The Nation Newspaper

Category: Emmanuel Oladesu

  • Taxation and politics of distribution

    Taxation and politics of distribution

    Taxation has always thrown up intrigues about the suitability of the rate adopted and the ability of the payers, notwithstanding the type of system the country or society practised.

    From time immemorial, taxation has been woven around the experiences and history of nations, connecting them with the prevailing system of government.

    Its enduring feature is certainty. The reason and method of payment are known and agreed upon by the authority and members of a given community or state. It was a time-tested tradition; it was law.

    However, taxation in primitive societies was characterised by arbitrariness. It must be paid, whether it was convenient or not. Also, the law of taxation in those days never took into consideration the modern principle of fairness. To the monarch, chief or emperor, the ability of the individuals to pay was a non-issue. Payment was non-negotiable.

    Under such a traditional political system, evasion was common because the payment of tax was perceived as an avoidable burden and a cruel rip-off. Taxation, in some instances, also sparked rebellion and resistance because it was associated with fraud due to the deficiencies in its remittances.

    Tax, under any system, was collected by force or intimidation. There was no strict formula for determining the levy by monarchs, whose collectors or tax masters were ruthless, unsparing and deaf to complaints.

    Read Also; TARABA CHURCH CRISIS: Warring parties in fresh battle for control of headquarters

    The traditional rulers relied on the tributes, tolls and levies as their sources of income and sustenance of community’s treasury. There was multiplicity of separate levies, irregular imposition and arbitrary assessment, which could not be questioned by the ordinary folks. Complaints were viewed as treachery and a mark of disloyalty punishable by imprisonment.

    Taxation was a prime duty and a unifying factor. It was also a measure of the health of the primordial economy. There was a basis for funding community projects – building of township fence, palace and prison, community hall, and levying of war. Maintenance of soldiers, which was critical to regime protection, was sustained by tax.

    In the empires of yore, when agriculture was the mainstay of the rural economy, the kings insisted on the payment of “Isakole” (tribute) from the people of his community and environments. It could be agricultural yields or domestic animals. The period of payment was during the harvest. The inability to pay, either due to dwindling fortune or crop failure, was mot condoned. It was equivalent to refusal, violation of the royal order and an affront to the community. It was a grievous offence that attracted a stiff penalty.

    Tax offenders were publicly shamed and punished, like going to the king’s farm to till the ground for a season. The property of defaulters might be seized and they had to be ransomed later through hard labour.

    In some towns, offenders were publicly flogged. Those who could not pay were labelled as unproductive. Even marriage, which was a validation of adulthood, was often tied to the payment of tax. Only few parents would allow their daughters to be married to lazy and idle men who could not pay tax, which meant that they were not responsible and could not be trusted to properly raise families.

    Since tax was the king’s main source of revenue, defaulting vassal communities risked wars, which in those days were disastrous. In the course of the onslaught, the unfortunate communities paid more. Their able-bodied men, wives and children were taken as slaves and they became labourers in captivity, until they worked for their freedom in a hard way. Not all the victims were lucky. Some of them never returned home. They were either married or sold off to other distant towns and villages as slaves.

    As colonial interlopers invaded Africa, the British, for example, came with the idea of paying tax, using coins and currencies, which replaced cowries, articles of trade and farm produce.

    The motive never contrasted with the objective of pre-colonial taxation system. The need to generate revenue for the running of the government at all levels and provide and maintain public infrastructure became more compelling as the colonial masters expanded the bureaucratic functions of the colonies.

    British taxation in the colonies was burdensome and exploitative. Defaulters were fined, publicly shamed and imprisoned. The condition of payment was stressful. That was the situation in Ibadan where Chief Adebisi Idikan, a rich farmer and trader, approached the Resident to stop troubling all male adults, promising to be paying their annual taxes.

    The Divisional Officer and Resident marvelled at the singular decision to shoulder the huge responsibility. The rare act of philanthropy brought relief and restored normalcy to the sour relationship between Ibadan people and the colonial authority.

    In Abeokuta, taxation was the source of a quarrel between Egba women, led by Mrs. Funmilayo Ransom-Kuti, and the Alake, Oba Ladapo Ademola II. As the aggrieved women protested daily, tension engulfed Ake, the seat of Egba Confederation. The crisis was so widespread that the monarch had to embark on voluntary exile for two years.

    After independence, many Nigerians were still reluctant to imbibe the culture of taxation. People continued to evade tax, believing that it was a burden deliberately imposed by the government. Entreaties that the money was used to provide social infrastructure fell on deaf ears. Many people went into hiding in their farms, in ceilings, under their beds, stores and kitchens whenever the tax collectors came calling. Again, the negative feeling towards tax was fuelled by the corruption associated with its collection and remittance.

    In the mid-1950s, the old Western Regional government increased taxes to get more money for funding free education. The opposition went to town with a curious propaganda that worked. During the federal elections that followed, the opposition used the issue against the ruling party. The voters were swayed, and the ruling party lost many seats in the central parliament.

    As from 1970s, the government devised a method of “stop and search” to enforce compliance in some old provinces and states. At the sight of revenue officials, defaulters scampered into the bush. Some sneakily ran off the vehicles conveying them; others agitatedly disembarked from their bicycles and motorcycles.

    However, as the civil service expanded, government devised the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) system. Through this method, taxes were deducted from the salaries of civil servants and remitted to the government. But, in the private sector, many companies continued to default as they do in the contributory pension scheme.

    Up to now, most Nigerians do not pay taxes, for many reasons. These range from the inability of the government to properly track taxable individuals and corporate bodies as well as the evasion of tax payment by many wealthy citizens. This borders on corruption: using unscrupulous government officials in the tax offices to issue doctored tax certificates, among other dubious practices.

    Some have argued that Nigeria  accommodates many private jet owners and other “billionaires” who evade tax because of their closeness to some “powerful” government officials that aid the unpatriotic indulgence.

    Tax assessment is a herculean task. In the metropolis where many companies operate without signboards. Many are unregistered. Thus, they are not legal entities with valid addresses.

    What is very striking now is that despite the transparency of the modern tax governance, the politics of distribution has led to suspicion between two groups of stakeholders – those pushing for distribution based on derivation and those pressing for sharing on equal basis.

     There is a general agreement that public revenue should be raised for known and agreed purposes. However, the emphasis is not on how the tax is generated; the bone of contention is how the lump sum is distributed among the states. Some states contribute so much and get so little; some contribute sparsely and get the big portion. There is institutional reward for lack of productivity.

    No doubt, the capacity for generating the Value Added Tax (VAT) is skewed or lopsided. This may be due to the fact that states are not equally endowed or lack equal capacity to contribute to the pool.

    The complexity of the situation is underscored by the fact that the seemingly disadvantaged populous sub-national units press, not for equity, but for equality in the sharing of proceeds. The populous advantageous units are blackmailed. Both bloc zones of the North and South are represented, but not equally, in the parliament where the law is to be made. There is peculiar bullying through the deployment of numerical strength.

    In a supposedly federal country where some regions relish federal character, catchment area and quota system, there is the need to promote a debate on the sharing of tax proceeds.

    As the entire process is enveloped in controversy, the question is: what is the way forward? The answers and options are: further consultations, constructive dialogue, negotiation, concessions, sacrifice, compromise, consensus building, flexibility, acceptance of reality and sustenance of the national interest.

    A just tax system is not the one that soothes one section and burdens another but one that ensures that all parties get what they deserve based on what they work for.

  • Wanted: A new Alaafin of Oyo

    Wanted: A new Alaafin of Oyo

    Almost three years after the demise of Oba Lamidi Layiwola Atanda Adeyemi III, the stool of the Alaafin of Oyo is still vacant, no thanks to royal family squabbles, intrigues, lack of agreement on succession, division among the kingmakers, and government’s directive.

    The scramble is not beyond expectation. Alaafin occupies a prestigious position in Yoruba land and Nigeria, and the last occupant had elevated the enviable throne further while upholding the old glory of the empire and legacies of his illustrious forebears.

    Iku Baba Yeye Oba Adeyemi III was the bridge between the closing phase of ancient times and modernity, being the first western-educated alaafin trained and equipped for royal assignment.

    He fought hard to ascend the throne, assisted by the conservative Oyomesi. His choice as the successor to Oba Gbadegesin Ladigbolu II had the backing of his ancestors and Almighty God.

    He was a cultural nationalist; highly knowledgeable about history and tradition. He was fashionable and affable, extending tentacles of influence. He was insulated from the political pressures that created many huddles for his father, Oba Alhaji Adeniran Adeyemi II. Oyo grew in leaps and bounds during his reign, hosting many tertiary institutions and savouring the prosperity of a modern era.

    Never shy to make his opinion on national issues known, Oba Adeyemi III advocated a strong local government system and believed in restructuring to foster true federalism.

    At the twilight of his life, he undertook the duty of reconciling warring members of the Southwest political elite. But he could not accomplish the self-imposed task before he passed on.

    Since Awo and MKO Abiola could not make it to the Presidency, Oba Adeyemi had prayed for the enthronement of a Yoruba son as president. But by the time God answered his prayer and Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu was inaugurated, he and two other top monarchs – Soun Jimoh Oyewumi Ajagungbade of Ogbomoso and Olubadan Lekan Balogun of Ibadan – had joined their ancestors.

    Ibadan’s succession pattern has endured for centuries. Therefore, a new monarch emerged through seniority. In Ogbomoso, a cleric also ascended the throne. Oyo is not that lucky.

    Oba Adeyemi was from Alowolodu Royal House. It is therefore, the turn of Agunloye to produce his successor. No fewer than 82 princes contested for the crown. Although it was said that a name was forwarded to the kingmakers, and later to the government, it was disputed by a section of the Oyomesi, which cried foul that due process was not followed.

    The Oyo State government, therefore, decided to delay the installation until the institutional framework for the emergence of a new king was followed.

    Expectedly, the process shifted to the court.

    There is a need for further consultations among the royal house, the kingmakers, and the government for consensus building. The throne should not be vacant for too long to prevent the Ijebu-Igbo scenario whereby a replacement could only be found, 28 years after the demise of Oba Sami Adetayo, Ikupakude IV.

    Read Also: Inside Alaafin of Oyo’s deserted palace

    The two ruling houses of Adeyemi Alowolodu and Agunloye trace their roots to Alaafin Atiba, who founded the present Oyo.

    Atiba had many children. The two prominent children were Adelu Agunloye and Alowolodu Adeyemi. After Atiba passed on, Adelu Agunloye became the king. After the death of Adelu Agunloye, Alowolodu Adeyemi I became the king.

    Adelu Agunloye’s son, Lawani Amubieya Agogo-Ija, became the Alaafin in 1905; he ruled till 1911. His son, Siyanbola Ladigbolu Onikepe, became the king after him. According to historians, because Agogo-Ija’s reign was short, his son, Siyanbola Ladigbolu Onikepe, was asked to succeed him.

    Siyanbola was succeeded in 1945 by Adeyemi II, who was succeeded by Bello Gbadegesin Ladigbolu, who died in 1968. There was an interregnum of two years due to royal rivalry.

    The number of aspirants to the throne has now increased. Other descendants of Atiba, whose fathers, grandfathers, and even great-grandfathers ( Adelabu, Adesiyen, Adediran, Adejumo, Olawoyin, Tele Agbojuloogun, Ala, Adewusi, Adesetan 1 and 2, Adeleye, Adeotun, Afonja, Agbonrin, Tela Okitipapa, Ogo, Momodu, Adesokan, and Adejojo) never became Alaafin, are trying to press for their rights and asserting personality. It is up to the Oyomesi to resolve the logjam. All the princes are qualified. But only one of them will ascend the throne.

    Throughout history, most occupants of the throne have portrayed themselves as true kings of Yoruba and defenders of the race, beginning from their progenitor, Oranmiyan, the grandson of Oduduwa, progenitor of the race.

    As makers of history and heads of an empire stretching to the Benin Republic, they shouldered the burden of resisting external aggressors, particularly from the northern and western neighbours, before colonialism finally broke the empire.

    The next Alaafin is expected to take after his predecessors in valour, wit, and patriotism. Besides the general expectation that he should be a blue blood, he should also be highly educated and have a vast network. The next Alaafin should also be a mixer like Adeyemi III, a man of colour, immense intellect, and native wisdom. He should be the collective choice of the majority and not an imposed candidate with divisive and destabilising tendencies.

    An alaafin should be a unifying factor. He should be willing and ready to work with other prominent natural rulers – Ooni of Ife, Alake of Egba land, Olubadan, Awujale of Ijebu land, Akarigbo of Remo land, Ewi of Ado-Ekiti, Deji of Akure, Osemawe of Ondo, Owa Obokun of Ijesa land ( recently vacant), and Oba of Benin, who is also a descendant of Oduduwa – in articulating the interest of the Yoruba nation within the federation.

    In history, the exploits of past alaafins have served as a source of inspiration. Sango was a revered ruler, and his background cemented the diplomatic ties between Oyo and Tapa, his mother being the daughter of Elempe, king of Nupe.

    Abiodun has remained the best Alaafin. He ended the rascality of the military leader and Prime Minister in the Old Oyo Empire during the 17th and 18th centuries, Basorun Gaa, and presided over a prosperous kingdom. There was no economic hardship. He ruled with the fear of the gods.

    Ajagbo was a creative ruler who created the office of the legendary generalissimo, Aare Ona Kankanfo, to secure the kingdom and defend personal interests. Knowing the implications of what he had done, he decreed that on no account should any Aare wage war against Iwere, where his mother hailed from. He was sure that no Kankanfo would be up in arms against Oyo, the capital.

    Atiba was a peaceful ruler, whose son, Adeyemi I, presided over the years of turbulence in Yoruba land. Fed up with the tribal wars, violence, and commotion, Adeyemi I invited the British to intervene in the Ekiti Parapo war between Ibadan warriors, led by Aare Latoosa, and Ekiti forces, led by Ogedengbe of Ilesa and Fabunmi of Okemesi.

    As colonialism was winding down, tension arose between traditional rulers and their subjects over the sharing political powers. Such was the case between Alaafin Adeyemi II and Chief Bode Thomas, the Balogun of Oyo. The rest, as it is said, is history. The colonial lords hijacked power from the traditional rulers and later restored it to the political elite, who first accommodated them as partners in progress but much later relegated them to the backgrounds.

    Leaving an ancient town without a head is counter-productive. The supremacy of the constitutional order over the traditional institution is acknowledged, but the performance of a myriad of traditional roles at the grassroots by the royal fathers, including the settlement of land disputes, communal crises, and marital rifts, the preservation of identities, intelligence gathering in aid of security, and general maintenance of order and peace are complementary. If there is a void in these areas, and a particular community is in a crisis, peace across the state cannot be total.

    The traditional institution is the cornerstone of the local government system. They are the intermediaries between the government and their people, who serve as channels of communication and enlightenment.

    Oyo needs the traditional institution to sustain its position as a respected Yoruba town. The installation of an Alaafin is central to achieving this. The earlier the revered traditional ruler is installed in the ancient town, the better for all the parties in the imbroglio. A peaceful resolution of the matter is urgent and necessary.

  • Lagos House of Drama

    Lagos House of Drama

    TO many Nigerians, the Lagos State House of Assembly is the best in the country, judging by its democratic and progressive antecedents.

    Its immeasurable contributions to robust legislative governance, right from when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu was the governor between 1999 and 2007, remain indelible.

    Therefore, it is in the state’s interest that the Executive and Legislature stay focused and collaborative, and do away with any form of acrimony that can jeopardise separation of powers and checks and balances.

    Slso, the Lagos progressive bloc should tap from the ideas and experience of the old order, particularly its enduring and rewarding belief in the supremacy of the Party Caucus. The idea is that the party is supreme under the parliamentary or presidential system. No premier, governor, speaker, or lawmaker can grow wings. The corollary is discipline.

    Thus, a crisis between a governor and the speaker is supposed to be nipped in the bud through early and prompt intervention by the elders who are perceived as the conscience of the party and custodians of its ethos, ethics, and traditions.

    The semblance of that highest party leadership structure held in reverence in Lagos is the Governance Advisory Council (GAC) of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC). It is naturally expected that the gerontocrats in that elevated class would wade into the crisis between the heads of the two organs of government.

    There is no smoke without fire. The drama that played out during last week’s budget presentation clearly showed that something is amiss. The peace within the party is incomplete when there is some inexplicable misunderstanding or communication gap between the governor and the speaker.

    It is generally agreed that the achievements of the four governors – Tinubu, Babatunde Fashola, Akinwunmi Ambode, and Babajide Sanwo-Olu – were possible due to the robust vision and focus on the 24-year-old development blueprint and support of the state legislature as a partner in progress.

    There have been a few occasional unsavory moments in the Assembly. We recall when the 1999 set of lawmakers threw chairs and the hallowed chamber became a curious house of commotion, and much later when the relationship between Fashola and Speaker Yemi Ikuforiji momentarily turned sour and when Sanwo-Olu’s commissioners’ list was rejected. Yet, the Lagos Assembly has been the bastion of democracy, ever ready to defend the interests of the highly heterogeneous residents.

    Lagos has also been lucky to have a legislature midwifed by the progressive parties – Alliance for Democracy (AD), Action Congress (AC), Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), and All Progressives Congress (APC). Up to now, the progressives have been in the majority. Even, lawmakers elected on the platform of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) always defected to the ruling party.

    Although there is the eclipse of ideological politics in Nigeria, there are allusions to the time-tested ideals of welfarism in the Assembly and in the State Executive Council (Exco), which the founding fathers of the defunct Western Region held dear.

    In the last five years, evidence of friction between Sanwo-Olu and Speaker Mudashiru Obasa abounds. This is known to the party leadership and other stakeholders. The governor is calm and reticent about it in the public glare. Sanwo-Olu does not have the traits of Serubawon of Osun, who instigated the invasion of the House of Assembly by thugs, disrupted plenary, and sacked the lawmakers.

    The governor is not combative. Unlike OBJ, he is not angling for a third term. For him, it seems there is no cause for alarm.

     However, those conversant with Lagos politics may find out that whenever any Speaker dares the governor, the entire matter may be beyond b the Speaker. The partridge that dances by the roadside has a drummer in the bush.

    Read Also: VIDEO: Moment Tinubu arrived Lagos House, Marina for reception

    During the first term, the party leadership waded into the unknown rift the way it should. But the feud reared its head at the onset of the second term when the House sent back the list of commissioner-nominees to the chief executive. It indicated that there was no free flow of souls.

    But last week’s theatrics during the budget presentation make an urgent and strategic intervention by the party leadership more compelling. The reason is that a crisis breeds more crises.

    The display at plenary revealed a sort of suppressed infighting within the ruling party. Many were taken aback. In most cases, a budget presentation is like a partisan festival of reunion, a pledge to rededicate and reiterate commitment to service delivery; a mandatory request for parliamentary approval for appropriation.

    On that day, there was no cordiality. It was as if the Exco and the legislature came from different political parties. The parliamentary culture may have conceded to the lawmakers the line of protocol because the House of Assembly is its territory. The governor’s advance party was dazed to see that the parliament was not yet in session. When the parliamentarians arrived, the usual conviviality was absent. The lawmakers are well educated, intelligent and vibrant children and protégés of the old war horses; a composition that shows that Lagos politics is somehow designed, partly, for the projection of the children of legends.

    As the APC lawmakers stormed the hallowed chambers, people suspected something was fishy. The honourable members are not cultists. They only appeared in customised dark goggles. They exercised the freedom and right to choose that dress code.

    Then, Mr. Governor walked in, like an ordinary figure, while a lawmaker was making a speech. The lawmaker tried to pause; the Speaker beckoned on him to continue. After that, there was no time to waste. The ‘Budget of Sustainability’ was delivered in an atmosphere of sustained discord. The document was laid before the House. Then, the deputy governor, Dr. Obafemi Hamzat, left the chambers.

    The Assembly passed a vote of confidence in the Speaker. Then, a momentary tension engulfed the Assembly as Obasa started making his speech. The environment became a platform for venting anger. It was apparent that the Speaker was reacting to some issues that were beyond the comprehension of the uninitiated. However, it was not clear whether the governor was the exclusive target.

    Obasa affirmed the Independence of the Assembly, which he likened to “a sanctuary and temple”. He said just like every other temple anywhere where we all worship, no one would violate any temple and expect the gods to accept his or her sacrifice.

    He added: “If such happens, there must be an appeasement to the gods to accept such atonement. No amount of intimidation or coercing will disintegrate or change the belief of all the members of this institution.”

    If the temple had been violated, how it happened or whether it was about to be violated was not disclosed.

    As if he was responding to a threat from the Exco quarters, Obasa also stressed: “This institution remains resolute. We will never be disgraced, abused, or ridiculed in the name of creating a seamless working ambiance.”

    Then, discarding any kind of pretensions or diplomacy, the Speaker retorted: “Those who live in glass houses must not throw stones, as the saying goes. This also brings to my mind, according to our people: eni ba yara l’oogun ngbe.” (Meaning: the god of iron aids the swift). In other words, those who facilitated or planned to interfere in this House or destroy the cohesion of the institution should also be prepared for the same fate.”

    The interpretation any observer would give the statement is: “I will strike you before you strike me.”

    In the last 21 years, Obasa has been a member of the Assembly representing Agege. Now, there are speculations that the Speaker is warming up for the Lagos APC governorship primary that will hold in about three years.

    In a breath, Obasa said he had not given serious thought to it, despite the complaints by “blackmailers”, “detractors” and “naysayers,” who had distorted facts and “misconstrued” his intention. He explained that the focus of his mobilisation within the chapter was to build support for the party on the platform of the entrenched and powerful caucus, Mandate.

     Incidentally, the governor belongs to Mandate.

    Naturally, the mobilisation by Obasa may upset the older and influential caucus, the “Justice Forum,” and to some extent, the “Ideal.”

    But, in another dimension, the Speaker boasted that “nevertheless, that does not mean I am too young or lack experience to run”.

    Obasa declared that if he becomes governor, “those who have been before me are not better off.” Those who have been elected governors of Lagos are Lateef Jakande, Michael Otedola, Tinubu, Fashola, Ambode, and Sanwo-Olu. Past military governors are Mobolaji Johnson, Adekunle Lawal, Ndubusi Kanu, Ebitu Ukiwe, Gbolahan Mudashiru, Mike Akhigbe, Raji Rasaki, Olagunsoye Oyinlola, and Buba Marwa.

    Indigenship has never been a major factor in Lagos politics, as far as the governorship slot is concerned. The Speaker fired salvos at undisclosed persons trying to blackmail him on the basis of the factor.

    He said: “It is also important to correct the impression from some naysayers who have been insinuating that I made payment to seek for blood relation in Ojo to validate my candidacy to run as governor.

    “Of course, I have never denied that I am Obasa. Rather, I have never claimed to be related to Onikoyi, Oniru, or any other popular Lagos families, as the case may be. I can never run from the fact that I am related to my Obasa family in Ojo. But I do not need local validity to contest or run. If eventually I am contesting, I will do so from Agege.”

    The scenarios all pale into politics; this is about conflicts, the struggle for power, and competition for influence.

    What can also be deduced from all of the above is that all is not totally well in Lagos APC where the heads of the executive and legislative arms seem to be at loggerheads.

    This should not be allowed to continue. Chieftains should be in one accord. Combatants should pull the brakes and sheathe their swords. There is a need for a truce.

    Also, there is much to be accomplished by the Sanwo-Olu administration. The governor needs the support of all.

    As it is often canvased by political scientists, the ruling executive should also conduct the business of the state in utter sensitivity to the presence of a very active, strong, united and virile legislature. In the same vein, the parliament has to be less inflexible and more condescending. These are critical to the building of a harmonious Executive/Legislative relationship.

    Reconciliation can be brokered by the GAC. But the only leader who can really whip all to line, enforce compliance and restore peace is the Commander-in-Chief. He is the President of all Nigerians. Besides, Lagos is his base. A stitch in time saves nine.

  • Obasanjo and his ‘failing state’ theory

    Obasanjo and his ‘failing state’ theory

    A leopard cannot change its spots.

    This age-long apothegm utterly beggars the cacophonous vituperations of former President Olusegun Obasanjo about other Nigerians, especially the nation’s leaders – past or present – except himself.

    For a personality that ought to stay peacefully in the glasshouse of respected statesmen, Obasanjo has been throwing stones all his life at fellow citizens as a fancied self-entertainment.

    The former President thinks he laid a foundation of exemplary leadership as a military and civilian leader. He is inclined to blaming every administration and other leaders for not measuring up. But, an x-ray of his leadership style reveals otherwise.

    The all-knowing General, civil war commander, former military Head of State, ex-President of Nigeria, Ekerin Egba, Ebora and Balogun Owu, and seasoned letter writer, is yet to overcome the shock of last year’s presidential election.

    His anointed candidate, Peter Obi, could not fly during the poll. Therefore, anything done by the winner and President, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, is a precursor to a “failing state,” which exists only in the imagination of the self-appointed monitor of Nigeria.

    Delivering a keynote address at the Chinua Achebe Leadership Forum at Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, United States, the former leader, combative as ever, blamed the one-and-a-half-year-old Tinubu’s presidency for the nation’s cumulative woes.

    In the lecture, titled: ‘Leadership failure and state capture in Nigeria,’ OBJ, as fondly called by some people, said the country’s pervasive corruption, mediocrity, immorality, misconduct, mismanagement, injustice, incompetence and all forms of iniquity confirmed Nigeria’s failing state status under the President.

    The General deliberately closed his eyes to the courageous steps and bold reforms of the Tinubu administration. He cleverly manufactured fables and tissues of lies to dent the image of a government tackling the mess created by the previous leadership.

    Obasanjo posed as a scholar and pontificated on good governance. He uncritically confused “state fragility” with “state failure,” creating panic.

    At issue is governance legitimacy, which is dictated by the people’s perception of the government’s capacity for role fulfillment and the unhindered exercise of sovereignty and authority over the nation’s territories.

    A failed state implies the extreme weakness of the political or economic system and the colossal loss of control by the government. A state does not fail suddenly. There is a spectrum of fragility. There are abnormal circumstances that may ultimately culminate in failure, including wars, comprehensive weaknesses of the military and bureaucracy, as well as the prolonged, unmitigated collapse of social order throughout the country. States can move from fragility to failure if there is no remedy; if the government and the people are helpless, and if disintegration is inevitable.

    However, at a time Tinubu is recording more successes in steering Nigeria away from “state fragility,” what Obasanjo could see through his self-fabricated lenses is only “state failure”.

    The General stirred the hornet’s nest through his highly inflammable statement. Assessing the nation’s electoral system by his yardstick, he also called for the removal of the current leadership of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to restore integrity and sanity. Would he want Professor Maurice Iwu, the former INEC chairman who conducted the most controversial election that resulted in the longest electoral litigation, to return?

    The former president, as some observers would say, is entitled to his personal opinion, even if his view is laced with bile.

    Read Also: Supreme Court rejects 36 states’ suit to compel FG to account for gas earnings since 1999

    If previous governments, including the ones Obasanjo headed, had laid good examples, the country would have been much better.

    But what are the legacies of OBJ, Africa’s statesman and self-acclaimed democrat who some observers have also described as a symbol of imaginary purity?

    Obasanjo presided over a very ‘secure country where the chief legal officer, Attorney-General and Minister of Justice, Chief Bola Ige, was murdered. Throughout the life of the administration, there was no clue. The killers remain at large.

    He conducted the best presidential election which produced President Umaru Yar’Adua, who confessed that the poll that brought him to power was severely flawed.

    At the tail end of Obasanjo’s administration, allegations of a third-term agenda filled the air, and the report of the Constitutional Conference was sacrificed on the altar of deceit.

    Under his leadership, the hand of the centrist Federal Government was heavy on the sub-national units, as underscored by the seizure of allocations to states and councils.

    Is the administration not also remembered for turning the anti-graft bodies into a veritable weapon for witch-hunting, intimidation, and oppression of perceived foes?

    What about the Odi bloodletting? What about Zaki Biam? Did his government not receive condemnation of the international community?

    Too numerous acts of political aggression were peculiar to his regime. No one was insulated from his venom. His life outside power has not been dull. But his pastime is a subjective assessment, most times, of the state of the nation.

    Confronted with the awful memory of electoral horrors, Obasanjo’s do-or-die statement confounded most Nigerians. Yet, in 2019, he feared what his administration did to the opposition. Ahead of the poll, the Ota farmer regressed into a curious defence mechanism, alerting the international community to an imminent rigging that should attract punishment by powerful Western countries.

    Also living up to expectations as a crafty actor, Obasanjo alleged that a former Vice President was buying Permanent Voter’s Cards (PVCs) from prospective voters at N10,000 per voter. The Doctor of Theology said the vice president could not be a man of God, urging the General Overseer who inducted him as a priest to terminate his priesthood.

    In another outburst, Obasanjo, in a letter, said Muhammadu Buhari should not run for presidency. He inspired the formation of a political party, the African Democratic Congress (ADC), which could not attract a huge following. Later, he turned his back on the youths by abandoning his push for a generational shift. He has been dreaming of what he called a third force in the nation’s polity; whatever that means.

    Highly inconsistent, the man who opposed Atiku Abubakar in 2003, 2007, 2011, and 2015 suddenly woke up from slumber in 2019 and became Atikulated.

    Less than a month before the 2019 presidential election, Obasanjo resumed his old tricks of maligning, intimidating, and blackmailing candidates, reminiscent of what he did to Atiku in 2007 as the flag bearer of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN) and ex-President Goodluck Jonathan in 2015.

    In 2007, Obasanjo left the stage with a perception that has continued to hunt him in public life. As president, he was the lord of manor whose word was law. Power drew the wool over his eyes. As the PDP leader, he was the party. In eight years, the PDP as the ruling party had four national chairmen. That leadership instability in the party was, to a large extent, his making. He cleverly pushed away the pioneer chairman, the late Chief Solomon Lar. Later, he subjected his successor, Chief Barnabas Gemade, to the same ordeal, making him curse the party. Also, Chief Audu Ogbeh, who succeeded Gemade, had a bitter experience. When former Anambra State Governor Chris Ngige was abducted under the former president, he did not haunt the perpetrators of such a heinous constitutional breach.

    Under his watch, a gale of impeachment hit the polity. The victims were former Governors Joshua Dariye (Plateau State), Senator Rashidi Ladoja (Oyo), Ayodele Fayose (Ekiti), and Diepreye Alamieyeseigha (Bayelsa). The impeachment did not follow the laid-down procedures. The court later reinstated Dariye and Ladoja.

    In Rivers State’s PDP, Obasanjo objected to Rotimi Amaechi’s choice as the candidate the party’s delegates should choose, saying the selection had a k-leg. Senator Ifeanyi Araraume suffered the same fate in Imo State. The party lost to the Progressive Peoples Alliance (PPA) candidate, Ikedi Ohakim.

    Obasanjo successfully plotted the removal of former Senate President Chuba Okadigbo, who succeeded his ousted anointed candidate, Evan Enwerem.

    When former Minister of Housing and Urban Development, Dr. Olusegun Mimiko, defected from the PDP to the Labour Party (LP) to contest the governorship election in Ondo State, Obasanjo threatened him with the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC). He said: O su s’aga (he defecated on the stool). But the people of Ondo ignored the former president.

    In 2004, President Obasanjo withheld allocations to the local governments in Lagos State, following the creation of an additional 37 local council development areas (LCDAs).

    Earlier in 2003, he orchestrated an electoral earthquake in the Southwest. Governors Adeniyi Adebayo (Ekiti), Lam Adesina (Oyo), Olusegun Osoba (Ogun), and Adebayo Adefarati (Ondo) were the casualties. Only Tinubu of Lagos State survived the electoral terrorism. There was panic when INEC initially indicated on its website that the PDP had won Lagos.

    Although Obasanjo secured a second term, it is instructive to note that at the Supreme Court, where the final verdict was given on the 2003 presidential poll,  the judges were split. Some jurists were not convinced that he defeated his challenger, Muhammadu Buhari of the defunct All Peoples Party (APP), at the poll.

    In 2006/2007, Obasanjo foisted on the ruling party a personal succession agenda. Presidential aspirants, including Dr. Peter Odili, Donald Duke, Ahmed Makarfi, and Adamu Abdullahi, were edged out of the selection process. His anointed candidate, the late Umar Musa Yar’Adua, was imposed on the party.

    In 2007, Iwu’s INEC operated from Obasanjo’s armpit. Losers were declared as winners during the governorship polls; PDP candidates were the beneficiaries. The mandates were later restored in the court. Affected states included Anambra, Edo, Ondo, Osun, and Ekiti. That rigging is responsible for the scattered off-season governorship polls in the country today.

    Although Obasanjo has become an emergency advocate of judicial independence, he demonstrated a lack of respect for court orders. Emergency holidays were even declared to frustrate the move by courts to deliver their judgments on sensitive cases. Court orders were disregarded.

    The history of Nigeria is incomplete without a mention of Obasanjo. He was the General Officer Commanding (GOC) the Third Marine Commando when his juniors, including Lt.-Gen. Alani Akinrinade (retd.) and Brig. Godwin Alabi-Isama brought the rebels to their knees. In his book, ‘Military Leadership in Nigeria,’ General James Oluleye said: “[Yet] Obasanjo claimed he won the civil war by solo effort.”

    He craved political relevance as a military officer. The agitation for political power resulted in the pressure on former military Head of State, Gen. Yakubu Gowon, to make him Minister of Works and the late Gen. Murtala Ramat Mohammed the Minister of Communications.

    In 1979, Obasanjo made history again. He handed over to civilians. He became a moral voice of sorts.

    Twenty years after leaving power, he bounced back as a civilian president in 1999. However, many observers believe that he had lost the steam by 2007 when he handed over power to Yar’Adua.

    Outside power, he embraces the pastime of attacking other leaders, some of who had made greater contributions to national development than him. Today, some of these leaders are celebrated by Nigerians more than him.

    Obasanjo had mocked Chief Obafemi Awolowo, the first Premier of defunct Western Region, for not becoming the president of Nigeria. In his book: ‘Not My Will,’ he described the late Dr. Nnamidi Azikiwe as a leader who fell from his pre-eminent national position and carried on with life in his old age as a tribal chieftaincy holder, the Owelle of Onitsha.

    Obasanjo also described the late President Shehu Shagari as colourless; Aminu Kano as a placard-carrying protester, and Waziri Ibrahim as a rich but unserious contender. Buhari and Idiagbon, to OBJ, were autocratic rulers and Ibrahim Babangida a fool.

    Ahead of the return to civil rule in 1999, he once asked what has ‘Jack’ (General Yakubu Gowon) left behind in Aso Villa that he wanted to go and take. To OBJ, Moshood Abiola was not the messiah Nigeria needed. The option of an interim government, instead of the June 12 election de-annulment, was regrettable but understandable, according to Obasanjo.

    Out of over 200 million Nigerians, nobody else is clean, honest, and knowledgeable enough. Only OBJ is.

  • Towards a successful governorship poll in Ondo

    Towards a successful governorship poll in Ondo

    The Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) has recorded significant improvements in the conduct of off-season governorship elections. However, some actors may want to dispute the remarkable progress because the poll outcomes did not favour their political parties and candidates.

    In today’s poll across the 18 local government areas of Ondo State, the expectation is that the umpire would build on the feats of conducting substantially credible, free, and fair elections. This is non-negotiable, more so when a political party has kicked against the retention of the Resident Electoral Commissioner (REC), Oluwatoyin Babalola, based on the flimsy excuse that she was born and bred in Akure, the state capital, where his parents still live.

    An election is always a tough battle in Ondo State, right from the First Republic. That is why the umpire should conduct the assignment properly with a profound sensitivity to the historical antecedents of the state. Those in politics now in Ondo were children of yesteryears and youths who witnessed the horrors of the earlier dispensations. In the dreadful days of the wild, wild West, the old Ondo Province was a major contributor to arson, killings, maiming and destruction of property, following the 1965 rigging of the Western regional elections. Eighteen years later, the state also boiled during the Ajasin/Omoboriowo rift. The Federal Electoral Commission (FEDECO) office on Oba Adesida Road in Akure was up in flames. A state lawmaker, Tunde Agunbiade, was beheaded. A leader of the National Party of Nigeria (NPN) in Akure, Agbayewa, and a House of Representatives member and publisher, Olaiya Fagbamigbe, were set ablaze.

    However, since 1999, the state appeared to have bidden farewell to the electoral hullabaloo. Even when allegations of a stolen mandate filled the air in 2007, the gladiators waited on the court for the ventilation of their grievances, adjudication and justice. The mandate was retrieved lawfully from Governor Olusegun Agagu to Olusegun Mimiko without bloodshed.

    Since 2012, there have been improvements in the conduct of governorship elections in the Sunshine State. Mimiko, who had defected from the Labour Party (LP) to the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), defeated the late Rotimi Akeredolu of the defunct Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), who eventually succeeded him after defeating Eyitayo Jegede (SAN) of the PDP. Also, Akeredolu defeated Jegede for the second time in 2018. During these contests, there was no cause for alarm.

    No party has maintained dominance in Ondo politics in this Fourth Republic. In 1999, the battle was between Adebayo Adefarati of the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and Agagu of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). At the poll, it was 51 per cent for AD and 49 per cent for PDP.

    During the political earthquake that swept the AD governors, Agagu succeeded Adefarati. But his second-term bid also collapsed. The state reverted to LP and later to the PDP under Mimiko. Much later, the ‘progressives’ bounced back under Akeredolu, who was succeeded by Lucky Aiyedatiwa last year.

    Read Also: Ondo 2024: How the political parties stand

    Ondo has somehow institutionalised zoning. Akeredolu came from the North Senatorial District. Thus, the two major parties picked their candidates from the South Senatorial District in the spirit of equity, fairness and justice, and with the understanding that power would rotate to Ondo Central later.

    It is noteworthy that the campaigns were orderly and peaceful. The two main candidates – Governor Lucky Aiyedatiwa of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and former Deputy Governor Agboola Ajayi of the PDP – have conducted their campaigns with decorum and elevated issues over personalities. The two candidates are politically related, having operated under their former leader, Akeredolu. They are also from the same senatorial district, which means head or tail, Ondo South is the winner.

    The candidates, their party leaders, followers and voters should bear in mind the peace accord. The INEC is just the supervisor of the governorship contest. A successful poll is possible when the stakeholders cooperate with the electoral agency. Indeed, an election is the joint responsibility of the umpire, the government, security agencies, the candidates, political parties, party agents at polling booths, and the electorate. If any of the stakeholders flounder in their duties and obligations, substantial compliance with extantlaws and electoral rules and regulations may not be attainable.

    The political parties must educate and enlighten their followers up to the polling day. Parties should impress upon their members and followers on the need to shun unruly behaviours and report any anomaly to security agencies instead of taking the laws into their own hands.

    Party leaders have been mobilising during the campaigns across the local governments. There is no need to hire agents for vote-buying and selling. They should do away with desperation. Vote-buying is vote theft. It is an offence that is punishable as it erodes the credibility of the exercise.

    It is the duty of security agencies to police the votes and prevent disruption and violence. Vigilance is key. They should maintain utmost neutrality and impartiality in discharging their electoral duty. They are not expected to aid or abet unscrupulous politicians with habitual rigging behaviour. Only policemen who understand the geography, sociology and terrain of Ondo State should be saddled with electoral duties.

    The electorate is obligated to cast their ballot without let and hindrance. They should shun the temptation to vote in anticipation of a financial reward. Voting according to one’s conscience and understanding of the game is a rare form of personal dignity. These are hard times, no doubt. However, discipline should not be a casualty of the boring social condition. Vote-buying will become a thing of the past when the targets resist and report to security agencies on electoral duty.

    Voters should also endeavour to cooperate with polling staff in the various booths and units. An election is a festival of choice, change and affirmation of the political leadership. Voters should shun intimidation and vote wisely.

    There is now a trend whereby some people invade social media with fake news about unannounced election results. It is a dangerous trend in a contemporary election cycle. Social media, fundamentally, is not a native of Nigeria. Even though it was imported, it is useful. Government should muster the strength to regulate social media as it is being done in many parts of the world, and the regulation should be devoid of partisan agenda on the part of those at the helm of affairs.

    The bulk of the responsibilities is on INEC. The mistakes of the past that cast shadows on elections in some areas should be avoided. Polling agents should arrive promptly at their designated booths or units. Lateness by electoral officials can spark anxiety and uproar. There is a need for correct polling materials to be conveyed to the appropriate voting units at the right time.

    An election in riverine areas requires a special type of supervision. Coastal areas are far and rough. Transportation and other logistics should be thorough. Drunkards should not be allowed to drive the boats for conveying electoral materials and officials; neither should the canoes be rickety.

    The data-capturing machines should not disappoint. If there is a hitch, there should be the understanding that it is temporary. Voters should be patient. There should be no voter at the polling booth who should be disallowed from voting, except for violating the law. In highly populous voting areas, INEC needs to extend the voting hours to accommodate the voters.

    Proper collation of results at the collation centres is crucial. Disparity or discrepancies between the figures recorded at booths and those at the collation centres could erode trust and create credibility problems.

    Bringing to book erring INEC workers found culpable in any electoral atrocity may also be the baseline for electoral sanity. The electoral commission should not relent in pressing for the setting up of a special electoral offences tribunal for the speedy prosecution of election riggers who try to derail democracy and dent the image of the country’s electoral system.

    Today’s exercise should portray Ondo voters as enlightened adults who can perform their civic duty without rancour. The election outcome should reflect the reality on the ground and be accepted by the parties in the spirit of sportsmanship. An election can only produce one winner; losers have the opportunity to return in the next election season. This is the beauty of democracy.

  • Osun APC, Aregbesola and reconciliation

    Osun APC, Aregbesola and reconciliation

    He was the apple of Asiwaju’s eyes, once upon a time. Many political actors in the Southwest and beyond perceived him as a sort of deputy leader, a likely heir. This was indisputable. He was a member of the kitchen cabinet in Bourdillon: a confidant, trusted ally, and dependable loyalist.

    It was said that even the leader, vouching for his undiluted loyalty, once declared that if Ogbeni Rauf Aregbesola stormed his room with a knife, cutlass, or gun, he would not panic because of the trust and confidence he reposed in him.

    Also, the indomitable disciple, who has understandably attracted envy and jealousy from other committed followers due to his closeness to the leader, once said if he was with his wife in the other room and the Jagaban Borgu summoned him, he would instantly abandon her to answer his call.

    Such was the bond of unity, amity, and political fraternity between President Bola Ahmed Tinubu and his beloved associate that the leader decided to sponsor him to become governor of Osun State after serving under his leadership in Lagos State as Works and Infrastructure Commissioner for almost eight years.

    If Aregbesola had not been a governor, he may not have become Interior Minister under former President Muhammadu Buhari. His base was Lagos, where he honed his political skills, made name, and became famous before returning home to serve his people.

     Ironically, Osun politics threw a wedge between the benefactor and godson.

    Read Also: Caging NPFL’s monsters

    The foundation of friendship was erected on the similarity of ideas, shared vision, and passion for service by the political colossus and his devotee, whom he had groomed for political leadership. Aregbesola is a great mobiliser and organiser who has served the progressive cause in the Southwest states of Lagos and Osun under the leadership and guidance of Tinubu.

    At his ‘Aregbe Till Daybreak’ in Osogbo, the state capital, Aregbesola declared: “I am as large in Osun as I am large in Lagos.” It was an understatement. He was the political leader of the most populated sub-zone in Lagos West, Alimoso, fondly referred to in those days as the Tinubu country. Although he failed to get its Social Democratic Party (SDP) ticket for the House of Representatives in the Third Republic, the engineer bounced back as axis leader when Tinubu, former governor of Lagos, appointed him a commissioner.

    In Lagos politics, Aregbesola welded enormous and intimidating influence, determining the fate of many young politicians who later rose to stardom. He was the door to the leader, his chief adviser and political enforcer, a status that other devotees like Dr. Muiz Banire (SAN) and Cardinal James Odunmbaku once intermittently shared with him in the moment of cardinal decision-making on political work at the grassroots, when Prince Abiodun Ogunleye and Otunba Dele Ajomale were party chairmen. Aregbesola was also one of the liaison officers between the state government and the civil society, another constituency of his boss.

    More significantly, Aregbesola is closely associated with one of the big caucuses, the Mandate Movement, which is locked in partisan conflict and hot competition for intra-party power and influence with the Justice Forum in the state chapter of the ruling party from the days of the Alliance for Democracy (AD), through the Action Congress (AC) and the Action Congress of Nigeria (ACN), to the All Progressives Congress (APC). The Justice Forum is an association of old political warhorses who have rendered invaluable services to the state and the country in challenging times. Tinubu is the acknowledged patron of the two caucuses.

    Tinubu embarked on his liberation mission in the Southwest as a progressive leader without rival and the last man standing, following the political earthquake that swept the AD governors of Oyo, Ondo, Osun, Ogun, and Ekiti in 2003.

    It was a hectic battle, particularly in Ekiti and Osun where Kayode Fayemi and Aregbesola were symbols of the struggle. In Osun, when Aregbesola was initially resisted by party men who described him as a Lagos politician, Tinubu’s towering influence and clout paved the way for reabsorbing him into his state’s mainstream politics. Throughout his eight years in power, he never let the party down, although the grave economic crisis of those times frustrated prompt and timely fulfilment of statutory financial obligations to workers

    But, since 2018 when Aregbesola completed his two-term tenure, Osun APC has been in trouble. The bone of contention was intra-party squabble and disagreement over succession. While Tinubu rooted for Alhaji Gboyega Oyetola, the Chief of Staff under Aregbesola, it appeared that Aregbesola had a different idea or agenda.

    However, as the ruling party could not put its house in order, the PDP spotted an opportunity to confront the rival platform. Consequently, ACN could only win narrowly in 2018. The last-minute mobilisation involved people like Iyiola Omisore, Olu Agunloye, and  Fayemi. The victory was achieved through a strenuous battle.

    Despite its victory, the party remained divided. It became difficult to mend the cracks. Reconciliation became futile. Although Tinubu asked former Governor Bisi Akande to reconcile the warring camps ahead of the 2022 governorship poll, the efforts were futile. Things started falling apart and the centre could not hold. The split structure lost its strength and APC could not retain power in Osun. Outside power, chieftains were left in the cold, aptly locked in antagonism and bitterness.

    The beneficiary of the division was Governor Ademola ‘Dancer’ Adeleke, who has not matched the performance, and therefore, cannot enjoy the ratings of his more experienced predecessors – Oyetola, Aregbesola, Olagunsoye Oyinlola, Akande and Isiaka Adeleke, his elder brother.

    From a post-primary crisis, through the poorly managed election that drew the curtains on APC’s tenancy in Osun Government House, to the post-election blame game and acrimony, the party became distressed and completely polarised. Therefore, Osun APC has waged more wars against itself than the PDP, making a virile opposition in Osun almost impossible.

    The hide-and-seek game gave way to open hostilities that were carried to social media. In a moment of anger, words are like eggs. Once they fall, they scatter. Ordinarily, Yoruba would say there is no remedy.

    To observers, Aregbesola later made the mistake of distancing himself from his leader to the extent that when Tinubu was going round the country to realise his presidential ambition, he was not beside his leader. Nigerians noticed the gap and the glaring shortfall in role fulfillment. Also, during the election, Aregbesola was not around to mobilise for him. Therefore, Tinubu became president without his input. Many Nigerians who were taken aback sensed a parting of ways.

    Old politicians who remembered the previous dispensations warned about the consequences of likely regression to past pitfalls. They recalled the unresolved discord among the pathfinders – the Awo/SLA tango, the Ajasin/Omoboriowo rift, Bola Ige/Sunday Afolabi quarrel, the D’irovan episode, the split in Afenifere, and the Tinubu/Dawodu feud, which had affected the cohesion of the regional progressive bloc. None of these crises was resolved. For example, when Awo and Ayo Rosiji, former Action Group (AG) national secretary, later met after the civil war, four years after the collapse of the First Republic and eight years after the 1962 AG split in Jos, the two leaders could not reconcile. A historian, Dr. Nina Mba, who was Rosiji’s biographer, said that afterwards, there was “no real renewal of contact”.

    Osun APC warriors turned a deaf ear to the lessons of history. They broke into factions and old colleagues became sworn enemies. The chain of events in Osun finally culminated in the suspension of the former governor. It was a turning point in the illustrious political career of the charismatic politician and former minister. If the flexing of muscles between Irerioluwa  (supporters of Oyetola) and Oranmiyan forces (followers of Aregbesola) persists, Aregbesola may even be expelled from the chapter.

    The turn of events should be worrisome to discerning party elders whose duty is to reconcile the factions and bring the two divides to the table of brotherhood. Reconciliation is an unfinished business in the Osun progressive family. Speed is required as the state would start warming up for electioneering next year.

    There is no permanent friend or foe. The key issue in politics is interests, which must align. The two warring camps should settle their differences and combine their strengths ahead of the next governorship poll in the state. President should not be distracted by any war of attrition in any state of the Southwest, which is his primary base.

    Tinubu’s antecedents attest to his open heart and capacity for bridge-building. Many followers fell out with him, but the President welcomed them back to his court. They were reintegrated into the party structures. It is the fallout of his tolerance and sense of accommodation. It is the height of a forgiving spirit.

    The Osun gladiators should emulate these attributes of conciliatory leadership. It is time to forget the acrimonious past and embrace a peaceful future for the progressives to regain the State of the Living Spring.   

  • Nwosu: demise of June 12 umpire

    Nwosu: demise of June 12 umpire

    ON June 12, 1993, Humphery Nwosu, a Professor of Political Science and former chairman of the proscribed National Electoral Commission (NEC) – the forerunner to the current Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) – made history by conducting the most credible and peaceful presidential poll in the history of the country.

    When he took over from his former teacher, Prof. Eme Awa, a renowned political scientist, little did he know that he was drafted into a futile exercise. The subsequent drama showed that the transition programme was designed to fail by the military president, Gen. Ibrahim Babangida, who midwifed the process.

    After eight years of tossing Nigerians around, the dubious political experimentation hit the rocks, as planned. The free and fair election was criminally annulled by IBB, the Evil Genius, thereby throwing Nigeria into a monumental crisis.

    From 1959 to date, Nigeria has produced 12 other electoral umpires: Dr. Kofo Abayomi, Chief Eyo Esua, Chief Michael Ani, Justice Victor Ovie-Whiskey, Prof. Awa, Prof. Okon Uya, Chief Dagogo Jack, Justice Ephraim Akpata, Dr. Abel Guobadia, Chief Maurice Iwu, Prof. Attahiru Jega and Prof. Mahmood Yakubu.

    However, Nwosu stood out for obvious reasons. None of them confronted the type of challenge and roadblocks deliberately erected on his way. Bracing the odds, he was strengthened by a staunch determination to make a name and a patriotic resolve to erect a solid foundation for an orderly democratic transfer of power from military rulers to civilian leaders.

    Why the result of the 1993 poll was cancelled was largely unknown. Only two principal actors – the former military president and the former NEC chairman – could give the real reason behind the criminal assault on democracy and the popular will of the people.

    IBB has been rambling for 31 years, struggling with conscience and a sense of guilt, an internal version of punishment that torments the soul. The truth is that there was no convincing justification for leading the people on a long journey to nowhere. However, the military ruler decided to tread the path of social perdition. It is worse that the principal culprit can never correct the mistake.

    Nwosu’s book, titled: ‘Laying the Foundation for Nigeria’s Democracy: My Account of June 12, 1993 Presidential Election and Its Annulment,’ offered no clue. It never met popular expectations. Facts may have been inadvertently concealed. To some observers, it smacked of timidity, particularly the type a scholar of repute that he was should not have displayed.

    If Nwosu had spoken up, other hidden circumstances behind the annulment could have been unravelled.

    There are puzzles: was Nwosu a willing tool? To many people, such a possibility was remote, judging by the efforts he put into the work. It appeared that he was helpless because the hand of the military was heavy on the electoral commission. Was Nwosi harassed, as alleged in some quarters? Was he frightened to chicken out? Was his life under threat? Why was the final result not declared?

    Last week, the man died at 83, carrying to his grave the most vital information about the glaring controversial event that heralded the collapse of the Third Republic.

    Apart from drawing home the point that the annulment was a colossal injustice that created a legitimacy and credibility crisis for the military government, the book is essentially limiting.

    Yet, judging by the inconducive atmosphere under which he operated, Nwosu, to date, could be described as the most outstanding electoral officer: diligent, creative, innovative, courageous, hardworking, bold, and brave. He was not a pliable man for a dirty job.

    His antecedents showed that he was a man of honour and integrity. Nwosu was the Head of the Department of Political Science at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka (UNN) when the military government appointed him the NEC chairman. Six years after getting his PhD, he became a professor. He published articles and books to avoid perishing in the Ivory Towers. Nwosu was appointed a member of the 20-man Dasuki Committee on the Review of Local Government System in Nigeria. In his native Anambra State, he also served as Commissioner for Local Government, Rural Development and Chieftaincy Affairs, and later, Agriculture.

    His appointment as an umpire was consistent with IBB’s policy of drafting intellectuals to contribute to the nation’s socio-economic and political development. Thus, the likes of Prof. Wole Soyinka, Bolaji Akinyemi, Tunji Aboyade, Omo Omoruyi, Dr. Tai Solarin, Adele Jinadu, Tunde Adeniran, Tunji Olagunju, Eme Awa, Sam Oyovbaire, Pius Sada, Ikenna Nzimiro, Jerry Gana, Jubril Aminu, Jona Elaigwu, Dr. Kalu Idika Kalu, and Dr. Chu S. P. Okongwu, at one time or the other served in the regime.

    Nwosu’s assignment was the most tedious. As Nigerians, particularly the political class and the civil society, clamoured for military disengagement, eyes were on the electoral agency. Although he had a competent team, the military threw obstacles in his path.

     There was enough evidence to doubt the sincerity of the gap-toothed General. The handover dates were shifted twice and the transition programme became a delicate project, unduly elongated to the nation’s discomfort. Ahead of the transition scheme, Chief Obafemi Awolowo had expressed doubt about the fruitless search for a new social order, warning that when Nigerians imagined the new order was here, the nation would be disappointed. The old man was labelled as a prophet of doom in some quarters, but his foreboding came to pass.

    Nwosu was a student under Awa, who had to leave the commission after a serious disagreement with IBB. The old man might have alerted his former student to the decoy of a deceitful military president who was not ready to midwife a transparent transition programme, which Nwosu, despite the hurdles, managed to implement.

    The experiments took the polity through the Open Ballot System, Modified Open Ballot System, Option A4 for the selection of presidential candidates, formation of political associations that later ended in a fiasco, and imposition of two military-created political parties that were “a little to the left and a little to the right”, and the foggy diarchy that produced more theatrics from the military leadership than genuine interest in a seamless political engagement.

    A mutual suspicion had developed between the military and the political elite. The banning, unbanning, and banning of key actors paved the way for the moneybags called the new breed. But Jerry Gana’s MAMSER (Mass Mobilisation for Self Reliance, Social Justice, and Economic Recovery) intensified the political education and enlightenment which sustained the interest and hope of Nigerians in the process.

    Read Also: Humphrey Nwosu (1941 – 2024)

    Nwosu worked hard and succeeded in moderating the tense processes, particularly intra-party nominations of candidates for the various layers of elections by the government-imposed Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC). The House of Assembly and governorship elections were successfully conducted. Later, elections into the House of Representatives and the Senate were held.

    The governors and elected state and federal lawmakers had started functioning under the inexplicable diarchic system. While the military was democratically displaced by legitimate authorities, its top echelon developed cold feet, fearing the liquidation of self-acquired8 powers.

    To the people, Babangida’s days in Aso Villa, Abuja were numbered. The initial success of the last phase of the transition programme was underscored by the successful presidential primaries won by Moshood Abiola of SDP in Jos and Othman Bashir of NRC in Port Harcourt. The primaries validated the country’s historical antecedents and the national disposition to a two-party system.

    On June 12, 1993, Nigerians were determined to end military rule. The election was a huge festival of choice and change. Voters from across the six zones, irrespective of their ethnic and religious backgrounds, trooped out to elect candidates of their choice. There was no disruption, particularly the manipulation, irregularities, stealing and vandalisation of ballot boxes and thuggery that characterised the first and second republics’ elections. An atmosphere of peace and tranquillity pervaded Nigeria on poll day.

    As the results were transparently announced, the beat stopped abruptly, based on the “order from above”. Nwosu was summoned. The announcement was promptly discontinued. The poll results were cancelled.

     Tension engulfed the country. The military suddenly remembered that a compromised judge it instigated had given an order at midnight forbidding the poll, as demanded by Arthur Nzeribe’s Association for Better Nigeria (ABN). But they forgot that their decree stated that no court order could stop the exercise.

    On June 23, 1993, IBB annulled the poll, thereby writing his name on the wrong side of history. The annulment tarnished the image of the electoral agency. It remains a huge burden on IBB, 31 years after.

    Nigeria will always remember Nwosu for conducting the freest and fairest election in the nation’s history. Despite all the gimmicks of military leaders, who were determined to stay in power perpetually, the eminent scholar did his national assignment with candour and competence. He will not be listed among the goons who sacrificed the Third Republic for selfish gains.

  • General ‘Jack’ at 90

    General ‘Jack’ at 90

    In a country where life expectancy is below 60, Yakubu ‘Jack’ Gowon, Army General and former military Head of State, has cause to thank God. He left power 49 years ago following a coup, the same way he was catapulted to the front burner in 1966.

    Outside power, unlike latter-day soldiers of fortune, he does not have stupendous wealth to flaunt. He has maintained a good profile, praying for the country he ruled for nine years not to go under, offering patriotic advice to successive governments without waging war on those at the helm of affairs through dubious letter writing. More importantly, Gowon has been inspiring all and sundry with his trademark time-tested humility, contentment, and affinity.

    Hale and hearty, his magnetism has endured, and nothing has deprived him of his deserved peace of mind.

    In contrast to his military training, Gowon was a benevolent leader. Although he neither personalised power nor oppressed anyone with his supreme authority, he did not quit office when the ovation was loudest.

    As Commander-in-Chief, he was conciliatory. His Christian background may have helped him greatly in steering the affairs of the country during a very complex period that was characterised by the threat of disintegration. He had opted to rule with the fear of God and respect for Nigerians.

    Read Also: FG cautions content creators against negative narratives

    The eminent soldier knew that the power of the gun was not enough. At 31, he knew his limitations. His predecessor, the late General Thomas Aguiyi-Ironsi, did not leave a worthy legacy beyond, perhaps, military professionalism. In the area of governance, Aguiyi-Ironsi lacked sensitivity. He was unmindful of the fast-approaching danger that consumed his six-month inept, directionless, and roller-coaster government.

    When he sensed that a civil war was looming, Gowon, a bachelor-leader, ran to experienced elders from the North, West, and East to reinforce his administration. This paid off handsomely as his government became stable. He thus became a symbol of national unity, peace, and harmony.

    However, there were two challenges. It was said that Nigeria was good in those days; there was plenty of money and government did not know how to spend it. What then, was the purpose of the Development Plans? Also, the transition programme from military rule to civilian government was shifted from 1971 to 1976, making politicians outside the cabinet to kick against the move. The Gowon government did not last till 1976.

    Like most men who have tasted power, particularly retired soldiers, Gowon attempted a return to office. It appeared like an addiction to the highest office among Africans. Perhaps, the prevailing political suasion of that time might have informed his decision. But his return bid was stalled in those days of Option A4 when Nigeria was on the fast lane to the botched Third Republic. After his loss, the former Head of State has kept his cool, playing the role of a respected statesman everywhere. And it gives him the clean political air to breathe anywhere he goes in this vast country.

    Gowon had a premonition about the end to his government. As an experienced officer who had spent nine years in office, he could not ignore the handwriting on the wall. Even with the information at his disposal, he could not avert the 1975 coup. At the airport, on his way to Kampala for the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) meeting, he urged one of the coup plotters, his relation and Commander of the Brigade of Guards, General Joe Garba, to make the putsch bloodless.

    Six months after he was ousted in a bloodless coup, a bloody coup that was eventually foiled claimed the life of his successor, General Murtala Ramat Mohammed. The saving grace was that the ex-Head of State was in exile. If Gowon had been in Nigeria, only God knows what would have happened to him as the military government wanted him to return to the country to answer charges of complicity at a military tribunal set up to probe the bloody putsch.

    Trapped abroad by the home situation, Gowon quickly adjusted to the reality of life outside power. At 40, he went to the university where he obtained a Bachelor’s, Master’s, and doctoral degrees in Political Science. He passed through the university and allowed the university to pass through him.

    The discontinued study of history is a casualty of the curricular retardation in the nation’s schools. Many youths could hardly connect to the past and its instructive lessons, the thorny journey to nation-building, the sacrifices and mistakes of successive leadership, and the avoidable pitfalls.

    As Nigeria prepared for independence, coups in Egypt (1952) and Sudan (1958) alerted Northern leaders to peep into the future. It was a tribute to their power of foresight. While Southern youths embraced university education and other professional training, Northern political leaders and traditional rulers encouraged more of their bright offspring to join the Army. They were confident that by sheer population, no other section of the country could dominate the Northern Region in the military, either under civilian or military rule.

    Indigenous leadership after the 1960 independence only lasted six years. One Yoruba and four Igbo soldiers plunged Nigeria into doom in 1966 when early leaders were murdered. The North recorded more casualties. Notable politicians of Igbo extraction were spared. The original coup plotters lost the battle midway, but their efforts paved the way for Aguiyi-Ironsi to assume political control.

    Aguiyi-Ironsi abolished federalism, which he replaced with a foggy unitary system that is still troubling Nigeria today. His regime lacked a national outlook and, instead of dousing the tension, his tribal sentiments escalated it.

    Six months later, there was a retaliatory coup by northern officers who terminated the Aguiyi-Ironsi government and ended his life.

    Aguiyi-Ironsi’s death created a succession crisis. His deputy, Brigadier Babafemi Ogundipe, could not command the loyalty of his colleagues. He accepted his fate and hurriedly left the country, only to reemerge in the United Kingdom as the High Commissioner. The military governor of Eastern State, Col. Emeka Odumegwu-Ojukwu, cried foul. He insisted that the order of seniority should be followed. There was a pogrom in the North and Easterners were targeted for liquidation.

    Gowon, the then Chief of Army Staff, was well trained in military institutions of global repute, including Sandhurst, to defend Nigeria’s territorial integrity against external forces. But he was not trained to assume political leadership, a role which the adventurist soldiers foisted on the military.

    Gowon became Head of State, endorsed by the North, West, and the minorities in the South. But the East, led by Ojukwu, rejected his leadership and opted for succession. Up came the ill-fated Biafra Republic and the 30-month civil war, which claimed millions of lives on the federal and secessionists’ sides.

    Gowon felt the heat at Doddan Barracks in Lagos, the seat of federal power. He was said to be highly emotional about the turn of events. He wanted to avert the war but without success. When war became the last option, he also sought to end it quickly. But it dragged on for three years.

     Certain bloody reports may have been deliberately kept away from Gowon to reduce his worry. The more elderly Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters, Admiral Adewale Wey, was his companion who often calmed him. There were arrangements for His Excellency to get married to reduce the stress on Wey, who spent longer times with him, in a bid to ward off mounting apprehension.

    Gowon’s peaceful nature and not necessarily naivety may have led to the concessions he gave to the Biafrans at the Aburi Declaration in Ghana. Reality dawned on the federal delegation that it had pushed Nigeria into an unintended confederal arrangement. There was a reversal of terms and retracing of steps. Ojukwu later opted for a war he could not win.

    The Federal Executive Council and the Armed Forces rose to the occasion by ensuring Gowon’s determination to keep the country together. The Finance Minister, Chief Obafemi Awolowo; the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor, Dr. Clement Isong; and Super Permanent Secretary, Alhaji Abdulaziz Attah, managed the war economy without borrowing. It meant that Gowon had a competent team. Others who served in the FEC included Femi Okunnu (Works and Housing), Shehu Shagari (Economic Development), Aminu Kano (Communications), Adebayo Adedeji, Shettima Ali Mongonu, Kiagbodo Clark, and Anthony Enahoro.

    The creation of states also reduced Ojukwu’s spread of influence as Southern minorities reiterated their commitment to one, indivisible Nigeria.

    Nigeria won the war under Gowon, who subsequently made his famous “no victor, no vanquished” speech as evidence of his quest for unity and oneness. He followed it up with an amnesty for the majority of those who had participated in the Biafran uprising. He also began a programme of “Reconciliation, Reconstruction, and Rehabilitation” to repair the extensive damage done to the economy and rebuild the infrastructure in war-ravaged areas.

    In Lagos, Gowon constructed roads, built bridges and flyovers. He built the National Gallery of Arts at Igannmu and established the National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) scheme.

    Ambitious soldiers grumbled at the officers’ mess that civilian leaders dominated the military regime. In response to their complaints in hushed tones, Gowon appointed two military officers – Murtala Mohammed and Olusegun Obasanjo – as Federal Commissioners for Communications, and Works and Housing.

    But the Murtala Mohammed government later accused its predecessor of running a corrupt regime. Of the 11 military governors and one civilian administrator, only two – Mobolaji Johnson of Lagos State and Oluwole Rotimi of Western State – were given a clean bill of health. But no act of corruption could also be traced to Gowon, whose modesty, candour, and humility were never surpassed by any other military leader.

    In retirement, he has been fatherly, simple and reflective, shunning avarice or primitive accumulation of wealth.

    At 90, life still goes on for the Great Jack, the beloved father of the nation, in whom many Nigerians are well pleased.

  • Oyebanji: Two years of purposeful leadership

    Oyebanji: Two years of purposeful leadership

    In two years, Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji, political scientist, former university teacher and governor of Ekiti State, has achieved what some governors in other states could not achieve in eight years.

    As he has demonstrated, the secrets of his successes are rooted in determination, vision, focus, discipline, candour, and humility. Unlike those who personalise power and make these attributes the casualties of governance, Oyebanji has embraced and fine-tuned them into cardinal principles of governance as an Omoluabi governor living up to the state’s appellation of the Land of Honour and Integrity.

    The affectionate son of the legendary professional teacher from the rustic Ikogosi has chosen a good path in life. He is endowed with a good character, the beauty of simplicity, and a disdain for haughtiness.

    Hardworking, dynamic, and discerning, the governor is ever witty, calm, and precise. He is imbued with native intelligence and an undiluted capacity for solving problems. He does not wage a war or expect a rebellion from any quarters. He listens, fulfills promises, and governs with compassion and piety.

    Read Also: Nigeria records 500 building collapses in 14 years, says NIA

    A man of immense tenderness, Oyebanji has touched everyone, especially those around him with a high sense of modesty, forthrightness, and integrity.

    The natives are impressed by the opportunity the governor has created for inclusive administration guaranteed by the exponent of ‘soft power,’ a home-grown leader and youngest founding father of Ekiti who laboured along with the elders in agitating for the creation of the state.

    Any decision his administration takes is buoyed by the interest of the people through decisive steps, boldness and courage. There is no secrecy as the government’s plans and activities – and the reasons behind them – are explained to the public.

    Since Oyebanji clearly understands the philosophy and principles behind the birth of the state, it is normal for him to always aspire to govern in accordance with the vision of the founding fathers.

    The progressive and a democratic governor runs a people-oriented administration that permits indigenes and residents to make their inputs. The initiation of policies and implementation of programmes are dictated by the needs analysis. Since the governor is accessible, feedback becomes easy.

    Accessibility is key. Thus, the governor is not remote to the people he governs. This principle facilitates access to information. As governor, he has not severed links with his roots. He maintains a cordial relationship with old acquaintances, including childhood friends, former school mates, colleagues at work, former teachers, tailors, cobblers, and even the bukateria he patronised when he was growing up.

    Although elected on a partisan platform, Oyebanji remains the governor for all, irrespective of political leanings. The composition of leadership structures at the local governments reflects the political diversity in a state that is culturally one indivisible zone.

    Ultimately, there is a sense of participation, and belonging. Never has Ekiti enjoyed this type of peace, harmony, and amity, with four former governors – Otunba Niyi Adebayo, Segun Oni, Ayodele Fayose, and Kayode Fayemi – mounting a protective shield around BAO and endorsing him for a second term. It has never happened before in Ekiti.

    There is also peace in the government, indeed, among the organs of government. There is neither adversary nor misfortune; mutual suspicion nor distrust. There is no division in the ruling state chapter of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC), led by the governor. Also, there is no tension between the governor and those typically described as ‘Abuja politicians.’ There is a great deal of synergy aimed at attracting more democratic dividends to the state from the centre. Inter-party relationships, especially between the ruling APC and the main opposition party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), is not characterised by enmity, bitterness, and rancour. The blood of state elders, traditional rulers, the political class, religious leaders, civil society groups, women’s groups, retirees, youths and students, and people with disabilities flow through the veins of BAO’s government.

    Today’s government in Ekiti also satisfies the necessary criterion of gender sensitivity. While the governor’s wife, Dr. Olayemi, is implementing laudable policies and programmes specifically targeted at the womenfolk, Deputy Governor Monisola Afuye, and the Secretary to the State Government (SSG) are women.

    Oyebanji fills the consciousness of Ekiti. He is hugely popular because he defers to the people, whose priorities and preferences shape his interventions in various sectors – education, health, agriculture, civil service, infrastructural development, and agriculture. In this respect, he presides over a government of responsibility and accountability.

    The distribution of developmental projects across the local governments and senatorial districts reflects equity and balance. There is no complaint about lopsidedness or skewedness. Two years after, there is no burden of debt incurred by the administration.

    It is also gratifying that the governor has paid attention to grassroots development by mobilising and energising the local government administration to prioritise infrastructural development premised on the peculiar environmental preferences. At the state and local government levels, there is public confidence in governance.

    The lesson is instructive. It is not the amount of money illegally taken from the treasury or the colossal abuse of power in high places, the disdain for the electorate after election, and the misuse of authority to feather personal nests that constitute the making of history. What would matter, in the long run, is the legacy a governor leaves behind to be treasured by generations yet unborn.

    In the future, historians would retain a fondest memory of the BAO years, reminiscent of how the people of old Oyo Empire relished the memorable reign of Alaafin Abiodun Adegoolu, how the Southwest has continued to treasure the premiership of the indomitable Chief Obafemi Awolowo and how the people of old Ondo State have retained nostalgic feelings for the historic Adekunle Ajasin era.

    Remarkably, these achievements were recorded with scarce resources. Many stakeholders have attributed Oyebanji’s remarkable feat to his prudent management of scarce and transparency in the art of governance. Even the second year anniversary of his administration is being marked with sober celebration; no room for frivolous spending.

    Unlike when Ekiti was in the news for intrigues, acrimony and violence, there is now clear orderliness. Politics is a harbinger of strife, antagonism and divisiveness. But today, Ekiti has moved from partisan divisiveness to becoming more cohesive and united than it ever was during the previous dispensations.

    As a major participant in government – from special assistant to chief of staff, commissioner, director of a major board, and Secretary to the Government – Oyebanji truly rose through the ranks. Along the line, he must have studied his bosses, emulated their positive steps and learnt from their foibles. The former governors were not living in Ekiti, unlike this homeboy. They only returned to the state to contest.

    Oyebanji is a researcher and party strategist; he is in a vantage position to know the perception of the people and their expectations about governance.

    However, the burden is on the governor to sustain the tempo of achievements to the end. He should never be carried away by praise singing, either in the party, on the street, or in the media. Adulation is sometimes characterised by eye service and hypocrisy. Ahitophelean advisers often secretly creep in through the walls of flattery. As an experienced politician, Oyebanji should be able to separate the wheat from the chaff. There is still so much to do in Ekiti and for its people in the face of limited resources.

    Ekiti is lagging in many areas. The state needs special attention and assistance from the Federal Government, particularly in infrastructural development. Many federal roads across the state are collapsing, becoming death traps.

    Oyebanji should rededicate himself to service delivery as he enters the third year of his first term. Members of his team also deserve commendation. A tree does not make a forest. Undoubtedly, the governor has led by example.

    For him to take the state to greater heights, he needs the support and cooperation of all Ekiti people because governance is a collective responsibility.

  • Challenges facing Southwest APC

    Challenges facing Southwest APC

    The Southwest chapter of the All Progressives Congress (APC) is predominantly a haven of progressives — and latter-day converts — battling for control of the six states. The region’s politics has always paraded a galaxy of progressives. This fulfills Awo’s prediction of alignment and realignment of forces in the power struggle. Today, at least, 40 percent of Southwest APC comprises defectors from the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). The defection has implications for the harmonisation of party structures and sharing of political opportunities.

    The regional chapter is also a zone of partisan political conflict, which is normal. The path to power is laced with thorns and acrimony, competition and antagonism. However, its experience in last year’s presidential election showed that it lost some ground to the opposition due to deep-seated acrimony, lack of reconciliation and inadequate preparation. In some chapters, party leaders took some things for granted. It proved to be a costly mistake.

    The APC and the four major opposition parties – PDP, Labour Party (LP), and New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) – are engulfed in crises. What is keeping the APC intact in some states is the consciousness of the fact that it is the ruling party at the centre. Indeed, this status is an advantage. But as the PDP takes its peace moves seriously, APC should not handle reconciliation with levity. It could be risky.

    In fact, the National Reconciliation Committee of the ruling party should swing into action. There are crisis-ridden chapters that need urgent attention beyond the Southwest. These include Plateau, Taraba, Gombe, Zamfara, Enugu, Benue, Bayelsa, and Rivers.

    However, the Southwest is the primary base of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, although the country is now his constituency as the Commander-in-Chief. It should be noted that the votes for APC in last year’s presidential poll were fewer than what it garnered in 2019. This is food for thought.

    Read Also: Five Nigerian actors who are politicians

    The party had previously lost power in Osun State due to the unresolved crisis between the Oranmiyan and Ilerioluwa forces that worked at cross purpose. Both camps are still licking their wounds. They are left in the cold, outside of power. But there is no sign that supporters of Rauf Aregbesola and Gboyega Oyetola are ready to sheathe their swords.

    The party structure is beyond the reach of Oranmiyan. But Ilerioluwa needs more efforts to cross all the inevitable hurdles on the way to the State House without the input of Oranmiyan. Governor Ademola “Dancer” Adeleke is enough trouble. But the foes within can do more damage by subverting or undermining party efforts. Osun APC is currently a divided house that cannot stand. It needs to bring everybody back into the fold through negotiation, logic, skill, and reconciliation.

    The greatest goal of Oranmiyan is to ensure that Ilerioluwa does not make it the second time. Only a timely intervention of the party’s national leaders can bring the two camps to the table of brotherhood.

    In Oyo, the party lost due to poor strategy and a weak structure that was reduced to rubble by the PDP machine. Internal bickering, lack of trust and agreement, and post-primary crisis polarised the party. A section of the party defected briefly to contest on the platform of a mushroom party. The supporters of Teslim Folarin and Adebayo Adelabu went their separate ways. Both camps failed on poll day. The Oyo chapter has not recovered fully from defeat. There is no evidence to prove that the two antagonistic camps are prepared to combine their strengths.

    A pervasive trend in Southwest is the habit of asking some supporters to conduct election in other parties. That was the style of the late Governor Rotimi Akeredolu and former Governor Amosun in 2019, while they still remained as APC leaders in their respective states. These anti-party activities are injurious.

    Apart from Ekiti State, other chapters have unresolved crises. It is a credit to the maturity and understanding on the part of Ekiti APC gladiators that the chapter is the most peaceful. Former Governors Kayode Fayemi, Segun Oni, and Niyi Adebayo appear to have mounted a protective wall around Governor Biodun Oyebanji. The style of the incumbent governor has contributed to the tranquility in the chapter. Oyebanji is determined to also sustain the tempo of performance. There are feelers that few aspirants are warming up. This is normal in politics. It may be for a spoiler role, which would be instantly checked. But the few contenders may also put their hats in the ring for attention-seeking or relevance. Altogether, it is not a purely bad strategy. But if anyone comes out to compete for the governorship ticket with Oyebanji in 2026, the ambition of the contender will crumble. It will not fly. This is because of the way the governor has conducted himself, handled the party and governed the state.

    In Ogun State, there is a clash of egos. Personality clashes between former Governor Ibikunle Amosun and Governor Dapo Abiodun on the one hand and the rift between the governor and Senator Gbenga Daniel, a former governor, on the other hand, point to unfinished reconciliation in the Gateway chapter. The distrust permeated the party in Ogun during the last governorship election. There were allegations, accusations, and counter-claims. The rift also has its roots in the future ambition of certain gladiators, particularly their contrasting senatorial ambitions.

    In Ondo State, which is preparing for an election on November 16, former governorship aspirants are grumbling. But efforts are being made to mend fences. A major task there now is the governorship campaign structure that should reflect the harmonisation of interests and forces in the state.

    In Lagos State, it was too bad that last year, APC was defeated by the Labour Party (LP) during the presidential election. It was highly disgraceful. Party men, particularly youths and women, never mobilised for the exercise. They also refused to be mobilised. As cracks appeared on the wall, enemies sneaked in.

    A political drama was staged last year after the governorship poll. The governor sent the list of commissioner-nominees to the House of Assembly. It was rejected. The governor and the lawmakers are members of the same APC. It meant that a deep gulf existed. Eight days ago, when the governor, who is the coordinator of Southwest governors, convened the zonal meeting in Lagos, the lawmakers shunned the meeting held at Eko Hotels on Victoria Island. No explanation was given. There was no representation. Therefore, something is fishy in Lago De Kuramo. When the executive and legislature are at loggerheads, progress can be hampered. There is a need for cooperation, collaboration, understanding, and harmony, even in an atmosphere of separation of powers and checks and balances.

    National party elders should wade into the repressed hostility. If not, it would blow open and draw negative attention to the Lagos chapter.

    Last week’s stakeholders’ meeting of the Southwest APC revealed the extent of unfinished business of reconciliation in the entire region. It is very bad that the zonal leadership was not able to call a meeting for a year and six months. What would have been responsible? Has there been a lack of institutional memory or funding? It is during meetings that ideas are generated, grievances are laid before the leadership, committees are raised, mobilisation is fine-tuned and strategies are resolved.

    In the regional history of the progressive bloc, the stakeholders’ meetings were in layers – governors, party chairmen, Speakers and lawmakers, women and youth wings. There was an exchange of ideas and strategies. At such meetings, support was given to the regional integration agenda.

    The recent meeting of the regional chapter became an avenue for the ventilation of accumulated grievances arising from the alleged distortion of the reward system in the party, the detachment of public officeholders from the party structure and the collapse of party supremacy.

    Unlike in the days of the defunct AG, UPN and SDP, there is now a curious preference for technocrats to serve as commissioners and special advisers, leaving party men who laboured during the campaigns and elections in the cold. The technocrats are highly effective and efficient in the discharge of their public duties. But they owe no allegiance to the party that gave birth to the government that offered them the appointments. In the next round of elections, the technocrats are off the slippery political field, unmindful of the toil and labour of politicians to sustain the party in power.

    The way out is for the governors, and even the president, to evolve a system that would be a blend of politicians and technocrats. Many party chieftains are adamant that the APC parades technocrats with intimidating credentials, but being politicians should never be a bane.

    Also, delegates to the Lagos meeting complained about lack of access to those who rode on the back of the party to power. They complained about dwindling aggressive mobilisation for membership, the disenchantment of party youths against the leadership, and inadequate engagement and empowerment of youths and women. A delegate called for the appointment of Presidential Liaison Officers (PLOs) by the president to liaise with party members at the grassroots. He complained that what the president had been sending to the party never got to the lower rungs. It was a protest, an indictment and a vote of no confidence in state party executives by ordinary party folks who believe that their leaders are in comfort zones to their exclusion and the crumbs falling off their tables are beyond reach.

    Many party chieftains are also fond of washing the dirty linen of the platform in public. There is a communication gap. Party leaders who are conversant with governance issues are not explaining certain government policies and programmes that cause transient pains to party members and followers. Open criticisms of the party and its governments in the public by aggrieved stalwarts, no matter their grievances, smack of indiscipline. Some even criticise the president and peddle falsehoods. Thus, the governor of Ekiti called for decorum, saying the Southwest should treasure what it has. He added that after the current president, it will take many years before the zone can produce another president.

    The zonal party has an unfinished battle, not only in Osun but also in Oyo State, which slipped from its grip in the post-Ajimobi era. Again, the baseline is the return of unity in those distressed state chapters.

    The Southwest APC should be bothered about two other things. An international organisation has warned about the growing number of school dropouts. Also, the Yoruba language is facing a risk of extinction. Yoruba youths are jettisoning the time-tested virtues of Omoluabi the older generation was noted for. They indulge in vices, including kidnapping, yahoo yahoo and ritual killings. This is bad for the image of the region.

    It is good news that there is going to be a Southwest Development Commission. The headquarters has not been determined. Many believe it would be a model for other regional agencies. The party’s regional body has a big role to play in making the Southwest a national model as the Great Awo did until his demise. There are still many fine politicians in the region as there were in the First and Second Republics. What APC needs to do is fine-tune the style of governance of those periods to align with modernity and reality. This is how the Southwest will continue to remain the model for other regions in all ramifications.

    A ruling party is not only about ensuring good governance. It is also about showing direction for the people to follow in their march towards a harmonious life and accelerated development. That is what the APC should work for in the Southwest.