The Nation Newspaper

Category: Columnists

  • Unyielding, divided PDP

    Unyielding, divided PDP

    Having run out of excuses, Nigeria’s opposition parties have begun suggesting that the ruling party might be behind their ordeal. They are divided, sometimes into three factions, as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) and Labour Party (LP) have shown, and have refused to yield to one another or rally around a common cause. They seem determined to perish separately. Last week, the PDP once again witnessed a stirring. It occurred to some bright minds within the party that the fractures in the PDP might produce negative electoral consequences in forthcoming elections, particularly regarding fielding of candidates. The electoral body, INEC, should be in a position to shed light on how the party should proceed safely, some of the party bigwigs mused.

    READ ALSO: Again, the Fubara-Wike rapprochement

    They thereafter consulted the INEC leadership, discovered their errant ways, and then took remedial step to suspend their National Executive Committee (NEC) meeting earlier fixed for June 30. Nonsense, said some of their factional leaders. No one could shift that sacrosanct date, regardless of what INEC said, and the meeting would still hold, thundered the faction now described as the Seyi Makinde-led group. This intransigent position is reportedly backed by some 11 National Working Committee (NWC) members. Somewhere in the wings, another implacable leader of the party, FCT minister Nyesom Wike, kept pouring scorn on their uncertainties. From all indications, and if care is not taken, all PDP factions might soon forget why they are squabbling.

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

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (XXV)

    So much noise has been made about the Second World War in Europe that one can be forgiven for not taking much notice about the war in the Far East. There, the Japanese Empire was pitted against the might of both the USA and the ubiquitous British Empire. This war did not end until more than three months after the end of the war in Europe.  And people remember it mostly because hostilities here ended with the big bangs caused by the detonation of atomic bombs over the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Virtually everybody knows that. But not many know that before the atomic bombs were dropped, some Japanese cities; mainly Tokyo, Nagoya and Kobe had been subjected to a ferocious attack using incendiary bombs which virtually erased them. Shortly after midnight on the night of 9 -10 March 1944, Tokyo was attacked by close to 300 B 29 flying fortress bombers each of them carrying four tons of incendiary bombs made of a mixture of napalm and oil. They started uncontrollable fires, a conflagration so fierce that its oxygen demand caused it to suck out oxygen from the lungs of people, killing them by asphyxiation. The death toll on the ground in Tokyo has never been accurately determined but the figure of 100,000 dead has been more or less agreed upon. However, there are many who think that the real figure is considerably higher.

    As with the use of the atomic bomb, the fire bombing of Japanese cities has been suggested to be related to racism. After all, German cities were not nuked neither were they subjected to the level of  fire bombing directed at civilians, old people as well as children as was the case in Tokyo and other Japanese cities. In any case, in the struggle between capitalists, racism is always a factor and it was a cogent factor in the war between Japan and the Allied forces. For example, the Overall commander of the Allied forces in Europe, Dwight Eisenhower was ethnically German. That did not stop him from getting the top job in the United States army during the war against Germany. On the other hand, all Japanese Americans in the USA were simply rounded up and locked away in internment camps throughout the duration of the war. The loyalty of Japanese Americans was forcefully denied whereas the most prominent American soldier was an ethnic German.

    Back to those terrible fires. They were supposed to break the fighting spirit of the Japanese, to take them out of the war as quickly as possible. In doing so, it was said that this would help save the lives of American soldiers by shortening the period of the war. But the tactic employed was so cold blooded and inhuman that had the Americans lost the war, LeMay, the author of the fire bombing strategy would most certainly have been put on trial for war crimes, convicted and executed. Fortunately for him, his side won the war and he came out of that mess smelling of roses.

    READ ALSO: My biggest challenges in office, by Dapo Abiodun

    There is something deeply ironical about Japan and the USA being at war. One hundred years before those flying fortress bombers were dropping their incendiary bombs over Tokyo, the Americans were squeezing the Japanese out of a self imposed isolationism which had lasted two hundred and twenty years. That period known as the Sakoku began in 1624 and was one in which the Japanese allowed partial contact with China, the Netherlands and Korea. All other nations were shut out completely. The initial reason for this isolation was to keep out what the Japanese regarded as the pernicious influence of Christian missionaries particularly those of Roman Catholic persuasion. The rulers were determined to protect their indigenous culture and religion from outside influence and were well aware of the disgraceful antics of both Spanish and Portuguese missionaries in the Philippines close to them and in faraway South America where the indigenous peoples were decimated. The Japanese methods of exclusion were as brutal as they were effective. Christian priests and their converts were summarily executed and all Japanese were required by law to be registered in a Buddhist temple. This is why today only 1% of Japanese are Christian. Even in isolation however Chinese, Korean and Dutch influences in terms of trade and education were allowed to filter in.

    By the beginning of the nineteenth century however, the Industrial revolution was in full swing and the relentless search for raw materials and markets had begun. This made the maintenance of Japanese isolation increasingly difficult and ultimately untenable. This became clear when in 1842, a coalition of western powers forced the Chinese to accept opium as an article of trade. If that happened in the Celestial empire of China, it was clear that nowhere else on earth could remain uncontaminated with capitalist contagion. This was the situation when Commodore Perry of the US Navy appeared off the coast at Nagasaki with four ships, all of them bristling with powerful guns. He had come with a proposal for the establishment of trade relations with Japan. That was in 1853 at a time when gunboat diplomacy was in fashion. And Perry showed that he was not afraid to use his guns to get what he wanted. No agreement was reached on that occasion for all the sabre rattling. Undeterred, he was back the following year, this time with eleven ships of the line. In the face of this magnitude of force, a trade agreement was signed and Japan was dragged into the capitalist orbit.

    Even during Sakoku, the Japanese were not completely isolated as they continued to study medicine, military science, diplomacy and other aspects of societal development. In the same vein, they did not fling their doors open to all sorts of foreign influences at the end of Sakoku. Perhaps the most important development in this period was the amalgamation of the ruling Shogunates of the time into one Japanese empire under the rule of a divine emperor at the beginning of the Meiji dynasty. Being divine, the emperor became a powerful rallying force to whom all Japanese owed an allegiance. Under the emperor, Japan entered a period of modernisation now referred to as the period of Meiji Restoration. The changes which took place at this time made it possible for her to take her rightful place among the comity of nations. Her race to industrialisation was on.

    The first movement towards industrialisation was to change from a feudal society ruled by warlords to one monolithic democratic polity governed by the rule of law emanating from the divine emperor. This was followed by the building of industrial infrastructure; roads, bridges, railroads, power installations and educational institutions with the capacity to produce the intellectual and technical muscle to drive the process of industrialisation. A modern and well equipped was added to this heady mix and Japan was ready to step out into the world of imperial adventures.

    With modern and well equipped armed forces, Japan developed a taste for imperial conquests. She cast her eyes over territories within China and the Korean peninsular into which she sent her nascent armed forces with the intention of carving out an empire as all the great powers were doing at the time. This brought her into conflict with the Russian  empire which had the same ambition within the same region. Given that situation, a clash between these super powers in the Far East became inevitable and quite predictably, a war broke out between Japan and Russia. Much to the surprise of other countries, the winner of this contest was Japan. When the Russian Baltic sea navy arrived in the Far East to engage the Japanese Navy, it proved to be a bridge too far for the Russians and the Japanese inflicted a crushing defeat on them. For the first time in the modern era, an Asian army imposed her will on a European country on the battle ground. Some saw this as the world tilting on its axis and needing a redress. Fifty years later, Europe came roaring back in those B29 bombers and burnt Tokyo to the ground. The world was put back on track.

    A hundred years after the end of Sakoku, Japan had become an imperial power, a roaring lion seeking who to devour. She had gobbled up large areas of China and had annexed much of the Korean peninsular where she ruled with an uncommonly heavy hand. Such was her appetite for further conquests that she turned her eyes on parts of the British empire in the Far East with her ultimate destination being India, the jewel in the British crown. Japan was not able to bring the British to their knees but her success against them in Singapore, Malaya, Hong Kong, Borneo and Burma showed the rest of the world that the emperor was actually naked. The British empire did not survive that exposure.

  • Diri wants third term

    Diri wants third term

    Bayelsa governor says eight years are not enough to deliver on his mandate

    I must confess I have been too far from Bayelsa State. But I remember an article I wrote on March 31, 2013, when the then Governor Seriake Dickson was advocating the criminalisation of ‘Dem say, dem say journalism’. I remember Prof Olatunji Dare, this newspaper’s editorial adviser, also published a piece he titled ‘From the cell phones’, which were reactions to the governor’s peculiar wish that some of the columnists in this paper, including myself, published on the issue.

    Twelve years after, I am here commenting again on another equally peculiar request of the incumbent governor, Douye Diri, that has attracted negative reactions from certain quarters.

    Given the kind of country we are in, not a few people have been piqued by the governor’s request for more time for governors in office. Indeed, I knew the governor would be pilloried for asking for tenure extension for governors when about a week ago I first came across the news in the social media. I took it with a pinch of salt initially, coming from the social media where everyone is now a journalist. But by the time I saw the news in the mainstream media, it dawned on me that the governor was not misquoted. At any rate, up till the time of putting finishing touches to this piece yesterday, the governor has not denied the statement.

    But first, what exactly did Governor Diri say?

    Just about what I told you earlier: the man wants third term for governors to enable them complete their good works. Senator Diri seized the opportunity of his ‘Thank you tour’ to the eight local government areas of the state to make the passionate plea.

    Speaking specifically at the King Koko Square in Nembe, headquarters of the Nembe Local Government Area of the state, before a large crowd during the tour, Diri said he wants the National Assembly lawmakers to consider tinkering with the constitution towards this noble and patriotic objective.

    Hear the governor: “It is not proper to start a project and abandon it for another government. So, some of your demands can be achieved. But I will suggest you talk to Hon. Marie Ebikake, Hon. Fred Agbedi, Hon. Oforji Oboku and Senator Benson Agadaga to tell the National Assembly to tinker with the constitution.

    READ ALSO: My biggest challenges in office, by Dapo Abiodun

    “They should tinker with the constitution and consider giving governors third term in office. With that done, I can accomplish some of your demands.”

    Isn’t this good enough a reason for governors to have third term?

    But Nigerians, ever impatient as usual, did not even wait to let the governor finish before taking on him. I wasn’t surprised, though. Our people like throwing away the baby with the bath water. The same thing they did when the then President Olusegun Obasanjo began the third term gambit. The National Assembly at the time also threw away other goodies with third term not necessarily because they did not like the idea, but because they hated the face of the person on whose behalf a case was being made for it. I chose my words carefully. Yes, I said ‘’ they hated the face of the person on whose behalf a case was being made for it’’ because the person at the centre of it all, president Obasanjo, craved for third term like mad and worked assiduously towards it, without opening his mouth.

    In the case of Gov. Diri, there was no pretension about it. I do not know whether he even had such a thing in mind before going to Nembe. What is in the public domain is that the request came as his response to the demand by the people that his government may not be able to complete some of the good works it started due to inadequate time.

    Lest we forget, Senator Diri became governor in February 2020. He won reelection and was sworn in for second term in February, last year. Meaning he should quit, other things being equal, in February 2028. That is less than three years from now.

    The governor gave account of some of his achievements to the people. He told them that by the end of the year, the state should be in a position to provide electricity supply to them.

    “As you are aware, your state government has procured an independent power plant and very soon, we will no longer depend on the existing power supply arrangement. We will soon take delivery of the 60 megawatt gas turbines and the site for the installation is almost completed”, the governor said.

    He added that: “We are rich in gas and by the end of this year; the problem of power supply will be a thing of the past in this state. It is expected to cover Yenagoa, Nembe, Ogbia, Kolokuma/Opokuma, Sagbama and parts of Ekeremor local government areas.”

    It would seem to me that Gov. Diri is on a silent revolution in Bayelsa because I have some knowledge (or so I thought until now) of states that are likely to come up with their own power production and Diri’s Bayelsa is nowhere on the list. Isn’t this good enough news?

    I want to suspect third term surreptitiously crept in when the people talked about construction of the Igbeta-Ewoama-Okoroba Road.

    That was when the governor said he was beginning to face time constraints. Even then, he promised to partner federal agencies such as the Niger Delta Development Commission and South-South Development Commission to facilitate some of the projects.

    So, what is wrong with the governor suggesting that governors’ tenure be extended from the present eight years maximum to, say, 12? Or even 16, if the situation so demands? Are we not all aware that projects are never equal? While some can simply be bought off the shelf and coupled, others take time to come to fruition. Like roads, for instance. Especially the kinds of roads that the governor has in mind. Such laudable projects cannot be completed in three years!

    Gov. Diri would appear to be talking sense when we realise that some governors simply abandon their predecessors’ uncompleted projects, no matter the stage of completion. This is the source of many abandoned projects in the country. Isn’t it better then for the person who began a project to finish it, even if that would take two more terms? Many of our states are yearning for development and tenure extension is one stone that could be used to kill two birds: complete developmental projects as well as check wastage of resources associated with abandoned projects.

    Mind you, the man is making the case only for governors, not all elected officials. And some people are saying some governors won’t go far even if you give them 100 years. I don’t know what that is supposed to mean. Is that to say our governors are not putting on their thinking caps?

    One annoying thing in this matter is that this is a sitting governor talking. He has the experience. Many of those criticising his request for third term have never been local government chairmen. Many cannot even govern their streets.

    Yet they are criticising a man with hands-on experience who has seen it all. I am sure Diri must be speaking for many of the governors even if most of them cannot openly request for what he requested for, not necessarily because they do not like it, but because of its political inappropriateness or possible backlash. I know that if Gov. Diri manages to get this wish through, his state would become a Mecca for appreciative colleagues who lack the courage and patriotism to do what he did.

    At any rate, where were the people now criticising Diri over his tenure extension dream when the father of former Gov. Lucky Nosakhare Igbinedion of Edo State said his son should be allowed to ‘repeat’ since he failed the first attempt (tenure?) Sunny Edoja summarised the story in a piece titled ‘’Need for continuity in Edo State’’ (The Sun, September 4, 2016):  When Lucky’s father, Chief Gabriel Igbinedion  was campaigning for the re-election of his son in 2003, Edo people told him point blank that his son didn’t do well in office but the senior Igbinedion told them in pidgin, Pickin wey no do well for one class must repeat that class  meaning if a child fails in one class, that child must repeat the class; so he wanted his son to be re-elected despite his woeful performance in office. Lucky was re-elected through the usual PDP magic and Edo State was the worse for it.’’ The rest is history.

    Gov. Diri’s case would even appear somewhat different. Igbinedion did not do many projects; so he probably had no abandoned project. For such a person, four years might even be too long. Diri would seem to be a governor with so much in his belly that he thinks eight years are not enough to deliver.

    We must listen to him.

    What is more? He even spoke with such gusto and candour unlike the proponent of third term in our political lexicon who said everything pointing in the direction of tenure extension without saying anything. Only to turn round to say he did not want it and that if he wanted it, he would’ve told God who would also have granted his wish.

    All said, I admire Gov. Diri for his courage and forthrightness. In a country of pretenders, we need to hail people like the governor who say their minds irrespective of whose ox is gored. If a governor is pregnant with projects and he thinks eight years are not enough to deliver all of them safely, what is wrong in asking for more years?

    So, let Bayelsa’s law makers in the National Assembly that the governor mentioned: Ebikake, Agbedi, Oboku and Agadaga set the ball rolling. Their governor is not like Lucky Igbinedion who was bereft of ideas. In Diri’s own case, it is the glut of projects he has that is making him ask for more time. For such hardworking governor, we must oblige him. He should be allowed to deliver naturally, lest he be induced to deliver prematurely.

    I wonder why we are not putting the governor’s progressive proposal in the front burner of national discourse. This is where it rightfully belongs and we must take it there. Otherwise, we should stop complaining that many governors are not doing much. At least we now know why. 

    This is much more so now that state governments are literally awash with cash. More cash. More projects. More time. Balanced equation. Not a bad idea.

    Third term! Third term!!

  • 2027: Disjointed opposition will only further solidify Tinubu’s chances

    2027: Disjointed opposition will only further solidify Tinubu’s chances

    That there is a cloud of confusion over the future of the opposition being championed by the former Vice President, Atiku Abubakar and ex-Kaduna State governor, Nasir El-Rufai should not be a surprise to any close watcher of Nigerian politics.

    Let’s briefly see what their boss, former President Olusegun Obasanjo, thinks of the two lodestars.

    In MY WATCH, Obasanjo wrote about Atiku, inter alia, as follows:”What I did not know, which came out glaringly later, was his propensity to corruption, his tendency to disloyalty, his inability to say and stick to the truth all the time,a propensity for poor judgment,  his lack of transparency, his trust in money to buy his way out on all issues and his readiness to sacrifice morality, integrity, propriety truth and national interest for self and selfish interest”.

    And of El Rufai, the former President wrote:

    “Very early in my interaction with him, I appreciated his talent. At the same time, I recognised his weaknesses; the worst being his inability to be loyal to anybody or any issue consistently for long, but only to Nasir el-Rufai.

    He lied brazenly, which he did to me, against his colleagues and so-called friends…”.

    Can Nigerians then seriously expect anything worthwhile  from these two gentlemen?

    But then a serious and responsible opposition is a sine qua non in a democracy.

    Because of that, and for the sake of Nigeria, this piece will not only show a true picture of what currenty goes for opposition in Nigeria, but also indicate what manner of opposition is required.

    The Nigerian political landscape is marked by a complex web of alliances, rivalries, and power struggle. With the emergence of President Bola Tinubu’s administration, the opposition has found itself at the crossroads. A disjointed opposition, characterized by infighting, lack of cohesion, and unclear ideological direction, can only further solidify Tinubu’s chances of consolidating power.

    One of the primary challenges facing the opposition is the lack of a unified front. With multiple parties and factions vying for influence, the opposition has struggled to present a cohesive message and challenge the present administration effectively. This disunity has allowed Tinubu to exploit the divisions and capitalise on their weaknesses.

    Another factor contributing to the opposition’s disjointedness is the absence of a clear ideological direction. Many opposition parties and leaders seem more focused on personal ambition and power struggle than on articulating a distinct vision for the country.

    This lack of ideological clarity makes it difficult for the opposition to differentiate itself from Tinubu’s administration and mobilise support from the masses.

    READ ALSO: Again, the Fubara-Wike rapprochement

    Furthermore, the opposition’s internal conflicts and power struggle have led to a lack of effective leadership. With multiple leaders vying for prominence, the opposition has struggled to present a unified and compelling narrative that can challenge the present administration. This leadership vacuum has allowed President Tinubu to dictate the terms of the debate and shape the national agenda.

    The disjointed nature of the opposition has also made it easier for the administration to co-opt and neutralise potential challengers.

    Moreover, the opposition’s failure to engage in effective grassroots mobilisation has limited its ability to build a broad-based movement that can challenge the incumbent.

    By focusing on elite-level politics and neglecting the needs and concerns of ordinary Nigerians beyond ‘ebi n pa wa’, the opposition has ceded the initiative to the President who has been able to use state resources and machinery to consolidate power.

    The consequences of a disjointed opposition are far-reaching. Without a united and effective opposition, the administration may feel emboldened to push through its agenda without adequate checks and balances. This could lead to an erosion of democratic institutions, human rights abuses, and policies that favor the ruling party’s interests over those of the broader population.

    In addition, a disjointed opposition may struggle to hold the administration accountable for its actions. Without a strong and united opposition, there may be limited scrutiny of government policies and decisions, allowing corruption and inefficiency to thrive.

    To change this narrative, the opposition needs to undergo a fundamental transformation.

    This requires a renewed focus on building a united front, articulating a clear ideological direction, and engaging in effective grassroots mobilization.

    But a coterie of atiku, El Rufai, Rotimi Amaechi etc has been unable to do this because they all must be President, or Vice President, even those who have contested for more than five times just because Marabouts said so.

    A serious opposition must prioritise leadership development, identify and support leaders who can inspire and mobilise the masses.

    Also opposition needs to rethink its strategy and tactics.  This requires engaging with ordinary Nigerians, listening to their concerns, and developing policies that address their needs.

    Ultimately, the fate of Nigeria’s democracy depends on the ability of the opposition to regroup, recharge, and present a united front.

    By doing so, the opposition can ensure that power is held accountable, democratic institutions are strengthened, and the interests of all Nigerians are represented even if it won’t win elections yet. If the opposition fails to rise to this challenge, it will only solidify President Tinubu’s chances and make his re- election a walk in the park which an election in a democracy should, ordinarily, not be.

  • Anambra 2025: Is Willie Obiano still relevant in Anambra politics?

    Anambra 2025: Is Willie Obiano still relevant in Anambra politics?

    The political landscape of Anambra State has witnessed significant turbulence since Charles Soludo assumed the governorship on March 17, 2022 and is presently seeking a  second term.At the center of this storm lies a critical question: Is former Governor Willie Obiano, who served the state from 2014 to 2022, still a relevant force in Anambra politics? The answer to this question requires a deep examination of the complex relationship between Obiano and his chosen successor, a relationship that has evolved from political partnership to what many observers now describe as bitter estrangement from which the opposition now seeks to capitalise on, whilst Soludo’s fixers are running helter skelter seeking to salvage.

    Willie Obiano’s decision to back Charles Soludo for the governorship was not a casual political calculation. Against considerable pressure from various quarters within the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) and beyond, Obiano stood firmly behind Soludo’s candidacy, not once did he flinch in his resolve to make the former CBN governor his successor. Obiano didn’t merely endorse Soludo; he staked his entire political capital on the economics professor’s success, against the odds and veiled threats, Obiano headed Soludo’s campaign council and deployed both financial resources and political machinery to secure victory for his chosen successor.

    This commitment came at considerable personal and political cost. Other aspirants within APGA had their own claims to the ticket, and Obiano’s insistence on Soludo created rifts within the party structure. Yet, the former governor remained resolute, believing that Soludo’s technocratic credentials and international exposure would translate into transformational governance for Anambra State. It was a gamble that appeared to pay off when Soludo emerged victorious in the November 2021 gubernatorial election.

    However, the post-election relationship between the two men has been anything but smooth. What should have been a seamless transition between political allies quickly deteriorated into a relationship characterized by mutual suspicion and public disagreements. The seeds of discord were planted almost immediately after Soludo’s inauguration, when the new governor began a systematic critique of his predecessor’s administration at every given opportunity.

    Perhaps the most damaging blow to the Obiano-Soludo relationship came barely a week after the inauguration. In a television interview with a Nigerian TV station, Soludo painted a grim picture of Anambra’s finances, claiming he inherited a debt burden of approximately N109 billion with only between N300 million and N400 million in cash reserves. This public revelation was seen by Obiano’s supporters as an unnecessary attack on the former governor’s legacy, particularly given that Soludo had previously praised the Obiano administration as one that was “not broken and thus needed no fixing.”

    The irony was not lost on political observers. During his campaign, Soludo had been effusive in his praise for Obiano’s achievements, positioning himself as a continuity candidate who would build upon existing foundations. The sudden shift in narrative after assuming office left many questioning the sincerity of his earlier pronouncements and created the impression that Soludo was attempting to distance himself from his benefactor’s record and denigrate such.

    READ ALSO: My biggest challenges in office, by Dapo Abiodun

    Obiano’s treatment at the hands of his successor stands in stark contrast to established patterns of political relationships in Nigerian politics. When one examines comparable situations across the country, the Anambra case appears particularly harsh. The relationship between former Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike and his successor Siminalayi Fubara, despite its recent tensions, began with mutual respect and acknowledgment. Similarly, even in cases where political relationships soured, such as between Adams Oshiomhole Godwin Obaseki in Edo State, or the complex dynamics between the Uba brothers and Chris Ngige in Anambra’s own history, there was typically an initial period of cooperation and mutual recognition.

    In the American political system, which Nigeria often seeks to emulate, former presidents and governors maintain significant influence and are regularly consulted by their successors. The institutional memory and experience of former executives are considered valuable assets rather than liabilities to be discarded. Former presidents like Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama continue to play meaningful roles in American political discourse, regardless of party affiliations.

    Obiano’s supporters argue that as a former governor he deserves similar consideration. Having successfully governed Anambra for eight years and having been instrumental in Soludo’s emergence, it is believed that the former governor had expected to maintain some level of input in the administration’s direction. This expectation seems reasonable when viewed against global best practices and the recognition that governance is often a collaborative effort that benefits from institutional memory and continuity.

    One cannot discuss Obiano’s relevance without acknowledging the complex nature of his own governance style. In time past, I had often criticized him for his style of governance which I termed an “Igbo version of Owambe style of governance” – a reference to the lavish ceremonies and high-profile events that characterized his tenure. However, even his critics acknowledge that beyond the pomp and pageantry, Obiano built and nurtured relationships across the political spectrum. He was widely described as magnanimous in his dealings, a quality that extended to both allies and opponents.

    This magnanimity translated into tangible political capital. During his tenure, Obiano managed to maintain relative stability within APGA despite the party’s inherent contradictions and competing interests. He successfully navigated the complex web of Anambra politics, delivering on key infrastructure projects while maintaining peace with various stakeholders. His signature projects, including major road constructions, the Anambra International Airport, Awka Tounship Stadium and the International Convention Centre as well as various urban renewal initiatives, represented significant investments in the state’s future.

    However, Soludo’s administration has been accused of claiming ownership of projects that were initiated and largely financed during the Obiano era. This practice of rebranding his predecessor’s projects with cosmetic improvements and repainting has become a source of significant irritation for the former governor and his supporters. The failure to acknowledge Obiano’s contributions in a number of these ongoing projects has been interpreted as a deliberate attempt to erase his legacy from the state’s development narrative.

    As Soludo positions himself for a second term, the estrangement with Obiano poses significant political risks. The former governor’s political network, built over decades of relationship-building, remains largely intact. His appointees, many of whom feel abandoned by the current administration, represent a potentially formidable opposition force. The recent plea by Obiano’s former aides for unpaid severance packages highlights the depth of dissatisfaction within this constituency.

    Reports suggest that several of Obiano’s allies are actively working against Soludo’s second-term ambitions. This opposition is not merely driven by personal grievances but reflects a broader sense of betrayal within the political class.

    The recent report of Obiano’s kinsmen accusing Soludo of betrayal and preparing to support the APC candidature of  Prince Nicholas Ukachukwu and Senator Uche Ekwunife as a viable alternative demonstrates the extent to which the political rupture has spread beyond personal disagreements to affect broader ethnic and community loyalties. In Anambra’s complex political matrix, such community-level opposition can significantly impact electoral outcomes and it doesnt reside at such levels alone.

    So, is Willie Obiano still relevant in Anambra politics? The evidence suggests that despite being out of office for over three years, the former governor retains considerable political influence. His relevance derives from several factors that extend beyond his formal position.

    First, Obiano’s extensive network of relationships remains largely intact. During his eight years in office, he cultivated alliances across party lines, built relationships with traditional rulers, and maintained connections with various interest groups.

    Second, his role in Soludo’s emergence creates a moral and political debt that many observers believe remains unpaid. The former governor’s supporters argue that his contributions to the current administration deserve recognition and respect. The failure to acknowledge this debt has created a narrative of ingratitude that resonates with many in the political class who understand the importance of loyalty and reciprocity in Nigerian politics.

    Third, Obiano’s legacy projects continue to define Anambra’s development trajectory. Regardless of current ownership claims, the major infrastructure developments initiated during his tenure remain visible testaments to his administrative capacity. These projects serve as constant reminders of his contributions to the state’s progress and help maintain his relevance in public discourse.

    The Obiano-Soludo rift reflects broader challenges in Nigerian democratic practice. The tendency of successive administrations to completely disavow their predecessors’ contributions undermines continuity in governance and development. It also discourages the kind of elder statesman role that former executives could play in providing guidance and institutional memory.

    The answer may ultimately determine not just Obiano’s political future, but also the trajectory of Anambra politics and the prospects for Soludo’s second-term ambitions. In politics, as in life, how one treats their benefactors often determines how others perceive their character and trustworthiness. For Soludo, either by reconciling, managing or making further attempts to undermine the Obiano relationship may prove as crucial to his political survival as any policy initiative or development project.

  • Nigeria’s democracy and its malcontents

    Nigeria’s democracy and its malcontents

    A series of events which took place within the past three to four weeks have brought to the fore the question of democracy in Nigeria. The pivot of these events was the celebration of the 2025 Democracy Day which was marked with a national holiday on June 12.

    On June 12, 1993, after about eight years of political merry-go-round by the military regime headed by General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida from 27 August, 1985, Nigerians, with a lot of hope and enthusiasm, went to the polls to vote in the presidential election between the candidate of the National Republican Convention (NRC) – Alhaji Bashir Tofa – and that of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) – Bashorun Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola (popularly called MKO Abiola).

    When it became apparent that Chief MKO Abiola had won the election, Babangida’s military regime suspended the announcement of the results and annulled the election, thereby dashing the hope of millions of Nigerians across the nation. The regime went ahead, on 26 August, 1993, to install an illegitimate contraption called the Interim National Government (ING) headed by a well-known industrialist, Chief Ernest Sonekan, who, like MKO, was from Abeokuta in Ogun State.

    This weak impostor government was unsurprisingly sacked on 17 November, 1993, and General Sani Abacha was declared military Head of State. It is not clear whether the Babangida regime, the ING contraption and the Abacha junta anticipated the reaction of citizens to the electoral travesty. The winner of the election, MKO Abiola, resisted the annulment and the subsequent illegal administrations and insisted on the restoration of his mandate, and at a point in time he had to leave Nigeria to go and pile international pressure on the Abacha regime.

    There were widespread protests against the annulment, and various resistance groups emerged, with the most famous being the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) formed on 15 May, 1994. The longstanding Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, was part of this coalition. In 1994, MKO Abiola returned from exile, and on 11 June, 1994, he declared himself President at Epetedo in Lagos. He was arrested by the Abacha regime and kept in detention until he died on 7 July, 1998, after resisting all attempts to get him to drop his claim to victory at the June 12, 1993 election.

    READ ALSO: Again, the Fubara-Wike rapprochement

    One of the Nigerians who stood by Abiola prominently and continued the pro-democracy struggle even after MKO’s death was Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu. He represented Lagos West Senatorial District from 1992 and his membership of the Nigerian Senate was terminated with Abacha’s dismantling of all democratic structures in 1993. Going into exile in 1994, he continued the pro-democracy agitation, collaborated with other pro-democracy activists and provided refuge and sustenance to a lot of others outside Nigeria.

    Dismissive of this democratic antecedent, the former Governor of Jigawa State and Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) chieftain, Alhaji Sule Lamido, in a 21 June, 2025 interview with Arise News, said: “I feel highly entertained by Tinubu’s rhetoric. The way he is dramatising his own role in Nigerian democracy. … With all respect to him, he was part of those people who were supporting Babangida’s annulment of June 12. He was part of it. His own mother, Hajiya Mogaji from Lagos, was organising Lagos market women to Abuja to pledge support for Babangida.”

    In a 22 June, 2025 press release, Bayo Onanuga, the Special Adviser to the President on Information and Strategy, countered Lamido’s claims as follows: “Let us set the record straight: Mrs Mogaji never mobilised market women to support the unjust annulment.” Similarly, on 4 June, 2001, at the renaming of the newly-dualised Oregun Road in Lagos “Kudirat Abiola Way,” in honour of the Late Alhaja Kudirat Abiola (MKO Abiola’s wife), a then much younger Femi Falana (who has since grown to become a Senior Advocate of Nigeria), acknowledged Alhaja Mogaji’s condemnation of the annulment. He noted that Alhaja Mogaji asked the Federal Government, through Oyinlola who was in a Federal Government delegation to Kudirat Abiola’s burial: “E ti oko m’ólé, e p’aya è. Èyí wa daa bí?” (‘You imprisoned the husband and killed the wife. Is that good?’)

    Onanuga also stated: “It is important to remind Nigerians that Mr Lamido, as secretary of the Social Democratic Party (SDP) – the party whose candidate, MKO Abiola, won the June 12 election – was among those who failed to oppose the military’s injustice. The SDP leadership, including Mr Lamido and chairman Tony Anenih, wrote their names in the book of infamy by surrendering the people’s mandate without resistance. To their eternal shame, Messrs Lamido and Anenih teamed up with the defeated National Republican Convention to deny Abiola his mandate. … In sharp contrast, Bola Tinubu stood firm even before General Abacha dissolved the political parties and all democratic institutions, including the National Assembly, on 17 November 1993, following his coup.”

    Moreover, in a 25 June, 2025 interview on Channels Television, Senator Shehu Sani said: “The contribution of Bola Ahmed Tinubu in the struggle for the restoration and revalidation of the June 12 mandate was unequaled and unparalleled by anybody in the political realm.… In fact, the first time I met him was in the sitting room of Chief MKO Abiola [along with] the late Dr. Beko [Ransome Kuti] and Frederick Fasheun … strategising on how to mobilise a national resistance and a national protest at that very era. Tinubu played a pivotal role in triggering a national uprising that gave birth to the recognition of June 12 decades after. … Lamido played a role in Abiola’s victory, but he was absent in the resistance, and as far the resistance was concerned, Tinubu was in the forefront.”

    With the sudden death of the Head of State, General Sani Abacha, on 8 June, 1998, General Abubakar Abdulsalami became the new Head of State and drew a swift timetable for the return of democratic governance on 29 May, 1999, ushering in the Nigerian Fourth Republic. The more liberal outlook of the Abdulsalami military regime paved the way for many of the pro-democracy activists in exile, including Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu, to return to Nigeria to take part in the new politics enabled by the new administration.

    Tinubu contested the governorship election for Lagos State on the platform of the Alliance for Democracy (AD) which was a party formed by Afenifere. He won and was Governor of Lagos State from 29 May, 1999 to 29 May, 2007. Chief Olusegun Obasanjo, former military Head of State, who became the first democratically-elected President of Nigeria in the Fourth Republic, did not find it easy adjusting to the appreciably liberal nature of democratic governance.

    To President Obasanjo, it was an afront for Tinubu, the Governor of Lagos State, to create Area Councils in the state. For this reason, the allocations due to Lagos State from the Federation Account were withheld. The Lagos State Government approached the Court, and the Supreme Court ruled the Obasanjo administration’s action illegal and ordered the release of the withheld funds to the state. However, the Obasanjo-led Federal Government did not comply with the Supreme Court judgement. This was a flagrant contempt of the Supreme Court and an attack on the rule of law which is one of the major pillars on which democracy rests.

    Obasanjo’s manifestation of discontent with the democratic principle of separation of powers and his lack of respect for the free choice of the people was also shown in his attempt to muscle victory. In 1999, the bulk of the South-west voters did not support him at the ballot box. Being from the South-west himself, this amounted to a big source of embarrassment. To remedy the situation, Obasanjo approached the leaders of Afenifere and AD with a plea. He wanted the South-west to give him handsome votes in 2003.

    One of the terms of the agreement was that the South-west AD members would vote for him in the presidential elections, and he would work for the South-west AD governors in the gubernatorial elections. The governors fulfilled their part, but Obasanjo did not fulfil his own. So, while he earned good votes in the South-west and won in the zone, the acquiescent AD governors lost their seats to Obasanjo’s Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The only governor who didn’t swallow the bait was Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

    Referring to this episode, on June 12, 2025, a day that had been thoughtfully and duly declared by President Muhammadu Buhari as Democracy Day in Nigeria in honour of Bashorun MKO Abiola’s victory, Tinubu said in his speech to the National Assembly: “In 2003, when the then-governing party tried to sweep the nation clean of political opposition through plot and manipulation, I was the last of the progressive governors standing in my region. … My allies had been induced into defeat. My adversaries held all the cards that mortal man could carry. Even with all of that, they could not control our national destiny because fate is written from above.”

    Relating this to the allegation that the Tinubu administration and the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) were working to turn Nigeria into a one-party state, the President said: “Look at my political history. I would be the last person to advocate such a scheme.” He also noted: “A greater power did not want Nigeria to become a one-party state back then. Nigeria will not become such a state now.”

    Even with respect to the APC, some believe that Malam Nasir El-Rufai’s inability to scale through the Senate ministerial screening in 2023 led him to defect from the APC, and become a strident critic of both the party and the president. Former Governor Rotimi Amaechi, in his case, didn’t leave the party, but due to his loss in the 2022 APC primary election to then-Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, he seems to have become an inconsolable critic of the winner. Former Vice-President Atiku Abubakar, who was the candidate of the PDP in the 2023 presidential election has also been an implacable critic of the president.

    These political figures are part of a coalition named the All Democratic Alliance with the principal declared aim of stopping President Tinubu from winning a second term election in 2027. The National Chairman of the new SDP, Shehu Gabam, noted, in a 24 June, 2025 press conference, that there are certain “forces of the coalition who believe that SDP must be hijacked at all cost or who believe crisis must be induced in SDP because they couldn’t hijack SDP.”

    Democracy is by nature conflictual, and such conflicts where properly moderated can propel growth. It is necessary to assess the extent to which these conflicts, instances of which are mentioned above, have been managed in the Nigerian experience, and which expectations for development citizens should realistically have.  

  • The week of rewriting Nigeria’s social contract, refocusing ECOWAS

    The week of rewriting Nigeria’s social contract, refocusing ECOWAS

    If ever there was a moment when the promise of a better Nigeria took a bold, decisive step toward fulfillment, it was on Thursday, June 26, 2025, when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu signed four landmark tax reform bills into law. In one quiet stroke of the presidential pen, Nigeria embraced a historic shift — a pro-poor, pro-growth, and pro-justice fiscal reset that may well be remembered as the defining moment of this administration.

    For too long, the Nigerian tax system was a relic of a bygone era — complex, burdensome, and unjustly skewed against the poor and the struggling. With outdated legislation, the system had become a jungle of over 70 fragmented levies, confusing obligations, and overlapping authorities. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s reforms have changed that narrative. And not just changed — rewritten it.

    “These reforms go beyond streamlining tax codes,” the President said in a personal message shared via his verified X handle, @officialABAT. “They deliver the first major, pro-people tax cuts in a generation… targeted relief for low-income earners, small businesses, and families working hard to make ends meet.”

    Indeed, the scope and spirit of the new laws — the Nigeria Tax Reform Act, Nigeria Tax Administration Act, Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, and the Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act — signal nothing less than a rebalancing of the Nigerian economy in favour of its most vulnerable citizens. This is what governance with empathy looks like.

    According to Taiwo Oyedele, Chairman of the Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee, over one-third of Nigerian workers in both the public and private sectors will now be fully exempt from paying personnel income tax. In a country where millions live on less than the equivalent of $2 a day, this is not just policy — it is justice. More than 90 percent of small, micro, and nano businesses will also no longer need to worry about taxes such as VAT, withholding tax, or corporate income tax. This is a massive reprieve for Nigeria’s informal economy and the backbone of its entrepreneurial spirit.

    READ ALSO: My biggest challenges in office, by Dapo Abiodun

    Even more heartening is the new wave of exemptions in critical areas such as food, housing, healthcare, education, and transport. Oyedele announced that all traces of VAT in these sectors have now been erased. With food inflation biting hard, especially among low-income households, this is a welcome breath of relief.

    Let us be clear: these are not cosmetic reforms. They are surgical interventions aimed at restoring fairness and correcting historical imbalances. President Tinubu himself described the reforms as a “reimagining of Nigeria’s fiscal culture,” one that rewards enterprise without punishing the poor.

    “We are not just signing tax bills,” he declared, “we are rewriting the social contract.”

    This bold language underscores the scope of vision driving the Tinubu administration — one that sees governance not merely as an exercise in policy drafting but as a deliberate covenant between leadership and the led. It is the embodiment of his Renewed Hope Agenda: a Nigeria of tomorrow being built right now, with the people at the centre.

    Zacch Adedeji, the Executive Chairman of the newly established Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), put it succinctly when he explained the six-month lead time before implementation — the laws take effect January 1, 2026 — as a window for planning, sensitisation, and fiscal coherence. In this thoughtful approach lies another message: this administration is not in a hurry to score points; it is here to do things properly, with sustainability and inclusiveness at the core.

    It bears repeating that these reforms introduce no new taxes. Instead, they eliminate duplication, reduce corruption-prone layers, and enhance efficiency. They harmonise federal and state tax administrations under a more accountable system. This is not expansion of the tax net for exploitation; it is expansion for fairness and trust-building.

    The economic implications are profound. Investors, long wary of Nigeria’s inconsistent fiscal policies, now have clarity, predictability, and a unified system to engage with. For businesses, particularly start-ups and MSMEs, it is an open door to thrive. For the average Nigerian, it is less burden, more opportunities, and — crucially — a government finally speaking the language of equity.

    As Senate President Godswill Akpabio noted during the bill signing, “You have harmonized the entire tax system in this country… You are changing Nigeria’s future.” It’s not hyperbole. With improved revenue collection mechanisms and fiscal discipline, the state can now afford to serve better — from quality education and universal healthcare to resilient infrastructure and job creation.

    It is the beginning of a new era — not just for tax administration, but for social development in Nigeria.

    Yet, while Thursday’s tax reforms marked the economic high point of the week, last Sunday’s 67th Ordinary Session of the Authority of ECOWAS Heads of State and Government in Abuja offered another perspective on the weight of leadership — regional and historical.

    President Tinubu, having led ECOWAS for two consecutive terms, handed over the baton of leadership to Sierra Leone’s President Julius Maada Bio with a deep sense of fulfillment. But it wasn’t just ceremonial; it was a moment steeped in legacy and aspiration.

    During his tenure as ECOWAS Chairman, President Tinubu navigated some of the region’s most volatile episodes — military coups in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, mounting insecurity, political instability, and economic dislocations worsened by global shocks. He stood firm on the pillars of democratic governance and constitutional order, insisting that regional integration cannot be achieved on shaky political foundations.

    “Our organization must continue to strike a fine balance between its core regional mandate of economic integration and the complex political, security and governance challenges,” Tinubu said at the closing ceremony. “Economic integration cannot be superimposed on an untenable political environment.”

    This candid truth — that growth must go hand-in-hand with good governance — was at the heart of Tinubu’s leadership style both in Nigeria and across West Africa. He did not shy away from tough calls. He led the ECOWAS condemnation of military regimes while maintaining open channels for dialogue. He kept the dream of regional solidarity alive even amid disagreements, emphasizing diplomacy over force when necessary.

    In handing over to President Bio, Tinubu left a clear mandate: continue the pursuit of peace, inclusivity, and prosperity for all West Africans, particularly women, youth, and vulnerable groups. It was a timely and necessary charge.

    And yet, there is hope — grounded in action. As Tinubu said, ECOWAS must evolve into a “people-centered vehicle for peace, inclusion and opportunity.” That hope lives in his two-term legacy and the baton now passed.

    Week of Action – A Leadership Symphony in Motion

    The just-concluded week, for President Tinubu, stood out for its unrelenting pace, weight of impact, and wide-ranging resonance. From economic reformation to regional diplomacy, infrastructure development, national security, and civil service reforms, the President executed a master-class in governance as both action and vision. The standout event—the signing into law of four tax reform bills—was emblematic of a broader motif: a new Nigeria, not as a hope deferred, but a future taking root in real time.

    But the week began with a solemn assertion of presidential authority on Sunday, as Tinubu reacted swiftly to two violent tragedies: the murder of 12 wedding guests in Plateau State and a suicide bombing in Konduga, Borno State. He ordered security agencies to bring the perpetrators to justice and reaffirmed his administration’s zero-tolerance stance on lawlessness. In a single breath, the President also mourned victims of an industrial explosion in Kano, calling for safety reforms—an indication that his government’s gaze extends beyond headlines to the corners where lives are often forgotten.

    On Monday, Tinubu returned to the domestic front with developmental gusto. In Kwali, he commissioned a 15-kilometre Pai Town Road, reinforcing his commitment to balanced infrastructure that uplifts rural communities. The FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, credited Tinubu with supporting over 150 kilometres of rural roads across Abuja’s area councils—a silent but transformative push toward national integration.

    But it was in agriculture that the President unveiled a truly forward-looking chapter. The commissioning of 2,000 tractors under the Renewed Hope Mechanisation Programme signalled the dawn of an agricultural revolution. “We are just beginning”, Tinubu said—yet the symbolism was potent. It was a concrete investment in the same rural Nigeria that feeds the nation but has long lacked support. Now, with mechanised farming, the pathway to food security, job creation, and export viability looks clearer than ever.

    By Tuesday, Tinubu was hosting Queen Mary of Denmark, exploring partnerships in livestock and education. Hours later, he welcomed Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin to the State House, discussing the $1 billion Green Imperative Programme—an agricultural overhaul effort driven by tech and bilateral ambition. In both meetings, Tinubu positioned Nigeria not just as a recipient of goodwill, but as a co-architect of global development.

    Midweek tributes revealed another layer of the President: the statesman with memory. He celebrated Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, praising their roles in deepening governance and Lagos development. He paid homage to the late Chief Cornelius Adebayo as a “true statesman,” reminding Nigerians that legacy matters in the story of national progress.

    On Thursday, besides the signing of the landmark tax reform laws, he authorised a full audit of the federal civil service, a move geared toward aligning public institutions with modern data-driven governance. And late into the night, he chaired a high-stakes reconciliation meeting to ease the political crisis in Rivers State—arguably his most successful behind-the-scenes intervention to date.

    On Friday, the pace didn’t slow. He received President Brice Nguema of Gabon, reaffirming Nigeria’s South-South diplomatic pivot. That same day, he appointed Barrister Ismael Ahmed to head the Presidential Compressed Natural Gas Initiative, a pivotal post in his post-subsidy transition strategy.

    And on Saturday, he departed Abuja on a two-nation trip to Saint Lucia and Brazil—concluding a week that married action with diplomacy, home affairs with global outreach.

    In the end, whether through domestic tax reform or regional diplomacy, President Tinubu is sending a consistent message: leadership is service, not slogan. Governance is empathy, not ego. The Nigeria he envisions — prosperous, fair, inclusive — is one that starts from the ground up. With these landmark reforms and regional achievements, he has laid down another cornerstone in that vision.

    Indeed, the future may not be evenly distributed yet, but under Tinubu’s direction, it is steadily arriving — policy by policy, reform by reform. And for once, it feels like the Nigerian people are not being left behind.

    In seven days, President Tinubu governed with an energy befitting seven weeks—issuing a clarion call that Nigeria’s future isn’t an abstract ideal. It is being built, decisively and daily.

  • Iran had it coming

    Iran had it coming

    Twelve days after Israel began its air offensive against Iran, the war ended as suddenly as it began, almost without notice. In Israel, apart from the 28 persons who died as a result of Iran’s missile barrage, scores of apartments lie in ruins mainly in Haifa and Tel Aviv. In Iran, apart from the shocking degradation of its top security brass that saw the killing of 30 high-ranking security personnel and three senior commanders, not to say surrendering to total and embarrassing Israeli air dominance, its nuclear and missile facilities were badly damaged. For the United States, whose president Donald Trump continues to hanker after a Nobel Peace prize, it displayed air razzmatazz that led to the bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan using 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs of disputed efficacy. The war ended because all sides to the conflict declared victory and ceased hostilities.

    The US was the quickest to declare victory after bombing the nuclear facilities, particularly Fordow, and announcing the facilities’ obliteration. Israel also declared that it had achieved nearly all its military and psychological operation objectives. After decapitating Iran’s proxy militias in Labanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas), in the recent war, it instantly controlled and dominated Iranian air space unchallenged, eliminated senior Iranian military commanders by a combination of commando raids and stunning espionage operations undertaken by their spy agency, MOSSAD, did not lose one combat aircraft, and set Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb back by an undetermined number of years. But Iran was also quick to declare victory despite suffering more than 600 military and civilian casualties by pointing at the apocalyptic photographs of ruined buildings in some Israeli cities, and boasting about the efficacy of its ballistic missiles and drones capacity to the delight of Iranians who took to the streets to celebrate Israeli citizens cowering in bomb shelters. The readiness with which Israel and Iran embraced ceasefire was, however, probably due more to US bullying tactics than anything else. Because of national pride, neither Israel nor Iran had seemed eager or able to stop hostilities.

    Other than the speed with which Israel exposed the vulnerabilities of Iran, the country of less than 10 million people also exposed the illusion of those who seemed convinced that the Israel-Iran conflict was, broadly speaking, a religious or racial war. The conflict may be couched in religious terms, but the way it was fought, its antecedents, and how the supporters’ clubs were arrayed showed that it was more than anything else a regional power play. Some analysts may be taken in by Iran’s reasons for seizing upon the Palestinian cause to project power, but it is significant that Arab countries raised only a feeble voice against Israeli aggression. The latter understood what the whole war was all about. They understand that Iran is strictly speaking not Arab, and had for decades been bellicose towards its neighbours. Hardly any country in the region escaped Iran’s intrusions, whether Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states. They view Iran’s proxy militias as a ploy to undermine and subjugate them. And they know that unlike Iran, Israel has no territorial ambition beyond its biblical enclave. They, therefore, pined for a military power capable of stifling the reincarnation of Persian hegemony, and they saw in Israel an equalizer. There was no time in those 12 humbling days the war lasted that any Arab country robustly denounced Israel’s attacks. The message was clear: they distrust Iran more than they despise Israel. For them it was all politics, not religion.

    Read Also: Joining APC was to align with centre for greater benefits — Delta Govt

    Arab states have legitimate concerns about the rising profile of Iran under the rule of the Ayatollahs. But sensing a regional power vacuum after the humiliation and deposition of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and with no Arab country willing to bravely shoulder the Palestinian cause in the aggressive and proactive manner former Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser had done, the Ayatollahs presumed to represent both the Arab and Islamic causes as well as make both causes one and the same. This fundamentally harked back to the theocratic basis of their rule: to deploy religion as a governing tool and imbue it with a combative and resonating regional ambition. The Iranian regional ambition is not an accident. But after the humiliation of the 12-Day war, that ambition may be in danger, if not in tatters. The US bombs may not have ‘obliterated’ what many tagged the ‘Islamic bomb’, but they have probably set Iran’s nuclear bomb project back by a few years. There are suggestions among Iran’s many regional supporters that the US-Israeli attacks may paradoxically stiffen the Middle Eastern country’s resolve to build a bomb, having enriched Uranium to weapons grade years earlier. Unquestionably, however, Iran will have to re-imagine its’ Persian empire’ dreams, modify or temper its rhetoric, carefully consider whether anchoring its political and regional ambitions on theocratic foundations as it has done successfully for many decades is as tenable in this century as it was considered normal in the distant past.

    Iran’s aggressiveness and meddlesomeness in international relations led to the US and Israel, both nuclear powers themselves, swearing to ensure that Iran does not have the bomb. It may be arrogant and inequitable, but that oath probably reassures Iran’s regional competitors and tangentially dampens the morale of Palestinian freedom fighters. After the 12-Day war, Iranian proxies are unlikely to be revived on the scale they were before the punishing campaigns of the last few months. In the near future, the heavily degraded Hezbollah may be unable to recover its strength or relevance in the region, or in Lebanon in particular. Hamas, having observed the dissonance between Iran’s hype and its shocking performance in the 12-Day war, may enter into a face-saving deal in Gaza or allow itself to go down noisily. Whatever hppens, Iran’s imperial (Persian) dream may take much longer to revive, especially seeing how religion has been either incapable of driving that dream or ennobling it, as the Ayatollahs have started to suspect during the drafting of the ceasefire deal when they were sidelined. The Six-Day war of 1967 changed the face of the Middle East in a substantial way that has lasted till today; the 12-Day war that ended early last week may also fundamentally redefine power relations in the region.

    Iran’s supporters are reluctant to acknowledge the real reason for its expansionary ambitions, a fact keenly understood by its neighbours, thus accounting for their indifference to its plight and humiliation. Iran’s religious leaders, it is obvious, are trapped in the past and have failed to learn lessons from the failure of Islamic State (or ISIL) and the caliphate Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi attempted to establish after the collapse of Saddam Hussein and the chaos that enveloped Iraq. Leaders have a responsibility to study history and draw the right lessons in respect of ideologies, time, policies and associations. Few in the turbulent region saw Iran’s pursuit of the Palestinian cause as a strong reason for the creation and arming of proxy militias. All they saw was an attempt to create an empire or carve a large sphere of influence comparable in ideology and geographical scope to the Sunni Umayyad Caliphate (661-750 CE), the second caliphate after Prophet Muhammad. But the Umayyads presided over a large multiethnic and multicultural population, majority of whom were Christians. Iran under the mullahs exemplifies intolerance, irrational rhetoric, and genocidal fantasies, and does not even structurally and ideologically resemble their kindred Shi’a Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258). The Abbasids, who formed the third caliphate of the Islamic empire, were ironically more Sunni than they publicly acknowledged, but were destroyed by the Mongols in 1258. During their rule, they downplayed Arabism, espoused internationalism, and ensured that the caliphate was more political than Islamic. But once they ensured that religion no longer formed the core of their unity, the empire began to crack.

    It is not clear why some of Iran’s fanatical supporters appear ready to singe the feathers of critics, especially citing religious reasons. Iranian mullahs have a clearer sense of history and understanding of power politics than their many impressionable supporters. Iran knows it is posturing in the Middle East and that war with Israel is all about politics and power. The Ayatollahs also know that it cannot sustain a repressive rule without deploying religion and military adventurism as tools and ideological propellant. Iran’s neighbours also know the name of the game, and are equally adamant about sustaining their independence and spurning subordination. They remember that the last person to attempt expansionism, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, came to grief in 2006 during the Second Gulf War (2003-2011). Saddam also seized upon the Palestinian cause to fire some 42 Scud missiles in 1991 into the same cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa which the Iranians attacked in the recent 12-Day war. Saddam had earlier rolled his army into Kuwait in August 1990. The regional power playbook is not new, except to those ignorant of history. Admittedly, there is nothing morally offensive about expansionism, or the deployment of Islamic ideology to birth or promote empire building. Equally, if Israel deploys its military to counter Iran’s imperial appetite, receives help from the US, and benefits from the connivance of Arab countries suspicious of Iranian expansionism, it is fair game. The combatants know the name of the game. More, they know the rules of the game.

    For now, much more than Israel and US deflting Iran’s nuclear development programme, and regardless of the beleaguered country’s bluff and bluster, it knows that its imperial ambitions have become comatose. Having spent billions, if not trillions, of dollars on its nuclear programme and the funding of proxy militias, Iran’s mullahs must now contend with angry and hungry but repressed populace thinking warily of challenging their rulers. It is a prospect far more galling to the clerics than the humiliation it received in the hands of the combined forces that pummeled its nuclear and missile facilities. Whether Iran emerges from this humiliation or not will depend not on the choreographed street demonstrations carried out in support of the regime, but on how smartly the ambitious mullahs can rediscover Iran’s Persian roots and learn the appropriate lessons from the rise and fall of previous caliphates. There is, however, little to suggest they can, just like the incompetent and anachronistic Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of Islamic State who died at the age of 48 fantasising about the past. The Iranian mullahs lack the capacity, tact, tolerance and guile to appreciate the political and ideological nuances of their region. Indeed, under the mullahs, Iran has begun to resemble the Abbasids in their encounters with the Seljuqs in 1050, and, more apocalyptically, before the Mongol invasion of 1258.

  • Again, the Fubara-Wike rapprochement

    Again, the Fubara-Wike rapprochement

    Last Friday, President Bola Tinubu brokered another peace deal between Rivers State governor Siminalayi Fubara and Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister Nyesom Wike. The deal, which some of the governor’s supporters have described as wholesale capitulation, appeared potent enough to restore the state to some normality. Mr Wike described the deal as one designed to favour everybody, that is, everybody gains something and everybody loses something, with neither side unduly favoured. He is entitled to his opinion. On the other hand Mr Fubara described the deal as a divine intervention. He promised to do everything in his power to sustain it. He is also entitled to his optimism. The peace meeting was reportedly inspired by the president, but he left the combatants to hammer out a deal by themselves, untrammeled by his office. After the first round, in which the elements of the deal were chiseled without the involvement of the president, a second stage was convened in the presence of the president for ratification.

    One of the key elements of the deal is that the governor would not go for a second term, probably one of the terms that drove the governor’s supporters to suggest that he had been had. Without doubt, that term seems imperious and inequitable. But if that was what they decided, for reasons best known to the combatants, who can begrudge them? It is suspected that the governor accepted that provision to enable his opponents endure him for a little longer until the next poll. It could also be because the governor’s determination to return to office after his suspension in March trumps the surrender some of his supporters accused him of. Nevertheless, from all indications, the combatants appear ready to let the deal work. Regardless of what he has had to sacrifice in order to provoke an end to the state of emergency declared in the state more than three months ago, the state needs peace.

    After the president has had to facilitate two peace meetings on the Rivers imbroglio, with the first repudiated after the governor returned to Rivers and regained his wits, it is doubtful whether any of the combatants will let this latest deal go to waste, particularly when the second deal has been entirely at the behest of the combatants. Mr Fubra will have a number of misgivings, but he will do his best to uphold the integrity of the process that culminated in the deal. Clearly, he desperately wants his office back. And though he seems perfectly suited to reneging on agreements, giving the way he lets himself soar at public events, he now appears eager to bridle his tongue. Since he has invoked God into the deal, and he has repeatedly sworn to fear God, he might approach subsequent quarrels in the months ahead more maturely. He didn’t say it directly, but his somber look last Friday seems to be that of a man cornered and fearing for his future.

    Read Also: Top five African Central Banks with largest gold reserves in Q1 2025

    Mr Wike on the other hand has spoken more expansively and enthusiastically about the deal, suggesting that he got much of what he wanted. He will be unenthusiastic in provoking the president into fury by again fanning the embers of war. Reasons for disagreement will persist, but with a little more effort, all the combatants should be able to paper over the cracks. No one expects them to return to perfect normality, or to reset relationships in such a manner that the frictions between the governor and his opponents would automatically disappear. But as both sides to the conflict have said, they would do their best to uphold the integrity of the deal. Nigerians wish them good luck.

    Sceptics, however, have reasons to doubt the capacity of the two sides to sustain and nurture the new peace they have just fashioned. First is that the terms of the deal seem eerily reminiscent of the June 28, 1919 Treaty of Versailles. While Mr Fubara might wish to return to his mild-mannered ways and ignore the scabrous feel of the deal, it is unlikely his supporters will be so accommodating. They would wonder, like the Germans did after World War I, whether they really lost the war or were to blame for the conflict in the first instance. However, unlike before, President Tinubu wisely stayed out of the way of the Rivers peacemakers until they reached a deal. He only lent his imprimatur to it after it was concluded. And the second is that neither Mr Fubara nor Mr Wike is fundamentally amenable to peace or even have an impeccable understanding of what the concept means.

    There is nothing the governor has done or said since the conflict started that gives the impression he possesses enough leadership capacity in all its nuances to appreciate the magnitude of what he faces. His consolation must, however, be that Mr Wike himself has no clue what noblesse oblige means. The FCT minister has seized upon two or three provocations he alleged Mr Fubara was guilty of, including ingratitude to his mentor and disloyalty to the party structure, to justify his opposition. But he forgets he is dealing with a whole state. Worse, he forgets that he foisted the governor on the state impervious to the qualities his successor should possess to merit the governorship. But since both of them have promised to keep the peace and work together, Nigerians must take them at their word, keep their fingers crossed, and hope that their scepticism would not be proved right.

  • Adebayo: A soldier of democracy bows out

    Adebayo: A soldier of democracy bows out

    He was a man of many parts in a historic journey of over eight decades – a good teacher, an astute administrator, a progressive politician, a principled pro-democracy activist, a trustworthy community leader, and an elder statesman.

    Cornelius Olatunji Adebayo, former governor of Kwara State on the platform of the defunct Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) and chieftain of National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) has bowed out after illness. He was 84.

    The consensus about him is that he was a gentleman and a refined politician who could not levy partisan war; he was a man of honour and integrity.

    Adebayo died a fulfilled man, having made his mark in teaching, his chosen profession, and politics, his vocation. He was a teacher at the University of Ife, now Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), before he returned to the Northwestern State to serve as Information Commissioner. In 1983, he was kicked out of the Kwara State House by the coup plotters, barely three months after succeeding Alhaji Adamu Attah of the defunct National Party of Nigeria (NPN).

    The deceased left behind a country that is just trying to find its feet again under President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, his compatriot during the anti-military rule campaign. He bade farewell to a divided pan-Yoruba socio-political group, Afenifere, where a deputy leader pronounced himself as leader when the leader, Pa Rueben Fasoranti, is still alive. He left behind an oppressed and marginalised Kogi West Senatorial District, which, in the absence of zoning, can only aspire to produce the governor in vain.

    Although he claimed non-membership of any political party, which many of his admirers doubted, he was a distinguished chieftain of Afenifere, which joined other forces to float the severely bastardised, abused, rattled, and weakened platform, the Alliance for Democracy (AD).

    READ ALSO: The Tinubu administration and its malcontents (2)

    One significant pain of the heart for Adebayo was his apt description as a Yoruba northerner. He was neither an ethnic chauvinist nor a religious bigot. But the eminent politician never forgave the colonial masters for the improper grouping of tribes into divergent provinces without considering historical and cultural factors. The consequence is the identity crisis, which the affected Igbomina, Ebolo, Kaba, and Ijumu and a section of Lokoja people are still battling to resolve in Kwara and Kogi states.

    Unlike the Aro of Mopa, Chief Sunday Awoniyi, who adjusted to the geographical accident of diverse tribal lumping, C. O. Adebayo, like ‘Mallam’ Bello Ijumu and Chief Sunday Olawoyin of Offa, complained bitterly. Indeed, Olawoyin sustained the fight for the regrouping of the Yoruba in that axis with the Southwest. So far, it has been a lost battle.

    At a lecture in Lagos, Adebayo lamented the consequences. When the Southwest was growing and the Yoruba were savouring free education and other people-friendly policies and programmes of the then Premier Obafemi Awolowo, the opportunity eluded his people. But Awo managed to give some scholarships later to Yagba and Kabba youths later. Adebayo also lamented the disparity in the development pace and the obvious marginalisation of his kith and kin who found themselves in the northern region.

    But he won other personal and political battles.

     Adebayo became a commissioner by merit under the military rule. Since he had built a reputation as a university teacher, the military governor had a reservoir of respect for him. In the two ministries of Information and Economic Development, and  Education, he added value to the administration.

    He was part of the Ibadan/Ife group of intellectuals who were influenced by the Awoist credo. Other members were Bola Ige, Wumi Akingbonmire, Itsey Sagay, Samuel Aluko, David Oke, Banji Akintoye, Akin Omoboriowo, and Bode Olowoporoku. Some of them who later took active part in the Second Republic politics became members of the Committee of Friends, which metamorphosed into the UPN, led by Awolowo.

    Adebayo’s election into the Senate underscored his popularity among his people. In the Senate, he was not a bench warmer. But the UPN Caucus, led by Senator Jonathan Odebiyi, could only bark from the opposition; it did not have the fangs to bite hard. The quality of legislative opposition was superb. But Nigeria would have benefited immensely if Awolowo were president. He was the best President the country never had.

    However, the UPN itself came under stress as from 1982 when some chapters were torn apart by nomination politics. Deputy Governor Sunday Afolabi, Michael Omisade and Busari Adelakun challenged Governor Ige to a duel in Oyo State. In Bendel, Demas Akpore never saw eye to eye with Governor Ambrose Ali. In Ogun, Soji Odunjo started fighting Bisi Onabanjo. In Ondo, Akin Omoboriowo pulled out his supporters to fire salvos at Adekunle Ajasin. The party was in turmoil.

    In Kwara, Adebayo challenged Olawoyin, and the party, right from the Ikenne home of Awolowo, was polarised. Understandably, the party leader threw his weight behind his old ally who suffered a lot of bruises for the Action Group (AG) in the repressive hands of the Northern Peoples Congress (NPC). Governor Lateef Jakande of Lagos, whose grandfather hailed from Omu-Aran, and Onabanjo backed Olawoyin for governor.

    However, Ige, who had been involved in a similar battle with Archdeacon Emmanuel Alayande in 1979, donated his experience to Adebayo.

    Twice were the shadow polls conducted by Adebodun Adewumi, a lawyer, and twice did Adebayo floor the old Action Grouper. At the third exercise, Awolowo painfully upheld the results, with a passionate appeal to Olawoyin to see it as democracy in action.

    A post-primary crisis was unleashed on the Kwara chapter. Reconciliation became an uphill task. All the party elders supported Olawoyin. The delegates, and majority of them were the youth who were not fascinated by stories about Olawoyin’s heroic past – tilted the pendulum of victory for Adebayo. The matriarch, Mrs. Hannah Awolowo, and her friend, Alhaja Abibatu Mogaji, had to travel to Ilorin to pacify the supporters of Olawoyin.

    When the UPN campaign train rolled into Kwara, Olawoyin’s supporters protested. Later, they deferred to Awo’s moral authority.

    Adebayo knew the coast was clear for him to win. Already, there was also a storm gathering in Kwara NPN, the structure of the highly influential Senate Leader Olusola Saraki, who had sworn to abort the second term bid of the Ebira prince, Adamu Attah. The Wazirin Ilorin sealed a deal with Adebayo. NPN’s top-notchers, including the minister, Akanbi Oniyangi, warned that should NPN lose Kwara, Saraki would lose his honour. The kingpin ignored them and rallied his supporters to deliver Adebayo.

    But three months later, the curtains were drawn on the young administration. UPN and NPN were ideologically different. Nobody could actually predict how Governor Adebayo would have successfully managed his benefactor in four years. In fact, he was denied the opportunity to prove his mettle as governor by the military. After the December 1983 coup, soldiers started harassing the political class in a bid to cow them into submission. The majority of them were banned from politics to give the new breed a wider space.

    But Adebayo resurfaced on the scene in the botched Third Republic, particularly during the June 12 crisis. Having been a victim of military high-handedness before, he joined forces with pro-democracy agitators to demand the de-annulment of the historic poll won by Moshood Abiola of the banned Social Democratic Party (SDP).

    It was his undoing. He was targeted for liquidation by General Sani Abacha’s men. He had to hurriedly leave Nigeria to evade arrest and possible assassination. His next point of call, unlike other compatriots who had extensive foreign contacts, was Ivory Coast, where he suffered until a visa was secured for him to travel to Canada. Adebayo never wavered in spirit as a NADECO chieftain.

    But it was a lost battle. The annulment was not reversed. The symbol, Abiola, died mysteriously in detention. In 1999 when civil rule was restored, the majority of those who supported the annulment and the interim contraption headed by Ernest Shonekan found themselves in power.

    Adebayo enlisted in the post-1999 battle for true federalism. When Afenifere was engulfed in a protracted crisis, he stood on the side of reconciliation and peace. He never wanted to act as a divisive and destabilising factor. In fact, Adebayo was being projected for future leadership within the ethnic mouthpiece. Up to now, Afenifere remains divided.

    Due to his composure and peaceful disposition, no Afenifere member raised an eyebrow when he joined the Obasanjo government as Minister of Communications. He had insisted that he was not an AD chieftain. It contrasted sharply with the reaction of the group when Ige was made the Attorney-General and Minister of Justice. At the ministry, he presided over the privatisation of NITEL. Although the Independent Corrupt Practices Commission (ICPC) invited Adebayo for questioning on the Siemens bribe scandal, there was no subsequent report indicating that he was incriminated.

    As Adebayo, the gentleman politician, goes home, his memories as a progressive will linger for a long time, especially among those of his generation and those who came after them.