that landed us in today’s economic quagmire.

    He tried to return to power in 2003, 2007 and 2011 all ending in heroic failures. He wept publicly for Nigeria he loved dearly. But Tinubu brought him back from political retirement and saw to the actualization of his dream in 2015.

    Before he took over in 2015, former CBN governor, Chukwuma Soludo, and Ngozi Okonjo-Iweala, the Jonathan finance minister admitted Jonathan administration was borrowing money to pay salaries with both predicting a dire economic future.

    His inability to take hard decisions in order not to hurt his cult-like followership led to the near collapse of the economy with some of his trusted appointees like CBN’s Godwin Emefiele engaged in printing of over N30 trillion in ways and means while he and his friends smiled to the bank through foreign currency round tripping. Unfortunately, his social intervention initiatives, by far the largest in the history of the nation, could not stand against hard economic laws.

    As President Tinubu and many others have said in their tribute, Buhari’s good intentions were never in doubt. Buhari, the author of ‘Nigerians have no other country to call their own’, who selflessly fought for the most vulnerable Nigerians will forever live in the hearts of millions who saw him as incorruptible.

    I am not sure we can say that of many of his contemporaries.

  • Interrogating kidnap rescue claims

    Interrogating kidnap rescue claims

    Claims and counter claims between security agencies and the public on who takes credit for the freedom of kidnap victims, especially in circumstances ransom was paid are increasingly growing by the day. Though the government and security agencies have severally cautioned against ransom payments, the fact remains that many kidnap victims have had to secure their release from captivity through that process. That fact is no longer hidden.

    The ubiquity and complexity of kidnap cases in the face of inability by the security architecture to find a handle to many of them have left victims at the mercy of all manner of marauders. Many have been killed by their captors for inability to pay ransom even as others have been maimed for life due to torture.

    For fear of torture and death, victims do all within their powers to cough out huge sums of money to save their lives. Curiously, after this ransom has been paid and victims released, you find security agencies issuing statements assigning credit to their efforts for the eventual release of such victims.

    Ironically, those who pay ransom for their freedom do not take kindly to such bogus claims due largely to the dire circumstances such funds were raised. In many instances, victims were incarcerated in captivity for months without end only to be released after ransom was paid. It is not surprising that those who secured their freedom through ransom payment are easily piqued each time security agencies seek to appropriate credit for their freedom.

    A case in point was last week’s outcry by the Chief Imam of Uromi Central Mosque, Edo State, Sheikh Muhammad Murtadha Obhakhobo against the claim by the police that they rescued him from kidnappers who abducted him along the Ubiaja-illushi road. He was piqued that the police sought to take credit for his release even when they had no role in it.

    The Edo State Police Command had in a statement by its spokesperson, Moses Yamu said it was “pleased to inform the public that Moritada Obhakhobo, the Chief Imam of Uromi, was released by his abductors on July 13th,2025 due to the intense and sustained pressure mounted by our operatives”.  According to the statement, on receiving the report, the command launched a robust manhunt for the perpetrators, deploying tactical teams and collaborating with the local vigilante to track down the assailants and rescue the victim. The state’s police commissioner also commended the efforts of the operatives involved in the rescue action.

     Curiously, the police account on the date of the kidnap did not tally with that provided by the kidnap victim. The police said the incident occurred on July 7, and was reported at the Uromi Police Divisional Headquarters the following day. But the Imam’s account recorded the incident to have taken place on July 9.

    Read Also: IGP orders tight security over planned protest by retired police officers

    Besides, the Imam faulted police account of their involvement in the rescue operation. Hear him: “I am Imam Muhammad Murtadha Obhakhobo, the Chief Imam of Uromi Central Mosque in Edo central. I was kidnapped on July 9, 2025 along Ubiaja-Illushi road. I just got information from the newspapers where the police are trying to take credit for doing nothing. I got myself released with the sum of N6.5 million on the 13th of July 2025”.

    The Chief Imam recounted that when he returned home, the Divisional Police Officer (DPO) of Uromi, visited him to gather information on his abduction and subsequent release, wondering how the same police could now ascribe credit to themselves for the role they did not play. As far as the Imam is concerned, his release was as a result of private efforts and the payment of substantial ransom.

    Before this incident, the kidnap and freedom of a 64-year old Irish Catholic priest, Rev. Fr. Luigi Brenna while watching football game by boys in the Somascan community playing ground in Ovia West Local Government Area of the same Edo State, was also embroiled in similar controversy. That time, it was between the police and the Catholic Archdiocese of Benin.

    Edo State police had claimed that when they received the information of the kidnap, their operatives immediately swung into action tracing the suspects to their camp. According to them, on sighting their operatives, the criminals opened fire on them. They were overpowered by police’ superior fire power with three of the criminals neutralised. The rest scampered into the forest abandoning their victim. The police said they rescued the victim and rushed him to Igbinedion University Teaching Hospital, Okada for medical treatment.

    Apparently not satisfied with the police account, the Catholic Archdiocese of Benin issued a statement to put the circumstances of the kidnap straight. A statement by the Archdiocese recounted how the priest was watching a football game by boys in the community playing ground, on Sunday July 3,2022, when suspected herdsmen stormed the venue and shot sporadically.

    The boys scampered at the sound of gunshots while Fr, Luigi made to run into his apartment before he was captured by the assailants. They beat him, used machete to hit his head and body and dragged him away. After about half an hour trekking and dragging the statement said, they gave him more beating for resisting to follow them. He fainted after the renewed beating. Sensing that he may have died, his captors abandoned him and disappeared from the scene.

    The Archdiocese said on regaining consciousness, Fr. Luigi went home in a pool of blood only to be rushed to the Igbinedion University Teaching Hospital Okada by some of his colleagues who came out from hiding. The next day, he was taken to another hospital.

    These are just two instances. There are many other accounts of contradicting claims from the police on its role in kidnap victims’ freedom that did not go down well with those involved in ransom negotiations and payment. In the first case cited, the police claimed the release of the Imam was due to their sustained pressure while in that of Fr. Luigi they even gave account of how they neutralised three of the criminals after heavy gunfire. The yawning gaps in the narratives are there for every discerning mind.

    Even if we are minded to tolerate police narrative that sustained pressure from them compelled the criminals to abandon the Uromi Iman, how much value should we assign to such claims in circumstances ransom was paid? That is the issue to contend with.

    This puzzle is further highlighted by a recent altercation involving the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) on their role in the release from captivity, of former Director-General of the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC), Brigadier-General Maharazu Tsiga (retd). The exchange followed a viral WhatsApp message by Brigadier-General Ismaila Abdullahi which claimed that some retired and serving military officers contributed money to pay the ransom demanded by Tsiga’s abductors for his release. The message further stated that the funds were paid into his account which was provided by Tsiga’s son, Kamal and thanked all those who contributed.

    But this incurred the ire of the DHQ. Its spokesman, Brigadier-General Tukur Gusau was quick to describe Abdullahi’s claims as “misleading” and “a calculated attempt to undermine the military’s dedicated efforts” to combat terrorism and rescue abducted citizens. Gusau said troops responded within hours of the abduction and launched series of search-and-rescue operation in conjunction with the air components.

    According to him, intelligence-led air raids on Dunya Hill – a known stronghold of terrorists disrupted the kidnappers and enabled the escape of several captives. Though Tsiga was unable to flee due to ill-health, DHQ said another captive, Barau Garba, a local teacher who was with him was rescued and reunited with his family.

    Here again, we are confronted with the puzzle of how much value to assign the sustained pressure by the military in situations where substantial ransom was paid before captives’ freedom? This is by no means to undermine the efforts of the security agencies in the war against kidnapping and all manners of violent crimes.

    Tsiga corroborated the efforts by the air component in the sustained pressure on the terrorists by the DHQ when he admitted that such air raids were the only response the terrorists feared most. He also gave a lucid account of how the terrorists used the captives as shield on the approach of fighter jets.

    All that can be admitted. But, if such pressure was not enough to get the captives released until negotiations were concluded with the terrorists and huge sums of money paid, can we reasonably wish away the influence of money in the circumstance? More so, when the captives had stayed so long in the dens of the terrorists as in Tsiga’s case?

    That is the dilemma thrown up by the manner the DHQ reacted to Abdullahi’s post. This may be an isolated case. But not for the Nigerian police that are in the habit of taking credit for the rescue they had no hand in. The encounter of the Chief Imam of Uromi Central Mosque and Fr. Luigi bear this out. But they denote a worrying trend in the success claims the police institution regularly assigns itself. The police are neither omniscience nor omnipotent. It would amount to wishful thinking to expect that they must find solutions to all crimes. Not at all! Bandying rescue claims that are easily faulted, whittles down public confidence in that institution. It is high time they refrained from bogus, false claims.

  • Inheriting Buhari

    Inheriting Buhari

    As former President Muhammadu Buhari lay, wrapped in his final shroud, in his tranquil bed, some politicians started to exploit the man’s afterglow. That afterglow, in quest for a better word, I would describe as his crowd. Some will call it his structure.

    Before he passed on, some cynical politicians did not offer the man a peace in his hearth. They turned him into a shrine of sorts, as though by bowing and flattery they could automatically take over what Boss Mustapha described as his 12.3 million followers.

     Especially in Kaduna, they became dubious pilgrims powered by messianic self-delusions.

    The man did not give them what they sought, especially some of them from the north who appeared to be his faithful servants, including former Kaduna State governor, Malam Nasir El-Rufai, Abubakar Malami, etc. They shrouded themselves as his inheritors, the custodians of his legacy, the messengers of the might he left behind.

    The same fellows should have asked a pertinent question when the man died. Where were the 12 million folks in his funeral hour? Where were their tears and where were their wailing agonies on the streets? They should have known that the 12 million exist, but they do not exist under anyone’s umbrella anymore.

    They are there for the taking. They have been there for the taking even before the man died, or even before the man left office.

    If Buhari was a man of integrity, it is now clear that integrity is not enough to govern.

    He was a rose in a sty, but a rose cannot extinguish a sty’s scent.

    That is what we are left with. The 12 million expected much from their man who was known as Sai baba. But two things account for why that crowd is now there for the taking.

     One, according to this reporter’s investigations, the northern streets expected him to unleash a campaign against the high and mighty who oppress the talakawa. They waited in vain.

     “The northern poor loves you when you deal with the rich people,” a fellow told me from the north.

    But more important is that the man had a vision to help the talakawa, and that accounted for the formation of the humanitarian system under the charge, initially, of vice president Yemi Osinbajo.  Buhari was sanguine about this project, and it included, among others, conditional money transfer. What happened to the billions that Buhari devoted to the rescue of the poor?

    That is a query his men, especially the former governors of the north, must answer. And this must include, his aides and ministers who were associated with this project.

    Much of that fund did not enrich the poor.  Rather it alienated and further pauperised the northern talakawa.

    The template was wrong from the beginning. They did not tell president that, to reach the northern poor, they did not need to depend on conventional banks.

    Read Also: Tinubu urges unity, pays tribute to late Awujale of Ijebuland

    The vice president then who held the ace did a lot of work visiting the communities in the south. If it did not pull weight in the south for all the investments, how could it have done well in the north. There was a palpable disconnect between ideas and people.

    The reason was that most states in the north have too few bank branches, and it became almost impossible to reach these people. In the south, some states have bank  branches enough to dwarf five or six states together.

    Take away Lagos or Abuja, but just look at Delta and Akwa Ibom. Both states have more bank branches than 10 northen states put together, except perhaps Kano and Kaduna. Yet, a lot of money was allocated, year-on-year, for this task.

    National Assembly investigations revealed that much of the money was not accounted for, and it led to a wave of angry rhetoric. Yet, the northern governors who held the key to saving it did not rise to the occasion.

    Buhari’s aides also were dead from the neck up. N-Power, the name we knew it by, was impotent for the throng in the north.

    The poor had hoped, and Buhari believed. But in the end, hope and belief collapsed on the incompetence of politicians whose devotion to their boss’ ideal was cynical and self-serving. That was how the big, swirling masses lost gusto and became disillusioned.

    Before his death, Buhari was aware of this and his comments reflected a sense of acceptance that he might have done things better. He took it as a man.

    So, when he received these slobbering, fawning politicians in Daura and Kaduna, he was aware these same politicians were undertaking a futile search. They were in phony worship of a shrine but they had betrayed the deity.

    In the last part of his reign, Osinbajo had to be decoupled from the humanitarian project because the operators had failed the ideal.

     Buhari reorganised it, but there was no zeal or integrity among those who took over. In the end, they alienated him from his beloved folks.

    So, when a man like Boss Mustapha speaks of a 12.3 million crowd, he should look at the mirror because he was, as the government’s scribe, in the centre of connecting his boss with his crowd. He failed, and woefully.

    It is the way of charismatic folks that once they leave, their followers are like sheep without a shepherd. The followers are no longer there for plucking.

    Whether it is Awo, or Sardauna, or Mandela or De Gaulle or Josip Bros Tito, once they depart the stage, no one claims their followers.

    They are open to new ideas, new entreaties and entrances, new wooers, new charismas. They are fresh clay waiting for new moulders.

    So, those who say they belong to the CPC, and they inherit his followers, have no sense of history. When he left ANPP, did the party not become a ghost? It was his charisma, his spiritual face, his magnetic carriage, aura of rectitude that pulled the crowd. The CPC folks should stop deceiving themselves.

    Again, men like Atiku and their new ADC squatters should not forget that they are following a phantom, not a crowd.

    They are inaugurating the new form of politics that may be termed the politics of absent crowd. Nothing demonstrated this more than the crowd’s lack of eruption of funeral agony as the man passed. It should be a cause for pause, for contemplation rather than exploitation by all these politicians who have no other ideas but to walk on the man’s grave. If anything, it shows that the masses cannot always be taken for granted.

    When De Gaulle resigned as French leader, he expected to see a throng outside his window the next morning.

     His ambience was as quiet as a wilderness. He was to learn that you have to always cultivate the people. De Gaulle must have felt like the character in Ishiguro’s Nobel Prize-winning novel written decades later titled: The Remains of the Day, in which the main character thinks of what might have been if he cultivates his loved one at the right time.

     Buhari has done his bit and left, but these cynical politicians are looking for pieces.

    The ADC folks are looking for the remains of the man, whereas they should have done the right thing when he gave them the window and wherewithal to save the talakawa.  They did not sow with him, and now they want to reap. They failed, so they are finding it hard to sail.

  • Peter Obi’s RBK moment

    Peter Obi’s RBK moment

    Recently, Pitobi went on BBC to recreate the RBK Okafor moment. RBK Okafor had tried to exploit the death of Nnamdi Azikiwe, and went on television with an effusive jeremiad telling the world that the Great Zik had handed over his platform and work to him. He was teary and almost convincing. Alas, Zik was not dead, and no such dialogue happened with the Owelle of Onitsha.

    Well, Pitobi says he had a dialogue with Buhari and the Daura chieftain asked him to care for the poor. I wonder why he waited, like RBK, until his passing to make such a proclamation. He might not have visited Buhari alone.

    Read Also: IGP orders tight security over planned protest by retired police officers

     There might have been an aide around, and we want to verify, so it is not like one of Obi’s fantastical China statistical claims again.  The northern crowd did not take kindly to his assertion, and they lashed out at him in torrents. They mocked him as liar and they don’t want him near their neighbourhoods, etc. There is a way to respect the dead. Exploiting Buhari’s passing is not one of them.

  • WS @ 91: The eternal iconoclast who refuses to be tamed

    WS @ 91: The eternal iconoclast who refuses to be tamed

    As Nigeria’s literary colossus Wole Soyinka marked his 91st birthday last Saturday, July 13th, 2025, the nation and indeed the global  community celebrated not merely the longevity of a man, but that enduring relevance of a voice that has remained uncompromisingly authentic for over six decades. At 91, Soyinka—Nobel laureate, playwright, poet, activist, and a perpetual thorn in the side of tyrants—continues to embody the very essence of intellectual fearlessness that has defined his remarkable journey from Abeokuta to Stockholm and beyond.

    Born Akinwande Oluwole Soyinka in 1934, the man who would become Africa’s first Nobel Prize winner in Literature was shaped by the uneasy convergence of traditional Yoruba cosmology and Western literary traditions. His early exposure to both worlds—the rich oral traditions of his Egba heritage and the formal education at Government College Ibadan and later the University of Leeds—created a unique intellectual hybrid capable of speaking to multiple audiences simultaneously.

    Soyinka’s humanism is perhaps his most defining characteristic, transcending the narrow confines of tribalism, nationalism, and even continental identity. His works consistently champion the dignity of the human spirit against all forms of oppression, whether political, religious, or cultural. This humanistic vision is evident in masterpieces like “Death and the King’s Horseman,” where he explores the tragic collision between African traditional values and colonial impositions, and “The Lion and the Jewel,” which examines the tension between modernity and tradition without reducing either to caricature.

    His humanism extends beyond literature into lived experience. Throughout his life, Soyinka has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to human dignity that knows no ethnic or national boundaries. His support for the Igbo dominated Biafra during Nigeria’s civil war, despite being Yoruba, exemplified his belief that injustice anywhere threatens justice everywhere—a philosophy that would later inform his criticism of various Nigerian governments regardless of their ethnic composition.

    As an author, Soyinka has given the world a body of work that ranks among the finest in global literature. His collection of plays, novels, poems, and essays have not only entertained but educated generations about the complexity of the human experience. Works like “The Interpreters,” “Season of Anomy,” “ Trials of Brother Jero” The man died” “Death and the King’s Horsemen “and “Ake: The Years of Childhood” have become essential reading for understanding post-colonial African literature and society.

    His literary significance extends beyond mere artistic achievement. Soyinka has served as a cultural ambassador, interpreting Africa to the world and the world to Africa. His 1986 Nobel Prize in Literature was not just personal recognition but a validation of African literary expression on the global stage. The Swedish Academy’s citation praised his work for its ability to fashion “the drama of existence” in a “wide cultural perspective and with poetic overtones.”

    Read Also: Presidency slams ADC over Buhari’s burial remarks

    Perhaps no aspect of Soyinka’s life has been more consistent than his activism. From his student days at University College Ibadan where he founded the Pyrate’s Confraternity alongside six other colleagues of his, the Pyrate’s Confraternity the first indigenous campus confraternity in Africa, gave pep and colour to campus life in Nigeria  attempting to curb the penchant for ethnicity and tribalism as well fight moribund conventions. Also, Soyinka has been regular critic of contemporary Nigerian politics, never hesitant to speak truth to power. His activism has been marked by an intellectual rigor that refuses to be swayed by popular opinion or political expediency.

    His opposition to the Western Region Premier Samuel Akintola in the 1960s and the shameless rigging culture that was introduced into the region much demonstrated his early commitment to democratic principles. When the First Republic, Gowon, Babangida Abacha, Obasanjo, Jonathan and Buhari administration’s became increasingly authoritarian and corrupt, Soyinka didn’t retreat into academic neutrality but actively participated in the resistance, even staging a dramatic intervention during a rigged election radio broadcast. This act of defiance led to his arrest and foreshadowed a lifetime of confrontations with authority.

    During the Nigerian Civil War, Soyinka’s support for Biafra was rooted not in ethnic solidarity but in his belief that the Igbo people were facing systematic persecution. His clandestine mission to negotiate peace led to his detention without trial for 22 months, much of it in solitary confinement. His prison notes, later published as “The Man Died,” remain one of the most powerful testimonies against tyranny in African literature.

    Soyinka’s confrontation with General Sani Abacha’s dictatorship in the 1990s perhaps best illustrates his moral courage. As Abacha’s regime became increasingly brutal, executing environmental activist Ken Saro-Wiwa and his colleagues, Soyinka emerged as one of the most vocal critics of the military government. His open letter to Abacha, published in international newspapers, was a masterpiece of moral indignation that helped galvanize international opposition to the regime.

    Facing death threats and the very real possibility of assassination, Soyinka fled Nigeria and spent several years in exile, continuing his criticism from abroad. His book “The Open Sore of a Continent” provided a devastating critique of Nigeria’s post-independence trajectory and Abacha’s particular brand of savagery. Even in exile, he organized protests and lobbied international governments to impose sanctions on Nigeria.

    Soyinka’s later criticism of Olusegun Obasanjo’s civilian administration from 1999 to 2007 demonstrated the consistency of his principles. Despite Obasanjo’s role in Nigeria’s return to democracy, Soyinka didn’t hesitate to criticize what he saw as authoritarian tendencies and corruption in the administration.

    Soyinka’s importance extends far beyond Nigeria’s borders. As one of the most prominent African intellectuals of the 20th and 21st centuries, he has served as a voice for the global Black experience. His writings have provided intellectual ammunition for the struggle against racism and colonialism worldwide. His concept of “Negritude” and his debates with Léopold Sédar Senghor helped shape discussions about Black identity and cultural authenticity.

    His global stature has opened doors for other African writers and intellectuals, paving the way for the current generation of globally recognized African authors. His insistence on the universality of African themes and experiences helped counter the marginalization of African literature as merely “regional” or “exotic.”

    In recent years, Soyinka has faced criticism from some quarters, particularly from supporters of Peter Obi’s 2023 presidential campaign, often referred to as the “Obidients.” These critics, many of them young Nigerians active on social media, have accused him of inconsistency in his political positions and questioned his criticism of their preferred candidate.

    Such criticisms, however, reveal a fundamental misunderstanding of Soyinka’s intellectual project. Throughout his career, Soyinka has never been a partisan politician or a tribal champion. His positions have been guided by principles rather than personalities or ethnic loyalties. Those who expect him to support particular candidates based on ethnic or regional considerations have clearly not understood the man or his work.

    The notion that Soyinka’s positions are inconsistent reflects the pedestrian thinking of those who mistake intellectual independence for political opportunism. Soyinka has always reserved the right to criticize any leader or movement that falls short of his exacting standards of democratic governance and human rights. His criticism of various political movements and leaders, including those popular with certain demographics, is entirely consistent with his lifelong commitment to holding power accountable.

    The attacks on Soyinka by some sections of the “Obidient” movement reveal more about their own intolerance than about any failings on his part. Their expectation that an intellectual of Soyinka’s stature should conform to their political preferences demonstrates a troubling authoritarianism masquerading as democratic activism. The idea that criticism of their preferred candidate amounts to some form of betrayal shows a profound misunderstanding of the role of public intellectuals in a democracy.

    At 91, Soyinka remains what he has always been: an iconoclast who refuses to be domesticated by popular opinion or political expediency. His recent interventions in Nigerian politics, including his criticisms of various political movements and candidates, are entirely consistent with his lifelong pattern of speaking truth to power regardless of the consequences.

    Those who demand that Soyinka conform to their political preferences have learned nothing from his decades of independence. They would reduce him to a cheerleader for their cause, failing to understand that his value lies precisely in his refusal to be anyone’s partisan. His criticism of the “Obidient” movement and its candidate is no different from his criticism of Akintola, Abacha, or Obasanjo—it flows from his commitment to democratic principles and human dignity.

    As Soyinka enters his 91st year, his legacy is already secure. He has given Nigeria and Africa a body of work that will endure for generations. More importantly, he has provided a model of intellectual independence and moral courage that continues to inspire. His insistence on speaking truth to power, regardless of the political consequences, remains as relevant today as it was in the 1960s.

    The measure of Soyinka’s greatness lies not in his ability to please contemporary political movements but in his unwavering commitment to principles that transcend partisan politics. At 91, he continues to embody the very best of the intellectual tradition—fearless, independent, and uncompromisingly honest. Nigeria and the world are better for his presence, and his voice remains as necessary today as it was six decades ago when a young playwright first dared to challenge the powerful on behalf of the powerless.

  • Buhari bestrode this space

    Buhari bestrode this space

    Abun duniya abun banza ne.” (‘Worldly things are worthless things.’) This is how, in 2023, Nigeria’s late former President Muhammadu Buhari articulated one of the principles that guided his chequered life from his birth on 17 December, 1942 to his demise on 13 July, 2025. 

    A soldier’s soldier, he fought in the Nigerian civil war which broke out on 6 July, 1967 and ended on 15 January, 1970. A traumatic experience for the nation, Dr. Chris Ngige who served as the Minister of Labour and Employment for all of the two terms of the Muhammadu Buhari Presidency, said in this regard: “The man fought a civil war to keep Nigeria one.” Dr. Ngige, who fought on the Biafran side, also said: “He [Buhari] recounted the experience of how General Danjuma will always send him to where the war was thick knowing fully well that he would not say ‘No.’ And while other officers were taking leave to go home, he will be there for General Danjuma as their Commander.”

    Beyond the civil war, Buhari established his military bona fides when in 1983, as the General Officer Commanding (GOC), 3rd Amoured Brigade, he led his troops to repel Chadian invaders. To underscore the lesson Nigeria’s military set out to teach the intruders, he drove them back about 50 kilometers into Chad, by one account. Understandably, this created some international disquiet. 

    Moreover, in The Gambia, the opposition candidate, Adama Barrow, had defeated Yahyah Jammeh who had ruled the country for 22 years in the 1 December, 2016 presidential election, and the incumbent congratulated the president-elect. However, Yahyah Jammeh later retracted his earlier recognition of the results of the poll and insisted on staying on as President beyond the 19 January, 2017 handing over date. Nigeria spear-headed the international efforts to remove Yahyah Jammeh, and deployed jets and troops for the purpose. Seeing the credible threat of impeding military action, Yahya Jammeh agreed to leave office.

    It was reported that it was then-Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s private jet which was procured to ferry Jammeh and his family out of the country. In his remark to his presidential media team when they visited him in London where he was for medical attention, President Buhari said: “What we did in The Gambia has fetched us a lot of goodwill.”

    Buhari was Chairman of the Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), Chairman of the Nigeria National Petroleum Company (NNPC), Minister of Petroleum Resources, Military Administrator, military Head of State and civilian President. As Dr. Ngige put it, Buhari “has worked and served Nigeria in areas where even the angel would be tempted to be corrupt.” Yet, he emerged from each office morally above board. His public service has also been signposted by key infrastructure such as the 2nd Niger Bridge, railways, the Lagos – Calabar coastal road, and the Badagry – Sokoto Road, just to mention a few.

    Ngige also noted: “His victory in 2015 over a sitting president, incumbent President Jonathan, is a good lesson for our democracy. … That victory deepened democracy in Nigeria. He showed that if you are in opposition and you preach well and you get your games correct, you can defeat an incumbent. … That victory was historic.” In fact, Buhari’s 2015 victory is the reference point and inspiration for the coalition which has declared its intention to remove President Tinubu from office in 2027.

    Before Buhari, “No work, no pay” was largely an ineffectual labour slogan in the Nigerian university system; but in 2022, it became a live and enforced International Labour Organisation (ILO) principle which got the stamp of the National Industrial Court of Nigeria (NICN). Moreover, the Buhari administration, in which the dynamic, sometimes, controversial Dr. Chris Ngige oversaw labour matters, democratised university academic staff unionism by registering the new Congress of University Academics (CONUA) in 2023 to expand the opportunities for choice of union membership by lecturers. As with the “No work, no pay” principle, this decision was predicated upon ILO guidelines and was sanctioned by an NICN judgement.

    Buhari knew how to seize the moment. He acknowledged that Chief MKO Abiola won the June 12, 1993 presidential election, which was annulled by the Ibrahim Babangida military regime, and had been a source of violence and unrelenting ethno-regional disaffection. Buhari also declared June 12 as Democracy Day and a national public holiday, and renamed the National Stadium, Abuja, the Moshood Abiola National Stadium, in honour of the democracy icon. For these actions, Buhari has been receiving annual adulations on June 12 as a champion of democracy. With his death now, these adulations would assume an endearing memorial significance.

    Read Also: FAAC shares highest allocation of N1.818tr in June

    Deservedly, the University of Maiduguri, unarguably the North-East’s intellectual powerhouse, has been renamed “Muhammadu Buhari University, Maiduguri.” This decision is in preference to the suggestion to rename the Federal University of Transportation University, Daura, Katsina State, after him. The decision has avoided holding him up as a local hero. Localising a national icon was one of the reasons for the fierce opposition to the renaming of the University of Lagos after MKO Abiola by the Goodluck Jonathan administration. 

    In the campaigns towards the 2015 presidential election, there were insensitive claims that, following the pattern of Northwest Nigerian Heads of Government dying in office, Buhari would die before the end of his first term. So, when he took ill in 2017 and had to be away from Nigeria for extended periods of time, some of his detractors expected that their morbid predictions would come true. In fact, Buhari himself was widely reported to have said: “I have never been so sick.” In spite of the severity of his condition, Buhari denied his detractors the medal of clairvoyance. Indeed, some of them who had been so categorical about his not returning from London or their much younger relatives died before his arrival.

    Amazingly, the frail Buhari who left Nigeria returned months later as a spritely, remarkably younger Buhari. And his traducers were so astounded that the only excuse they could give for what they thought was his metamorphosis was that the Buhari who left Nigeria for London had actually died and been buried. According to the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) leader, Nnamdi Kanu, in a 3 December, 2018 YouTube video, “Jubril is an impostor. They brought him in to act and behave like the dead Buhari.” In one attempt to justify the ludicrous claim, attention was being drawn to the shape of the ears of the original Buhari and Jubril of Sudan.

    In a humorous reaction in the same video, President Buhari responded to a Nigerian at the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Poland who sought to know whether he was the real Buhari: “A lot of people hoped that I died during my ill health. Some even reached out to the Vice-President to consider them to be his deputy because they assumed I was dead. That embarrassed him a lot and of course, he visited me when I was in London convalescing… It’s [the] real me [that’s standing before you]; I assure you.”

    Besides “Jubril of Sudan,” there are other expressions by and about Buhari which would serve as his memorial. On Tuesday 10 May, 2016, without knowing that the comment could be picked up by others, then-British Prime Minister David Cameron told Queen Elizabeth II that Nigeria was “a fantastically corrupt” country. Asked by a journalist whether he was going to demand an apology for the undiplomatic put down from Cameron, Buhari said wittily: “I’m not going to demand any apology from anybody. What I’m demanding is the return of assets [stolen from Nigeria and kept in Britain] … What would I do with apology? I need something tangible.”

    Probably the most popular and most enduring of President Buhari’s soundbites related to his wife’s politically vocal nature. On a trip to Germany, asked what her political affiliation was, the President said: “I don’t know which party my wife belongs to, but she belongs to my kitchen, and my living room, and the other room.” “The other room” has since become a folk euphemism in Nigeria.

    When his time was ripe, since, as the Qur’an says, “Every soul shall taste of death,” President Buhari left Nigeria for the United Kingdom on 27 February, 2025, and breathed his last there on 13 July, 2025. Delivering his funeral oration at a special, expanded meeting of the Federal Executive Council on 17 July, 2025, President Tinubu, quite rightly, said: “President Buhari was not a perfect man – no leader is – but he was, in every sense of the word, a good man, a decent man, an honourable man. His record will be debated, as all legacies are, but the character he brought to public life, the moral force he carried, the incorruptible standard he represented, will not be forgotten. His was a life lived in full service to Nigeria, and in fidelity to God.”

    President Buhari’s imperfections served as a canvass which showed so clearly how so much more imperfect some others around him were. Nothing revealed this more clearly than the criticism that he gave those who worked with him unrestrained freedom of action. That some of these aides performed below par or overreached themselves or swarm in impropriety was a betrayal not just of the President or the nation, but of nature itself which has made us to come to expect that growing up was morally and ethically refining or that grown-ups didn’t need bottle-feeding or micro-managing.

    President Buhari’s death creates an opportunity for us as a nation to begin to re-examine our democratically-elected Presidents, especially, of the Nigerian Fourth Republic, and from an amalgam of their relative positive qualities, set a standard for the ideal future Nigerian president. Noteworthy in this regard are President Olusegun Obasanjo’s reputation as a hardworking leader and President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua’s exquisite conscience which made him acknowledge that there were legitimate ethical questions to be raised about the 2007 elections that brought him to office, complemented by the willingness to correct the identified moral challenges in subsequent elections.

    Also of key importance are President Goodluck Jonathan’s uncanny respect for the will of the electorate and his aversion to election-related bloodshed; President Buhari’s transparent honesty, love for the common people and the desire to bring out, unforced, the best in each of his appointees to public office; and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s methodical, sharply-focussed, long-term preparation for office, the courage to take necessary, even if unpopular, decisions, and his uncommon capacity for the consensual deployment of presidential powers.

    As a fitting closing testimony to Nigeria’s late President Muhammadu Buhari, President Tinubu said: “Mai Gaskiya, The People’s General, the Farmer President – your duty is done.”

  • President Muhammadu Buhari in retrospect

    President Muhammadu Buhari in retrospect

    Femi, you are an uncommon columnist with irreproachable integrity.

    You are your own man … that’s what your writings say, loud and clear – Akogun Tola Adeniyi, on my soon to be out Book: Simply a Citizen Journalist.

    Everything considered, President Buhari was a great Nigerian leader, indeed, a titan.

    As former President Ibrahim Babangida did not fail to mention  in his tribute to him at his passing, President Buhari was:”quiet yet resolute, principled yet humble, deeply patriotic, and fiercely loyal to Nigeria,” to which, according to IBB,”he gave his best”.

    I wish to commiserate with the people of Katsina state, the entire peoples of Nigeria, especially the immediate family of the late President and Commander- in – Chief of the Armed Forces of Nigeria, President Muhammadu Buhari, GCFR.

    May the Almighty God grant him eternal rest.

    As a chronicler of events, and a trained historian to boot, I wrote copiously about President Buhari’s persona and government.

    I, therefore, not unexpectedly, had a torrid time trying to select three from my over fifty articles which dealt, in great detail, with his administration between 2015 and 2023.

    I will only plead with my editor to please grant me some extended space to put these 3 articles out for the reading public.

    In: ‘Is President Buhari Just Plain Unconcerned Whatever Happens to Nigeria or Nigerians’, of 3 January, 2021,  I wrote as follows:

    ” So much is wrong with Nigeria that I personally no longer  know  what to think or believe. Indeed, I no longer know what to write, having severally repeated myself on issues which, not only I, but even well known friends of President Buhari, the likes of the Emir of Katsina and His Eminence, the Sultan, have had cause to  speak about of recent concerning where the President has landed  Nigeria.

    Even as every organisation with the minutest connection to the North – Coalition of Northern Groups, the Arewa Youth Consultative Forum, NEF, ACF etc –  now equates the minutest criticism  of the Buhari government to regime change,  it cannot but be heartwarming that the usually forthright NEF spokesperson,  Dr. Hakeem Baba-Ahmed, could still permit himself to say the following: “There are many grounds to question the competence and sensitivity of President Buhari’s administration. Even his most ardent supporters, if he has any, that is, will wish he has shown greater respect for inclusion and accountability of those he chooses to trust with power. The nation is paying a heavy price for mediocrity and ineffectiveness in key areas of decision-making under President Buhari”.

    With truisms like this, one would not mind  putting  up with the obsequiousness of Presidential spokespersons, and those other hangers on who are now so dim- witted they cannot offer the President some honest viewpoints even as Nigeria regresses daily under his watch.

    Read Also: FAAC shares highest allocation of N1.818tr in June

    I am presently so completely tanked out having written  a whole year too early, on the topic: Annus

    Horribilis on 29 December, 2019 which would have been most appropriate today, pandemic aside.

    Readers will, therefore, please forgive me as I go back all the way to my archives to fetch an article that not only encapsulates the times, but generated so much furore, and trended on social media for well over two weeks.

    Published, 15 December, 2019, ‘What Is Happening Mr President’, was also deliberately misinterpreted by those who either are mischief makers or who, because they do not understand the English language, permitted themselves to be easily lured into thinking that I was on an errand for a particular politician who they say had an axe to grind with the President. 

    I had  no alternative than to urge them to go and read my column from inception which, incidentally, went back to COMET, and so debuted long before The Nation.

    That article will now be edited for space constraint.

    Happy reading.

    For those who may not know, I have more than established my bona fides as a supporter of President Muhammadu Buhari. When he was not anywhere sure he would emerge the APC Presidential candidate for 2015, I  wrote about  him as follows: “Nigeria, in its current dire straits, needs Buhari more than he needs Nigeria”.

    This was repeated in a book by the late Prof Tam David West when he wrote: “Buhari: The Politics Of Age, October 14, 2014:”Nigeria, in its current dire straits needs Buhari more than he needs Nigeria.” -Femi Orebe,“The Nation On Sunday”, September 28, 2014 Page 18”.

    I write  that to show  not just  where I stand on the Nigerian political spectrum, but to let President Buhari  himself know that in asking what are bound to be absolutely uncomfortable questions, they are not coming from enemy territory, but from the tortured  soul of a supporter of his, who has been at the receiving end of those Nigerians who claim I was one of those who sold them ‘a pig in a poke and  the most tribalistic Nigerian President ever’.

    In fairness to the critics, I have  often personally wondered  as to how the President still manages to sleep, if he is able to, after he must have taken a hard look at how the North has come to so completely dominate the Nigerian public space under his watch  to the extent that one would be right to say Nigeria  is under a Northern stranglehold.

    Worse really, is the fact that this seeming internal colonialism shows no signs of remission as various stratagems are still ongoing; examples being the Water Bill currently at the National Assembly, as well as  the case of the Federal Commission on Nomadic Education, which though has failed, maximally  in its core function, given the number of out- of -school children in the North, but is now doing everything  to insinuate itself into  the contentious grazing reserves matter which is aimed at sexing up the country’s demographics in favour of the Fulani.

    As I wrote earlier, these views of your government are now being shared by core Northerners.

    But like  one time House of Reps member, Dr Junaid Mohammed,  U S- based, Farooq A. Kperogi, has  rightly  described your government as ‘Government Of Buhari’s Family, By His Family, And For His Family’.

    He wrote more: “Before he was sworn in as President in May 2015, Muhammadu Buhari, without prompting from anybody, publicly told his immediate and extended family members to stand back from his incoming government. He even warned that any family member who used his name to peddle influence would face dire consequences”. ”I was so impressed by this declaration that in my May 16, 2015 column titled “6 Reasons Why Incoming Buhari Government Fills Me with Hope,” I isolated it as one of the six reasons I thought Buhari’s administration would “represent a qualitative departure from the legalised banditry that has passed for governance in Nigeria for so long.” Specifically, he continued : “Buhari’s symbolic but nonetheless significant gestures like telling family members to steer clear of his government and telling aides to obey traffic laws inspire me. I remember the President saying all that and I was beside myself with joy. You would, indeed, have ridden a horse in my belly. But all those soon  dramatically changed that the First Lady had to cry out, protesting what she called a hijack of your government. I thought that was impossible”.

    The rout is complete.

     I am aware that the First Lady  had once observed that you do not know many of  those working in your government,  but that notwithstanding, I think it is necessary I remind  your Excellency, that Nigeria presently has no less than 250 ethnic groups’, divided into  6 geo – political zones . Under no circumstances should these things happen as they are  totally unconscionable and a matter of great discomfort  for those of us still supporting you in this part of the country. It is extremely nauseating  that a part can so horribly dominate the rest when those others are no slaves.

    No genuine supporter of yours in the South can be happy, or roll out the drums for this state of affairs  as they are  not only unthinkable, but totally ungodly. It is  even worse, given Nigeria’s current realities of mass poverty and unremitting insecurity.

    Unfortunately, Nigerians are not hearing a word from APC leaders in other parts of the country who toiled with you in forming the party on which  you rode to power, thus heedlessly, and selfishly, disappointing those they led to  the party.

    Whatever you can do to correct these ungodly acts will be of great help, not only to your party, as it will  molify the people somewhat,  and most probably, secure a positive legacy for you.

    Otherwise all  your  contributions to Nigeria, at this extremely difficult time, may come to naught, which I pray, God forbid”.

    The second selected article is:’President Buhari’s 2nd Term: Where WillI The Votes Come From’ dated  17 September, 2017. 

    It reads:”When on Sunday, 17 September, 2017 I wrote the article below, my intention was to rouse President Mohammadu Buhari, free him from the suffocating grip of a mafia whose mindset is cast in the 17th century, and wake him up to the reality that he is President of  a multi- ethnic, multi-religious and, a culturally diverse country of  over 200 million people. That those hopes have largely been dashed became  obvious to me after the totally unconscionable appointment of a Northerner to replace the former Yoruba Director – General of the National Intelligence Agency, thus completing the banality of Northerners’ complete control of the Nigerian security apparatti, the effect  of which we now see in the shambolic way the security agencies are treating the murderous Fulani herdsmen.

    If the article was advisory then, things have so degenerated now that if APC is to have any hope of victory in 2019 , the Buhari government must be rescued from that un-elected cabal.

    “My prayer had always been that God will restore President Muhammadu Buhari to perfect health, to  such an extent his health will not even be an issue in the 2019 elections.

    That prayer has largely been answered in the affirmative.The question to now  ask is: where will the votes come from to earn him a second term? To answer that question, let us examine the man and his government.

    Relying exclusively on what I knew of contestant Muhammadu Buhari up until 2014/15, and seeing how then President Goodluck Jonathan had firmly enthroned systemic corruption in the country, I wrote  shortly before the APC primaries of December, 2015, that Nigeria needed Buhari more than he needed her.

     But can I, in all honesty, say that today? 

    President Buhari showed very early in his administration that he was not going to be his own man when, in what many saw as a dig at Ashiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a man who gave a leg and an arm for his victory, he said he was for nobody, but for all, as if  anybody said  he should be beholden to Tinubu.

    By the time he ended his ‘search’ for his ministers – some 6 months after – his relations, and assorted Hausa/ Fulani/Kanuris, to the near  total exclusion of Nigerians from other ethnic groups, have taken over the government. That the country’s entire security architecture is in the hands of Northerners must have been the icing on the cake.

    If that was resented in the Southwest which had been crucial to his election, what about the North Central geopolitical zone which the progressives won for the very first time ever?

    Political pragmatism should have informed the President to encourage the party to cede the senate Presidency to the nPDP after CPC and APC had taken the Presidency and the Vice presidency, respectively. That is how, very easily, the extremely polarising executive –legislative face off  which has since haunted the party, and the government, could have been avoided. The President did no such thing. Today, the National Assembly is controlled by the ruling party only in name.

    How then have these avoidable missteps affected President Buhari in the performance of his duties, and how, in turn, will they affect election 2019?

    The President has recorded considerable achievement in the discharge of his promises to the electorate on anti corruption and the fight against the all pervading insecurity he inherited from President Jonathan, even though some critical, but avoidable, challenges remain. While inter agency squabbles have significantly hampered the anti corruption war, despite EFCC’s  successes, the judiciary has been most unhelpful, with some judges, despite ACJA, still granting unreasonably long adjournments, and giving rulings that show they don’t care a hoot if Nigeria goes to the dogs.

    The judiciary, especially some judges and a few, quite identifiable members of the senior bar, have constituted themselves into a bulwark of support for corruption’s ferocious fight back.

    Similar mitigating challenges also trail the war against insecurity, especially Boko Haram which remains not only a potent enemy of state, but one on which so much money is being  wasted.

    Kidnappings, armed robberies, serial killings etc continue to  be the bane of every Nigerian citizen. Cost of living is high just as youth employment gnaws at the heart of most parents.”

    All these should tell President Buhari he has his job cut out for him from now on.

    Nor can a resurgent PDP, which is already stoking the embers of citizen’s malcontent, be taken for granted. In this respect, President Buhari must realise that Nigerians have very short memories. Yes, PDP is a party of buccaneers, yes they stole the country blind, yes, they literally turned the country into Somali and Southern Sudan combined, but hey, if Nigerians are still this hungry by 2019, the electorate will not remember that it was President Jonathan who turned the CBN to an Automatic Teller Machine (ATM) and got, on his instructions, a 2.1Billion dollars earmarked for the military completely incinerated by his acolytes.

    How has the Buhari government fared on such key subjects as Education, top posts of which are also dominated by the North, Healthcare delivery, Housing, road infrastructure etc? Why so many strike in our institutions of higher learning and how come labour has become so unduly restive?” 

    When the above was written, the  Benue genocide and the Taraba bloodletting were  still aeons away. Police men have not yet become game for Fulani herdsmen, with our security agencies looking askance. An arrogant, Emirs -backing, miyetti Allah, confident the government would never lift a finger to check its murderous excesses, was still talking largely in whispers. Not now, when they are in the open, killing and maiming; burning villages and farmsteads, and telling state governments what laws they can, and cannot enact.

    Happily, President Buhari still has  some time, though not much, on his hands, to rouse himself, re brand, restrategise, and begin to run an inclusive government. He must ensure that these murderous killers are brought to justice, as killers must  get their comeuppance; albeit, through the  due process of law.

    The President must wean himself off his excessive ethnicity. It is as unjust, as it is unexplainable in a multi-ethnic society. He must see every part of the country, especially the thoroughly shortchanged Southeast, as deserving of fairness and equity”.

    Finally, the third article, captioned as ‘When Is a Failed State’ of 6 August, 2021.

    I wrote therein as follows:”The more I look at Nigeria, the more agonised I become. This gets worse when I look at her trajectory since 2015, a year Nigerians had believed would be the very beginning of our redemption from PDP’s 16 -year stranglehold – 1999 – 2015. How wrong this has proved?

    The Economist of London writes:”Nigeria now confronts six or more internal insurrections. Her inability to provide peace and stability to its citizenry has tipped the hitherto, very weak state, into failure”.

    The question that then arises is: were Nigerians wrong in 2015 when, on the election of President Muhammadu Buhari, they started to smell redemption from the quagmire which 16 years of the PDP threw them into?

    My answer would, undoutedly,  be that Nigerians had more than enough reasons to believe that given President Buhari’s incandescent personal integrity, his experience in government and the many years he tried to be voted president, Nigerians were not wrong.

    Yet, Nigeria is where it is today. 

    Why?

    The Economist touched on this very germane question when it wrote further: “A country plagued by acute corruption problems, and with the unremitted crude oil revenue scandal of 2014 still fresh in the people’s minds, many were eager for a change; the type never seen before. Here, after all, was a retired army general, one already experienced in governance, with a great strength of will, and supremely considered tough enough to take on the nation’s cabal of hardened criminals. He, indeed, had promised, during the campaigns, to appoint only technocrats to head the country’s departments and to see off the Boko Haram insurgency. For a nation lacking basic amenities such as power,  despite its huge energy resources, the choice could, in fact, not have been easier. To most Nigerians, therefore,  General  Buhari, with all his integrity was the man for the moment”.

    Nor was the Economist alone, as yours truly was sanguine enough to have earlier written, on these pages, that Nigeria needed candidate Buhari more than the obverse.

    As the Economist did not fail to mention, disappointment was not long in coming, adding that in “less than a year of his assumption of office, the economy which had  grown at an average rate of 7%  between 2011-2014, had plummeted into recession. He had taken 6 months to appoint a cabinet and far more to appoint heads of agencies and boards, just as he increased import duties on the most basic of commodities in a bid to raise government revenue”.

    Worse, however, was the unbelievable insularity that underpinned his appointments. His cabinet was presumably inferior, in the decision making process, to the  more powerful, thoroughly shadowy kitchen cabinet of alleged blood relations, and those loyal  friends and allies of his long political odyssey, irrespective of their individual competences, beyond hegemonic ties. In consequence of all these, the Economist went on, “the country’s currency lost 70% of its value, unemployment rose from 6.5 to 26%, commodity prices tripled across many quarters and the state-regulated premium motor spirit prices were hiked by 67%. Today the Naira exchanges for more than 500 to one dollar”.

    Nigerians, out of respect for  the president, could still have borne their increasing poverty with equanimity. After all,  Nigeria has been categorised as the poverty capital of the world. But the indescribable insecurity  changed all that.

    In every part of the country, you are  no longer  safe on farms, highways, forests, schools, but worst of  all, in your own homes, from where you or your children can be summarily  plucked, with the government hardly batting an eyelid.

     Even when hordes of literal sucklings, pupils aged below 10 years, were kidnapped from their schools in the North , the government still managed to feign complete ignorance leaving the parents to face the ordeal.

    Today in Kaduna, Zamfara and Niger states, like any state at all, I am not sure any parent sending a child to school in the morning can say with any certainty that the child would return home. Between Boko Haram and bandits, schools have truly become ‘haram’.

    While the meddlesome Sheik Gumi, and his entourage could make tourist -like soree’s to bandits’ hideouts,  kidnapped children could still spend days upon days – one was 55 days – and men and women of our security forces would be forbidden from attacking the rogue, non state actors. It has, in fact, been reported that bandits, some of who recently  shot down a fighter jet, do have more sophisticated weapons than our security forces. Is the Economist not correct about our status as a failed state when  bandits could shoot down a fighter jet, and hold their kidnapped victims for as long as they choose? What exactly stops the government from declaring a fullscale war on them or, j in the alternative, seek external help? Is it correct to assert that religion and ethnic consaingunity are behind government’s failure to tame insecurity?

    There is also the question of the ease with which Fulani herdsmen literally live above the law, maiming, killing and kidnapping at will.

    Let us now end this article with the views of Dr Hakeem Baba – Ahmed, the NEF spokesperson, as he expressed them in an expansive interview with The Nation newspaper of Saturday, 31 July, 2021.

    Question: “On a final note, despite all the criticism, are there any positives you see in six years of the Buhari administration?

    Dr Baba- Hamed: “No! And I say that with a lot of regret. If there were, I would  say so. I was among the tiny group of people who contributed to putting this man in power, and there were huge expectations.We genuinely believed that President Buhari would  fix  security, the economy and tackle corruption; that he would give this country a new lease of life, show leadership and be different from Jonathan’s PDP administration”.

    “We had very high hopes, particularly those of us in the North who were at the receiving end of Boko Haram insurgency at that time.We didn’t see any of those things. We have seen decline in the quality of leadership, we have seen decline in security, we have seen decline in the economy. If today I tell you, there are families in the northern part of the country in the rural North, which grows its own food and eat it, families that eat one meal a day, people will find that unbelievable, but it is the truth. If I tell you that there are women in some villages in parts of the North who sleep on trees at night because they are afraid that bandits will come in the night to take them away, people may not find that believable, it is the truth. If I tell you children leave home for  school and their parents are not sure whether they will come back and that a large number of parents are removing their children from school in the north which desperately needs children, particularly the girl child, to stay in school, some people will say that is not true. But, it is the truth.That is the reality we live in. If I tell you there are communities in the South that Northerners cannot go to, some  people will say it is not true, but the reality is that it is true. That is what the six years of Buhari administration has done to Nigeria”.

    “It gives no pleasure, believe me honestly, I wish  he  has done the opposite, so that, I can be proud and say thank God, all the efforts we had put in 2003, 2004, 2005 has borne fruits, that we have shown that we can actually produce a good leader that would make a difference, but he has failed to do this and my major concern now is that, I am worried that  the same administration is working to put another administration in power and the PDP is not any better. PDP just wants to wrestle power from President Buhari and do exactly what Buhari is doing, that is the tragedy for this country”.

    There you have it dear readers. But unlike Dr Baba – Hamed, do not judge President Buhari.

    Allow History to do that.

    Erratum

    Dr John Kayode Fayemi’s 60th birthday was on February 9, 1965.

    Apologies for wrong date quoted in last week article.

  • Week of mourning and magnanimity: Tinubu’s test of heart and history

    Week of mourning and magnanimity: Tinubu’s test of heart and history

    Last week may well go down as the most emotionally searing and physically punishing stretch President Bola Ahmed Tinubu has had to endure since assuming the mantle of leadership in May 2023. It was a week that tested his strength, stretched his soul, and reaffirmed his humanity—unfolding with an avalanche of events that no playbook could have adequately prepared for. It was not the kind of week one enters from a place of fatigue, let alone jet lag, but that was precisely the state in which Tinubu returned to Nigeria—worn from a 15-day diplomatic foray to the Caribbean and Latin America, only to be met with a thunderclap of sorrow.

    At about 1:30 a.m. on Sunday, July 13, President Tinubu landed on Nigerian soil after crisscrossing Saint Lucia and Brazil in back-to-back state visits that involved intense diplomatic exchanges aimed at expanding Nigeria’s global partnerships. Barely had he set foot on home ground than the chilling news reached him: his immediate predecessor and ally, former President Muhammadu Buhari, had died in a London hospital after a long and closely guarded illness. If that shock was not enough to stagger the President, another blow landed within hours—the transition of Oba Sikiru Kayode Adetona, the venerable Awujale of Ijebuland and one of Tinubu’s most trusted royal confidants.

    It was a double bereavement. Two titans of Tinubu’s inner circle—one a political icon and national symbol, the other a regal father figure with whom he had shared years of counsel and kinship—both gone, just as he was returning from a taxing overseas mission. The sheer emotional weight of that convergence is hard to describe, but Tinubu didn’t buckle; he moved—fast, deliberate, resolute. Within hours, he announced Buhari’s death to the nation and dispatched Vice President Kashim Shettima to the United Kingdom to retrieve the body. That singular move was emblematic: the journey home of Nigeria’s late leader was not left to protocol or bureaucracy—it was a matter of personal honour.

    In one of his earliest statements, Tinubu captured the magnitude of the loss: “President Buhari was, to the very core, a patriot. His legacy of service and sacrifice endures.” He would go on to order flags flown at half-mast nationwide and declare a public holiday for Tuesday, July 15. The decision to observe a full week of national mourning, followed by an emergency Federal Executive Council (FEC) session and a state burial of unprecedented scale, wasn’t just a matter of national ritual. It was personal. Deeply personal.

    Throughout the week, the President functioned not only as Head of State but also as a chief mourner. He received Buhari’s body in Katsina with solemn reverence, walking silently behind the military hearse that bore his remains. The President of Nigeria—who could easily have delegated the role—chose instead to bow his head in humility before the flag-draped remains of the man who once led the nation and was also his political comrade. That moment, etched into the collective memory of Nigerians, was more than ceremonial; it was symbolic of the way Tinubu views leadership—not as rank, but as responsibility, even to the departed.

    Read Also: Presidency slams ADC over Buhari’s burial remarks

    The interment in Daura was executed with military precision and spiritual dignity. A 21-gun salute split the air and dignitaries from across the continent paid their last respects. Yet, beyond the optics, it was Tinubu’s steadfast presence and guiding hand throughout the process—from the airport in Katsina to the grave in Daura—that struck a chord with Nigerians. The man who had just returned from an exhausting foreign assignment chose not to retreat into rest, but to rise in tribute. He did not merely attend the funeral—he orchestrated it.

    The setting up of an Inter-Ministerial Committee, chaired by Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF), Senator George Akume, to manage the funeral arrangements within a mere 48 hours underscored the urgency with which Tinubu approached the moment. For him, Buhari was not a ceremonial footnote in Nigeria’s history. He was a friend, a mentor, and a fellow traveler in the arduous road to Nigeria’s democratic consolidation. He could not be buried in haste or indifference.

    And then there was the special FEC session on Thursday—a gathering of national memory and institutional grief. Tinubu’s tribute was one of rare vulnerability and reflection. “He was unmoved by the temptation of power, unseduced by applause, and unafraid of the loneliness that often visits those who do what is right,” he said of Buhari, with a voice equal parts admiration and finality. The President described his predecessor’s courage as quiet, his morality unpretentious, and his leadership self-effacing. It was the sort of testimony only a close witness could deliver—one born of shared trenches and private trust.

    In one of the most emotionally charged moments of the week, President Tinubu announced the renaming of the University of Maiduguri to Muhammadu Buhari University, Maiduguri (MBUM). This gesture, coming from a leader who rarely indulges in the politics of monuments, was profoundly telling. The University of Maiduguri is no ordinary institution; it stands in the heart of a region long devastated by insurgency, which Buhari devoted much of his tenure to stabilizing. In naming the university after him, Tinubu immortalized not just a man, but a mission—a commitment to nationhood, education, and peace.

    The renaming of UNIMAID is one of those rare political acts that transcend symbolism. It codifies in the annals of public memory a man whose convictions often ran deeper than his words, whose governance was less about spectacle and more about service. In one stroke, Tinubu ensured that future generations—particularly those from the insurgency-battered North-East—will read the name Muhammadu Buhari not just in history books, but on admission letters, convocation certificates, and national academic records. It was a move rooted in respect, shaped by strategy, and inspired by legacy.

    But if Buhari’s death brought the nation to mourning, the passing of Oba Sikiru Adetona tugged at the President’s personal heartstrings in a way few others could. In his tribute, Tinubu confessed that the death of the Awujale, occurring on the same day as Buhari’s, met him with “double pain.” He referred to the late monarch not merely as a traditional ruler but as a confidant and “honest arbiter” whose wise counsel had served him across decades. “I enjoyed an excellent personal relationship with Kabiyesi. I will forever cherish our time together,” he wrote. That double loss, so soon after a diplomatic marathon abroad, could have overwhelmed a lesser man. But Tinubu bore it with stoic grace.

    Indeed, what played out last week was a masterclass in leadership under duress—emotionally, logistically, and symbolically. The President did not allow grief to paralyze governance. Instead, he fused both realms, transforming mourning into a mobilizing force for national reflection. He led not just by position but by posture—bowing when he could have stood aloof, walking when he could have driven.

    For a man whose critics often accuse of being calculative and strategic to a fault, last week revealed a side of Tinubu that was raw, unfiltered, and deeply human. It reminded the nation—and perhaps himself—that leadership is not only about policies and appointments, but about people, relationships, and the burdens of memory.

    In the Shadow of Loss, Tinubu Still Led

    Even in a week drenched with personal grief and national mourning, President Tinubu did not waver in his duty to the country. Beneath the emotional weight of former President Buhari’s death and the parallel loss of the Awujale of Ijebuland, President Tinubu continued to attend to the weighty matters of state. It was a demonstration of composure, resilience, and devotion to the presidential oath he took—not merely to lead in times of triumph, but also through adversity.

    On Sunday, the same day he broke the somber news of Buhari’s passing, the President also found time to publicly honour another towering figure—Professor Wole Soyinka. In a statement marking the Nobel Laureate’s 91st birthday, Tinubu described Soyinka as an “uncommon patriot” and a “source of inspiration to generations.” The gesture underscored a key facet of Tinubu’s character: his ability to balance grief with gratitude, to mourn the departed while still celebrating the living legends of Nigeria’s rich intellectual and cultural tapestry. It was not just protocol—it was personal.

    Reflecting on his own relationship with the literary icon, Tinubu said, “I value my association with Professor Soyinka and several collaborations to advance the progress and development of Nigeria.” That note of reflection stood out, coming as it did in the thick of national bereavement. It pointed to a President who understands legacy not only in political terms but also in the moral and cultural realms where voices like Soyinka’s have long held sway.

    By Tuesday, with Buhari’s body barely settled in Daura and the national mood still heavy, Tinubu turned to matters of international concern. He directed relevant agencies to swiftly address the reasons cited by the United States and the United Arab Emirates in their recent visa restrictions affecting Nigerians. Despite the mourning period, Tinubu was already back to enforcing his 4-D foreign policy framework—Democracy, Development, Demography, and Diaspora—by ensuring Nigeria’s global reputation remained intact and Nigerians abroad were protected. The message was clear: diplomacy doesn’t pause for grief.

    Then came Friday, and again, the President showed no signs of emotional withdrawal from his responsibilities. He announced a slate of strategic appointments across federal agencies, including naming Muhammad Babangida, son of former military President Ibrahim Babangida, as Chairman of the Bank of Agriculture. Other key appointments spanned sectors such as energy, education, peacebuilding, and trade. Even as he bade farewell to the past, Tinubu was busy engineering the machinery of the future.

    Later that same day, President Tinubu made a solemn visit to Kano to condole with the family of the late Alhaji Aminu Dantata, the 94-year-old elder statesman and business icon. The President’s words were moving: “He was not just a respected figure; he was part of my family.” His tribute echoed the one he gave Buhari earlier in the week—personal, grounded, and sincere. For Tinubu, mourning is not mere optics; it is a duty of the heart.

    Thus, even as the nation mourned and flags flew at half-staff, the President quietly sustained the rhythm of governance—engaging the world, appointing new leaders, and offering Nigerians a rare blend of strength and sentiment. In the heaviest of weeks, Tinubu carried on. And in doing so, he reminded the country that true leadership does not retreat when the heart is heavy—it rises.

    In a political culture often characterized by expediency, Tinubu’s handling of Buhari’s passing is a case study in loyalty, ritual, and personal involvement. His visible, physical, and emotional presence throughout the week’s events is a rare departure from the detached statesmanship that many of his peers may have opted for. From authorizing the state burial, to attending and personally guiding each phase, to pronouncing memorialisation—he bore the week not as a man in high office, but as a man of high sentiment.

    The page has now turned on a momentous week—one that forced Nigeria to pause, reflect, and honour two of its departed elders. But even as flags return to full mast and ministers resume routine briefings, what will linger is the image of a President—drained by diplomacy, battered by bereavement—still standing tall in the service of those he once called friends. For Tinubu, last week was more than a chapter in governance; it was a testament of heart, loyalty, and honour.

    And so ends a week of grief, legacy, and grace. May those who passed be remembered well. And may those who remain—like President Tinubu—find the strength to keep carrying the load of history with the same dignity and devotion.

  • Buhari: Remember six feet

    Buhari: Remember six feet

    Nigeria would be great again the day our leaders start to remember that they don’t have death in their pocket

    Even as an unrepentant critic of the Muhammadu Buhari administration, I concede that the man was great in death. As a journalist, why I am a natural critic of Buhari as president is not far-fetched.   At his first coming as military head of state in December 1983, the then General Buhari, among other things, promulgated the infamous Decree Four that was for all intents and purposes, a press gag law. The problem with that decree was that it was not after the truth but more concerned about not embarrassing public officials. No true journalist would like a regime that came up with such a draconian idea.

    That was why, when, during the Sallah of 2014 (I think) when we were catching fun in the house of a commissioner-friend in Lagos State, we discussed a series of issues over exotic wine and sumptuous meal. The 2015 elections were around the corner then. We were enjoying ourselves when a former commissioner in the state literally fouled the air, as it were, when he touted Buhari as a possible presidential candidate. Mind you, over 95 percent of the about 12 of us in the sitting room are journalists. Our reaction was spontaneous NO WAY. Thank God, we didn’t say that would only happen over our dead body, dejected as we were that such a satanic idea could have come from a senior colleague. Otherwise, we would have been forced to swallow our words when Buhari later became president.

    We debated the matter. In the end, the senior colleague asked one simple question: what did we think was Nigeria’s worst challenge then? Of course that was a simple question that even a pupil in kindergarten could answer. Indeed, it was not a matter of what we thought, but a matter of what was the main problem. We all answered: corruption. Then the next logical question: who did we think could solve the problem? Was it Atiku Abubakar? We were all silent because none of us believed Atiku had the guts to fight corruption. At the end of the day, we all grudgingly agreed that it was Buhari, given his stance against corruption when he was military head of state between December 1983 and August 1985.

    At that point, it became clear that Buhari was going to be the candidate of the three political parties that eventually formed the All Progressives Congress (APC) –the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), the Congress for Progressive Change (CPC), and the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP).

    The 2015 general election finally came and Buhari won, defeating the incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan in the first such election where an incumbent president would be defeated in the country.

    He was sworn in and the rest is history.

    A lot has been said about his performance in office, so I wouldn’t want to dwell much on that. Rather, I want to make this a somewhat philosophical piece for our present leaders, particularly those of them who act and talk as if they already have death in their pocket.

    Read Also: Presidency slams ADC over Buhari’s burial remarks

    Nonetheless, I said that Buhari was an analogue president who came in a digital age. I said that much while he was president, so, if I say it now, I cannot be accused of speaking evil about the dead. Whatever that is supposed to mean even? For me, that would be one of Buhari’s biggest mistakes. That was why, right under his nose, one of his top officials (or were they many?) could have owned 753 duplexes in the same Abuja that he was living without him knowing. A digital president would have got wind of that. The sad part of it was that when some of us called his attention to some of the barefaced corruption and cluelessness that defined his presidency, Buhari never listened. Our voices were like that of John the Baptist in the wilderness. As a matter of fact, I was so frustrated at some point that I was always saying that his top officials must have got the original of whatever they used to cast a spell on him because that was the only thing that would have made a president so aloof in the circumstance.

    As I said, I am not writing to praise Buhari or to bury him. I leave the question of whether he did well or not to posterity. This piece is more of one for introspection on the part of Nigeria’s current leaders.

    I watched a substantial part of the man’s burial live on television on Tuesday. I was fascinated by what I saw, particularly the place called his house where his remains were eventually buried. It was too modest for comfort, given the status of the man Muhammadu Buhari, ex-this, ex-that; former governor, former Minister of Petroleum, former chairman, Petroleum Trust Fund (PTF), among others. What many of our politicians would call lucrative appointments that they would be ready to die for. Indeed, many Nigerians who eye public office would have mansions as head of the least rewarding of these institutions.

    And, to those of you who would be asking or wondering what of his house outside Nigeria, the man had answered your question before he died. “In one of my meetings with King Charles III, he asked me an interesting question if I had a house in England, and I replied that I don’t have a house, not an inch, anywhere outside Nigeria,” then President Buhari said while receiving Letters of Credence from the High Commissioner of the United Kingdom, Richard Hugh Montgomery, and his counterpart from Sri Lanka, Velupillai Kananathan, at the Presidential Villa in Abuja in May 2023, shortly before he left office.

    For me, this counts not just for something but for a lot, especially in a country where corruption is rampant and many people see public appointments as avenues for corrupt enrichment and personal aggrandisement.  When we see what some local government chairmen own just after four years in office, you wonder what product they are producing that is yielding so huge profit to provide the kind of comfort they sustain. Governors are in a world of their own.

    Buhari is dead and gone for aye. But I was somewhat touched when I read in the social media that Aisha, his wife, said after the man’s death that he asked her to apologise to Nigerians that he might have offended. And, as if to be answering the question of where precisely Buhari told her that, Aisha said: “Ever since he left office, he often told me that if he passed away before me, I should kindly ask Nigerians to forgive him for any wrongs he might have committed during his time in power.”

    Again, whether Buhari did well in office or not, he had a befitting burial. I doubt if there has been any Nigerian leader that had received the kind of befitting burial that the man got in recent years, and within so short notice. He died at about 4.30pm on Sunday, July 13, in a clinic in London and, his remains were committed to mother earth about 48 hours later in his hometown, Daura, Katsina State. Yet, it was as if he had died a long time ago and there was adequate time to prepare for his burial. Credit for this goes to the present government that did the needful in the circumstance.

    Everything, including the weather cooperated on Tuesday that he was buried. There was no rain even as the usually hot Katsina State had a relatively low temperature that made the occasion somewhat more of a pleasant experience for the mourners and guests that thronged the town of Daura from where Buhari hailed, to pay their last respects to him.

    My people would say “o ye Buhari, egan ni hee” (Buhari’s burial was grand unless we want to badmouth it)!

    Those who might have been wondering whether it was true he really had over 12 million votes on two of the four occasions he contested for the office of president must have seen it was for real and not the kind of fluke that usually attends such claims by politicians. He had six million in one and 15 million in another; that was when Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu (now president) intervened to boost his popular votes in the south. But for this, Jonathan would have had a better spread of votes and Buhari would have lost.

    I don’t want to be dragged into this unnecessary debate about Tinubu’s contribution to Buhari’s victory in 2015. But sometimes, not to do that would allow those wanting to turn history upside down to gain an undeserved and fallacious upper hand. As a matter of fact, I was also at a meeting of a few persons in the thick of Buhari’s illness where Tinubu said and I quote: ”Buhari, even on a stretcher”, unapologetically making his position known at a time many had written Buhari off.

    Be that as it may, the truth is; the man, Buhari, had the crowd. And when I say the crowd, I meant a genuine mammoth crowd of believers as against the rented crowds that many a politician is reputed for in this part of the world.

    Indeed, what kept running on my mind as I watched his interment live was that this could have been anybody. Here was a man who twice led this country, first as a military dictator and later as a democratically elected president, motionless. His body was wrapped with cloth just like any other person, and he was dropped six feet underneath like any other mortal, a sad reminder of the fact death is indeed a leveller. No special provision was made to import soil for his burial. No burial tourism.

    If our leaders reflect deeply on such occasions, this country would be a far better place to live in. They would realise that all these rat race for political office, stupendous wealth and fame would end the very day death comes knocking. I want to become this, I want to become that automatically comes to an end.

    I am here talking to today’s leaders in the country, from local government chairmen to governors and ultimately the president. They should all remember six feet. If they do, they will always do the rightful and Nigeria would be a better place for us all, even as their names would be etched in gold. That way, nobody would need to solicit for forgiveness for them when they die because they would have earned genuine commendation from Nigerians.  

    Definitely, it is not possible to please everybody at the levels of national service that Buhari operated. Nobody can walk without his head shaking, unless he has a stiff neck. What is important is for the office holder to do something good for the greater majority. Government policies must necessarily produce both positive and negative consequences. For instance, Tinubu government’s decision to remove fuel subsidy put an end to some people’s access to easy money without lifting a finger, and such people would never see anything good in the government. But the government should not worry about that, in so far as its decision serves the interest of the greater majority.

    That is the most profound lesson for them from Buhari’s death.