The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • Buhari’s celebrated speech at UNGA

    Buhari’s celebrated speech at UNGA

    President Muhammadu Buhari’s speech two Tuesdays ago at the 72nd session of the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has been celebrated as timely, inspiring and statesmanlike. An international news medium reportedly ascribed the speech — in tone, nuances, breadth and logic — to one delivered by the president of Africa. Other local media establishments and analysts also suggest that the speech was well received, and the president’s outing at UNGA a great one. Indeed, it is almost universally acknowledged that both the president’s presence at the UN and his speech did his image and the country’s reputation much good.

    The speech is textually much more coherent and accessible than most of his previous speeches. As a matter of fact, it is probably the first of his speeches to be universally acclaimed as befitting of his reputation and the country’s sub-regional and continental stature. In an uncanny way, it does appear like he is finding his feet in international affairs much faster than he is finding his feet domestically. Of course, in the final analysis, his legacy will more likely be defined by his domestic policies; but he can for the moment bask in the euphoria of sounding off with considerable aplomb on external relations issues.

    Even though he stretched his convictions and achievements a little beyond bounds in suggesting that the “frontiers of good governance, democracy, including holding free and fair elections, and enthronement of the rule of law are expanding everywhere, especially in Africa,” he can justifiably claim credit for the severity with which he and his fellow West African leaders resolved the Gambian logjam, forcing out Yahya Jammeh who lost the 2016 presidential election but refused to relinquish power. President Buhari also speaks glowingly of the rule of law though he shows considerable unease in submitting to its strictures, as evidenced by the many cases his government is battling with in the courts, and of democratic principles despite his apparent abhorrence for free speech which his government has sometimes creatively redefined as hate speech bordering on insurrection, secession, terrorism and disunity.

    Then, as if to demonstrate transcendental statesmanship, President Buhari speaks of the need by the world body to redress inequality by championing the cause of the poor, to tackle the ISIS problem, find a solution to the Rohingya tragedy in Myanmar, focus on the intractable Palestinian problem in Gaza especially, and cobble a global coalition to hammer out a peace deal or truce on the Korean peninsula by pressuring North Korea to abide by the treaty on nuclear non-proliferation. The speech is truly elevating and presidential, almost as if President Buhari had assumed continental leadership. In fact, compared with his prognosis on global conflicts, it pales into insignificance that he has been unable to find a formula to engender peace and stability in Nigeria. On the surface, therefore, the president addressed the right things with the right words, thus exuding the image of a statesman and conciliator.

    But on the whole, the speech essentially evaded the most germane issues that trouble Nigeria and the continent. The president spoke to the world about the world in details and perspectives the rest of the world, particularly the developed economies and military powers, are more eminently qualified to speak about. Despite the appeal of the address, it was impossible for President Buhari to match Europe, Russia, China, and the United States in terms of the global issues he addressed, issues that ironically resonated with many analysts locally and internationally.

    Though he spoke about other sundry issues like the Boko Haram menace and human trafficking, there were more pressing issues that could have been addressed with a philosophical and dialectical precision. The world enjoyed his speech, but they waited for the African perspective on the many issues that agitate the continent, dangerous issues that the rest of the world could neither address with the forthrightness the situation demands nor the resoluteness and resources required to curb and remedy them. There is nothing the president said on Gaza and the Palestinian nightmare that can move the matter towards a resolution. On North Korea, Nigeria is even more impotent. Neither Nigeria nor its president has any leverage whatsoever.

    As entrancing as his words were, and despite a large number of analysts swooning over the speech, it fares very badly when compared with the speech delivered at a similar UNGA by the strapping but now late Burkinabe leader, Captain Thomas Sankara, in 1984, a little over one year after he took power in a military coup. It was not so much that Captain Sankara gave a more poetic and resonating speech, an excerpt of which is published below, nor that he gave a confident and masterful delivery full of passion and vigorous language. What stood the Burkinable leader’s speech out was its brilliant focus delivered in trenchant rhetoric. He realised it was useless competing with powerful countries over issues which Burkina Faso could never hope to influence in any meaningful way, issues ruthlessly masterminded and influenced by world powers, big and medium.

    Captain Sankara also recognised that, like literature and arts, the world would be more fascinated by the African perspective of politics (local and foreign) and international affairs, for that perspective is in no way inferior to the rest of the world’s. He knew instinctively that the world waited to hear what he had to say about the economy, culture, leadership, gender equality, etc. He was of course impetuous and deeply provocative, and in the end fell to a conspiracy orchestrated by world powers and executed by local forces, but he displayed more depth and conviction, and more learning even, than many world leaders who strode the stage during his time.

    It was not expected that President Buhari should replicate Captain Sankara’s style. He was, however, required to replicate or even exceed the late Burkinabe leader’s substance. With a history of Nigeria falling victim to international conspiracy during ex-head of state Murtala Mohammed’s rule at the back of his mind, it was not expected that President Buhari would thumb his nose at world powers and embrace the provocations that led to the assassination of both Gen Mohammed and Captain Sankara. But having spoken glowingly of the rule of law and democracy, among many other great concepts and ideals, he was at least expected to illustrate his convictions with the African perspective, perhaps with a gusto and boldness that surpassed the rest of the world’s. If he didn’t, it was because he couldn’t. His speech is normally written for him, where Captain Sankara mostly wrote his own speeches. The Nigerian speechwriters penned for President Buhari what they thought everyone wanted to hear at UNGA, and they succeeded largely in making a huge but transient impression; Captain Sankara on the other hand penned what he fanatically believed, and left a short but lasting legacy.

  • On the eve of 57th anniversary

    BY the time confrontations between members of Indigenous People of Biafra or IPOB and the military were reported on September 10,  11 and 12 in parts of Abia State, Nigeria’s 57th independence anniversary was just over two weeks away. That is not what a country should be grappling with on the eve of such a momentous event. You would expect, at least in speeches and other gestures, a semblance of unity, an evaluation of the country’s journey, an appraisal of its accomplishments, and an assessment of its challenges with a view to addressing them. You expect a country on the eve of its independence anniversary to celebrate the moment and look forward to the future with hope, but that is not the lot of Nigeria at the moment.

    Two weeks back, there was a lot more to worry about beyond confrontations between the secessionist group and security personnel. There was a report of  vehicles being stopped in Abia and commuters asked whether they were northerners or not. Violence was also reported in Rivers State featuring IPOB members and Hausa residents. In no time there was tension in places far afield such as Katsina, Kaduna, Plateau and Niger states, whose governors moved quickly to calm nerves. In Jos, the Plateau State capital, where a clash reportedly claimed two lives, Governor Simon Lalong declared a curfew, threatening to invoke the powers at his disposal to enforce peace, and warning community leaders to do the right thing.

    It was a forgettable week in which IPOB agitations came to a head. Many of its members were reported killed in a clash with military personnel in an operation codenamed Python Dance II. That was not all. The military put a terror label on the organisation, while the governments of the five Southeast states, regarded by IPOB as Biafra heartland, also proscribed the group. Nnamdi Kanu, its leader, has since disappeared.

    The only good thing about the week was the peace moves by governors of northern states, as well as similar efforts by their Southeast counterparts. The northern governors visited the Southeast and Southsouth to reassure their kin there of their safety.

    Proscribing the secessionist group in the Southeast will remain a knotty issue, with IPOB itself calling the region’s governors slaves of the North, and some others insinuating that the governors are essentially insensitive to the plight of their own people. But if you are a governor in any of the states, or if you witnessed the civil war, you would appreciate why they took the action they did. With fake news and exaggerations common in the social media it probably would have taken a few more ugly developments for the entire country to go up in flames had the state governors not intervened.

    It would have been foolish, ugly and unfair had an Igbo-Hausa war broken out. As Imo State Governor Rochas Okorocha pointed out, IPOD’s secessionist agitations do not have the backing of majority of the Igbo, who are known, not altogether for their own good, to have more hefty investments elsewhere than in their homeland.

    Then consider why IPOB wants Biafra. There is a perception that the Muhammadu Buhari administration marginalises the Igbo, and that the president himself has essentially shut the region out of his government. While it is difficult to argue forcefully in defence of the administration, it is pertinent to point out that the Igbo have had little to be happy about long before President Muhammadu Buhari took office two years ago. If Southeast roads are horrible and there is hardly any federal government’s presence in the region, surely, that ugly situation predates the Buhari administration. What were the tangible gains of Ndigbo during the years of President Goodluck Ebele Azikiwe Jonathan? How many federal roads were paved, or major industries sited in the Southeast? It is probable that Dr Jonathan’s defeat in the 2015 polls and the perception that President Muhammadu Buhari is anti-Igbo helped to inspire IPOB.

    That said, the point has been made and reinforced here that the tragic outcome of the IPOB clash with the military amounts to killing a fly with the sledgehammer. The federal government and its security institutions will do well to learn to manage crisis better. Yes, IPOB has been reported to have now formed something of a security arm, a dangerous development, it must be said, but how much threat did they really pose before the clash in which they were clearly vanquished? Arresting and prosecuting lawbreakers is a good way to go in a democratic setting.

    As for Mr Kanu, his disappearance has thrown the spanner in the works. His court trial has been stalled. Were he around, and despite the court case, one way to tackle the agitation he leads is to keep talking to him and his group and addressing their misgivings, whether real or imagined.

    Nigeria is said to be swimming out of recession waters, and gradually pulling out of the clouds of inflation. There are also reports that huge amounts of money that used to end up in the vaults of thieves are now being declared, but how can the nation celebrate anything when on the eve of its 57th independence anniversary it is caught up in secessionist trouble?

  • Awo and the Ibadan declaration (2)

    Awo and the Ibadan declaration (2)

    In the first part of this piece, we examined the implications of the call in the ‘Ibadan Declaration’ for a return to the 1963 constitution with regard to the parliamentary form of government under which the country was governed during the First Republic (1960-1966). Reflecting on the issue through the intellectual prism of the great statesman, lawyer, politician and first Premier of Western Nigeria in the First Republic, Chief Obafemi Awolowo, we recalled the sage’s clinical dissection of the parliamentary form of government as well as the very strong reasons he advanced for jettisoning the British model on which the 1963 constitution was based. As far back as 1966, Awo had been a strong advocate of the adoption by Nigeria of the American-type presidential system with creative adaptations of some aspects of the French model of executive authority.

    Another key plank of the ‘Ibadan Declaration’, certainly its central thrust, is the proposal that the country revert to a region-based federal constitutional structure as obtained in the 1963 constitution. Specifically, proponents of the ‘Ibadan Declaration’ canvass that Nigeria should become a federation of six regions with each of the regions having its own constitution and the power to create its own states and local governments within its sphere of jurisdiction. The Declaration proposes a new revenue allocation formula with states allocated 50% of tax revenues, the proposed regions 35% and the Federal Government 15%.

    Under this proposed arrangement, local governments are not abolished but they are deprived of constitutional recognition and are totally subordinated to the states. Thus, the states and regional governments are liberated from the suffocating grip of the central government on one hand while, on the other hand, local governments are pushed further into the stultifying stranglehold of overbearing state governments, a situation which will now be further worsened by the interposition of a new layer of government at the regional level.

    One of the assumptions and often cited factors for the advocacy of a return to regionalism is the rapid pace of development witnessed in the regions in the first republic, particularly in the pace-setting Western Region under the leadership of Awolowo. Was the impressive rate of development in the immediate post-independence era solely a function of the existence of healthily competitive regions? Most certainly not. As we have argued in this space in the past, no less critical to the developmental successes recorded in the Western region, for instance, were the personal discipline, vision and exemplary leadership qualities of Awolowo; the astuteness, industry and competence of his Ministerial team; the restraining influence of a strong, ideologically-driven political party with clearly stipulated aims and objectives; the accountability of the government to the party that provided it an electoral platform as well as the careful and continuous nurturing of a development oriented and thoroughly professional civil service as the engine room of governance.

    Yes, the revenue allocation formula that enabled the regions to retain a substantial chunk of revenues derived from their jurisdictional territories at a time when agriculture was the mainstay of the economy was critical to the laudable progress of the regions. But this can easily be exaggerated. It is trite that the profusion of resources does not automatically translate into the judicious utilization of such for impactful developmental purposes. That, after all, is the enduring story of the reckless squandering of Nigeria’s munificent oil bounties at all levels of government for the better part of Nigeria’s post-independence history.

    In any case the much derided extant 1999 constitution does not enshrine a revenue allocation formula cast in marble. No constitution can realistically do so and enact a revenue sharing formula that is valid and unchanging across time and space. The 1999 constitution makes provision for a continuous revision of the revenue allocation mechanism every five years obviously to take account of changing dynamics and circumstances. If the political actors refuse to continuously adjust the revenue allocation formula  as constitutionally stipulated and the electorate is impotent to elect into office those who will do so, is the constitution to blame?

    It is instructive that Awolowo performed with the same distinction and record of excellence he exhibited as Premier of the West in the regional, federalist dispensation of the First Republic when he served as Federal Commissioner of Finance and Vice-Chairman of the Federal Executive Council (FEC) under military rule during the civil war. That was after the regions had been abolished and 12 states created.  In the same vein, the governors of Awo’s Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN), particularly Alhaji Lateef Jakande of Lagos State, acquitted themselves most creditably in terms of quality and impact of governance in the Second Republic. As the story of remarkable positive change and progress in Lagos State since the commencement of this dispensation in 1999 undeniably demonstrates, where there is the requisite leadership quality, programmatic vision and political will, the present constitution does not pose an insurmountable obstacle to meaningful development.

    There are those who propose a reversion to regionalism as a way of regaining the relative autonomy of the federating units and liberating the sub-national governments from the perceived tyranny of the centre. From this perspective, the prevalent state structure attendant on the abolition of the regions is the product of a conscious conspiracy to enhance the influence and power dominance of a section of the country, specifically an often nebulous and ill-defined north, to the detriment of other parts of the country. This may not necessarily be so. A more historically accurate reason for the pressures that resulted in the splitting of the regions into states was the strong determination of the minority ethnic groups to be freed from what they perceived to be the oppression and unjust hegemony of the major ethnic groups that dominated the various regions.

    As a notable student of Nigerian history and politics, Professor Richard Sklar, aptly puts it “The lessons of Nigerian political history teach that political regionalism is not compatible with the empowerment of a multiplicity of politicized ethnic groups. Once regions are established and endowed with political power, ethnic interests are routinely sacrificed for regional interests, which often prove to be interests articulated by the leaders of large ethnic groups. Smaller ethnic groups then look to the centre for protection against their overbearing neighbours within the region”.

    Interestingly, Chief Awolowo was himself one of the strongest advocates of the breaking up of the regions of the First Republic into smaller states. Although only the Mid-West Region was eventually carved out of the West in the First Republic to weaken and spite the ruling party in the region, the Action Group (AG), Awolowo relentlessly canvassed that smaller states be created to accommodate the demands of the minority ethnic groups in the Eastern and Northern regions. Again, to quote Professor Sklar in another article, ‘Nigerian Politics in Perspective’, “After independence, the anti-regionalist cause was espoused by Obafemi Awolowo, leader of the Action Group…”.

    In his book ‘Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution’, written in prison after a rigorous study of virtually every existing constitution in the world at the time, Awolowo made a vigorous case for the splitting up of the polity into eleven states based on what he described as the ‘linguistic principle’ while also canvassing the creation of an additional seven states made up of ethno-lingual groups, which were too small at the time to stand alone as separate states, thus bringing the states to a total of 18. Even then, he proposed that provision be made in the constitution for the creation of more states in the future. In Awo’s words, “…the constitution should provide that a linguistic unit could, under specified conditions, have its own separate state at any future time. Such conditions would include the viability both of the new state and the residual state…”

    True, the number of states mushroomed under the military with many of them being created arbitrarily with little or no concern for their economic viability. But it would appear to me that the structural challenges that confront the polity today do not necessarily stem from the number of states. The problem is that we have a so-called federal structure that emphasizes the sharing of largely oil-derived revenues rather than ensuring that the component states of the polity are economically viable and productive entities. Do we need to create an additional layer of government at the regional level to address this problem as advocated by the ‘Ibadan Declaration thus significantly escalating the cost of governance in an already over-administered polity? I don’t think so. The present multi state structure is not inherently incompatible with the practice of true federalism. No one doubts the imperative, indeed inevitability, of fundamental constitutional changes if Nigeria’s trapped potentials are to be unleashed for the benefit of her people. It is my view, however, that exploiting the opportunities provided by the current constitution to eliminate identified shortcomings and introduce necessary structural changes in accordance with stipulated procedures is far more preferable to embarking de novo on a constitutional journey of uncertain destination thus rendering the experiences of the past 18 years – good and bad – an utter and regrettable waste.

  • ‘Sovereignty, security and prosperity’

    The  topic  today was taken  out of Donald Trump’s  unique, first 40 minute  speech  to the United nations this week.  He  took  them  from  the Marshall  Plan which  the US   used  to build  Europe after  the massive destruction of the Second  World War and they were called ‘the pillars  of peace’. In    this period  characterized  by terrorism, migration, insurgency, violence  both man- made and natural,  it may sound far fetched to be referring to pillars  of peace  especially  in a speech in which  the same Trump  went on to threaten  the annihilation of a member nation of the UN, namely  North Korea, if it goes on provoking America  and its allies. But  really  while selling  the above concepts   as  pillars  of  peace  the boisterous  and mouthy  US  president simply  used the occasion  and speech to highlight that the  US under  his presidency is at  daggers  drawn with its  enemies. And like the old cowboys  of  the Wild  Wild West  the  US    has  its  hands on the gun ready  to shoot down real  and imagined  enemies both within  and without the UN  General  Assembly. Which in terms of ringing an alarm bell  on peace in our time, simply beggars description.

    Donald  Trump’s   main grouse in that speech  was that authoritarian, rogue   regimes  in the world  are trying  to spoil the values of freedom  and liberty  created  and prevalent  in a world put in place by the victors  of the second  world war,  and the US in his time will put  a stop  to that.  To  ensure  this he asked for strong, sovereign nations    and a coalition  of strong nations to ensure global  security  as a prerequisite  for  global  prosperity. That  means that  the speech   is  a  mere  ratification  and rationalization of  his America First campaign, even  as he asserted that    he   expected all  the world leaders to adopt  this   for  their   individual  nations  because  that is what  their  people in their various nations expect  them  to do. This  to the US president is crucial  because  according to him  –  To  put  it simply we meet  in a time of  both  immense    promise  and great  peril.  In   effect  Donald  Trump  has booted  diplomacy and internationalism  aside  and  has   invested  American  global  policy with a toga  of  Isolationism   and  Nationalism   marching  along  in a coalition of strong  sovereign  nations he has not identified.

    Anyway, one of the US allies, France through its president  has criticized Trump  on his cold shoulder  on Climate  Change Deal  and Concensus  and went further in an interview  with Amanpour   on  CNN  to say that  Nationalism always invariably  leads  to war.  But  the nations of the EU  or  western civilization, reconstructed   and   rebuilt    on the pillars  of   peace  speech in Trump’s reference to the Marshal  Plan,   are  leaderless  in taking issues with the US  under Trump.  According to experts on diplomacy, even  if  Trump  has  been bullish and incoherent, France  has  an untested leader, Britain  has  gone isolationist with Brexit  so  that  leaves the leadership of the EU  to  Germany led  by Chancellor Angela Merkel   and  critics  have been quick  to point out that in a fighting, violent  world now created by Trumpism, historical  German allergy  to war  stemming from the horror  of Nazi Germany makes German leadership  of the EU an improbable  and unlikely prospect.  That  possibility  and prospect  are  what we shall  appraise today  in the light of the three  pillars of peace identified by Donald Trump. Especially  now  that   the German  general elections takes place on 24th  September   tomorrow and  from  all  indications  Angela Merkel,  widely regarded  as the most  powerful woman  in the world  is likely  to win and her party the Christian  Democrats are expected  to be  in government alone or in a coalition with one or two  parties. It  is time therefore  to look  at  the Angela Merkel   leadership  and its grip  on the German electorate  which  is widely   expected to   see  her get  an amazing   fourth term  as Chancellor  of  Germany.

    In  a brilliant internet  article   Angela Merkel  was portrayed  as  ethical  rather  than ideological; reactive  not  pragmatic  and  detached rather than engaged  on issues.  That  can really  explain  why  she has   survived  many  dicey  political  and social  issues in recent times. The  two  that come to mind  are  the decision to let in about one  million migrants to  Germany  which  strained nerves in Germany  and earned the criticism and contempt  of Donald Trump.  The second  was her  U- turn  on gay  marriage  after asserting that marriage was between  a  man  and a woman  and the  human family  flows  from that.  To  those accusing her of  inconsistences  she has replied  that  –  Merkel  is Merkel, with all  the risks  and  side effects.   Her  critics have gone on to accuse her of being politically  rudderless  and  conveniently  shifting left  or right depending on  circumstances. To  her  prosperity  must  be earned  and  fairly distributed;  the state   must not boss  people around and must  support them;  refugees  must integrate; and  diversity  is strength. Merkelism, her  political  strategy  or manner  of leadership  has been described as the absence  of political anchors. This  then  is the leader the  Germans are expected  to return  to power tomorrow,  ceteris  paribus as the economists say  even though  we all  know that things are not always  equal. Let  us now see the type of opponent or leadership that the German leader faces in the new world of  Trumpism  under the threat  of nuclear  annihilation.

    Let  me note that I have  found  the verbal  artillery unleashed in defiance of sleek  diplomacy at the UN this  last  week  quite  fascinating and interesting. Trump called the N Korean leader Rocket  Man on a suicide mission. The  NK  leader Kim  branded Trump  deranged  and thinks that makes his nation’s  quest  for nuclear power plausible. To  me both leaders  have mutually underrated each  other. If  Kim  is suicidal, it is the US  that should  be careful  because a suicidal  leader is ready  to die and those opposing him should  avoid him, unless they want to go  to oblivion with him. Israel  has great experience on how  the arrival of the suicide bomber  changed  the balance of terror in favor of the Palestinians  in the power game  of Middle  East  politics. Secondly  if Trump  is really deranged as Kim  claims  then the world as we know it is no longer  safe  and Kim  should prepare his will and  sing O Lord  I am coming home, even in his native atheistic, Communist  Korea   because no  one can survive the fury  of the most powerful leader in the world whose  sanity  has been questioned stridently  both at home and abroad.

    Some  analysts have said that the NK leader is simply  asking for a suitable balance  of deterrence or terror in  seeking nuclear   power  and the US  should  accept  this but  the US   is not ready  for this. That  is the problem  that the world waits on  with  abated  breath  in a world of  dangerous balance  of deterrence  or terror characterized  by  boasts, intimidation  and  threats  -BIT.  Which  sadly  is  the new  verbal  artillery  world of both the Korean leader  and the US president. I call  it the new BIT  balance  of terror and pray it does not  consume us  all  as it  has consumed global  peace and  diplomacy  right before  our eyes in recent times. Once again  long live the Federal  Republic  of  Nigeria.

  • Awo and the Ibadan declaration (1)

    Awo and the Ibadan declaration (1)

    On Thursday, 7th September, a cross sec
    tion of Yoruba leaders and representa
    tives of diverse groups and interests from the region including the Yoruba in Kogi and Kwara states converged on the Lekan Salami Stadium, Adamasingba, Ibadan, to deliberate on and ratify a charter proposed as the position of the South-West on the path to the widely advocated restructuring of Nigeria. Whether or not one agrees with the proposals of the charter known as ‘The Ibadan Declaration’, there is no doubt that it constitutes an important document, which cannot be disregarded in any meaningful discussion on the path forward towards actualizing the Nigeria of our dreams. Some have questioned the legitimacy of the group’s claim to speak on behalf of the South-West since they do not have any mandate from the people. That is beside the point.

    The critical thing is that the conveners of the forum have demonstrated sufficient conviction in their beliefs to canvass their ideas and mobilize far and wide towards galvanizing popular support for their cause. Others with alternative views are equally free to propagate their position and organize for support around their vision of Nigeria. It is unlikely that a region as politically sophisticated and vibrant as the South-west can have a monolithic political position on restructuring. The beauty of democracy is for divergent ideas to contend for ultimate legitimation and the approval of the vast majority of the people through free, fair, credible and generally acceptable processes.

    Others have sought to fault the validity and credibility of the ‘The Ibadan Declaration’ by reference to the ‘questionable’ motives and political antecedents of some of the key actors who attended or sent representatives to the Adamasingba event. The chairman of the occasion, respected legal luminary, Chief Afe Babalola (SAN), to cite one instance, is said to be a ‘unitarist’ who kept his peace with and was completely at home with the centralist status quo during the 16 years that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was in power. Well, to impugn or question the motives behind an idea, proposal or recommendation is not to credibly disprove its validity or desirability. Rather, the ‘Ibadan Declaration’ must be examined with reference to its contextual historical adequacy, logical coherence and its internal analytic consistency.

    I intend in this piece to briefly interrogate some of the recommendations of the ‘Ibadan Declaration’ within the framework of the political and constitutional thought of Chief Obafemi Awolowo, first Premier of Western Nigeria in the First Republic and one of Nigeria’s most astute and foresighted statesmen ever. For one, many of the key figures in support of the ‘Ibadan Declaration’ swear by the late sage’s name. They claim that their vision of a restructured Nigeria based on a return to regionalism is inspired by Awolowo’s path-breaking and still unequalled performance as Premier of the Western Region; a period when the West was the indisputable pacesetter in the country in virtually every sphere of governance and development. Beyond this, it is exceedingly difficult to find anyone who had studied Nigeria’s constitutional problems as meticulously and rigorously as Awolowo, which enabled him to proffer solutions to the country’s socio-political and economic problems that still resonate today in terms of relevance, foresight and enduring efficacy.

    What then would have been Awolowo’s views on the key planks of the ‘Ibadan Declaration’, which include a return to the 1963 constitution, a reversion to a region-based federalism predicated on a six-zonal structure with each region having its own constitution and the adoption of a revenue allocation formula in which 50% of national revenues will go to states, 35% to the proposed regions and 12% to the Federal Government? Awolowo’s rigorously articulated positions on these issues can be found in his immortal books, ‘Thoughts on the Nigerian Constitution’ (1966) and ‘The People’s Republic’ (1968).

    It would appear to me that a return to the 1963 constitution necessarily implies the adoption of the parliamentary form of government which obtained in Nigeria under that constitution. Some have advocated a return to the parliamentary system on the ground that it substantially reduces the cost of governance, which is unnecessarily prohibitive and counterproductive under the presidential system currently in practice. On pages 255 to 263 of ‘The People’s Republic’ Awolowo undertakes a scathing critique of the parliamentary system contending that “Hitherto, we have, all of us, indiscriminatingly and unscientifically followed the British democratic practice, as if it was the best method…But we now know better. From the exposition which we have made, it is quite clear that the American method is better than the British, and that the French method under de Gaulle is better than the American…In the proposals which follow, we will try to adapt the best in the French and American methods and introduce our own innovations”.

    Thus, Awolowo advocated that the position of Head of State to perform purely ceremonial functions and play a ‘Father-of-the-Nation’ role to be separate from that of Head of Government, who would wield effective executive authority as provided for in the 1963 constitution. However, he canvassed that, just as in the American system, and contrary to what obtained under the 1963 constitution, the Head of Government “should be directly elected by an absolute majority of the registered electors of the Federation and of the Region respectively, voting at the election”.

    Continuing his penetrating critique of the form of government under the 1963 constitution, Awolowo writes, “The defects inherent in the former system are serious and harmful. It automatically gives rise to a situation in which the Head of Government looks upon his constituency as the only ladder by which he climbs to power, and regards his party together with his colleagues in Parliament or Legislature as constituting the only solid ground on which the ladder is based. Three things, therefore, matter to him above all else: his constituency, his party, and his parliamentary colleagues. It is these three, in the Nigerian experience, which he most sedulously cultivates and nurtures, to the comparative neglect of the people under his rule with the result that he commits acts or lays himself vulnerable to charges of parochialism, nepotism, and narrow-minded partisanship”.

    With the entire country or region as the constituency of the Head of Government at the different levels of government as the case may be, Awolowo contends, occupants of that office would be more inclined to be broad minded and less parochial in their worldview, political outlook and approach to governance. And if the Head of Government had any “tendencies towards parochialism or sectionalism”, Awolowo argues, he would have to “kill or curb them” if he still wanted to continue in business i.e. win future elections requiring that he enjoys broad, nationwide electoral support. One hopes that the ‘Buharists’ who defend a 95/5% appointment ratio into public offices that marginalizes entire sections of the polity take note of this.

    Another advantage of the American system noted by Awolowo is that, unlike the provisions of the 1963 parliamentary constitution, it does not compel the Head of Government to pick his ministers from among the legislature thus helping to encourage and strengthen the separation of powers between the executive and legislature. Furthermore, under the presidential system, the Head of Government is free to nominate his ministers from outside his party’s membership thus enabling him, as Awolowo put it “to assemble the best team of ministers which his party or region can offer”. It was in the light of this, among others, that Awolowo claimed that the 1979 constitution had largely incorporated ideas he had canvassed in his books and numerous public lectures over a decade earlier despite his declining to serve as a member of the Constitution Drafting Committee set up by the Murtala/Obasanjo administration under the chairmanship of the late Chief Rotimi Williams (SAN).

    If the 1963 parliamentary constitution is believed to be more cost effective than the presidential constitution currently in operation, what explains the Ibadan Declaration’s proposal of another layer of government at the regional level that would gulp 35% of national revenues according to the suggested new revenue allocation formula? Will this not unwarrantably increase the cost of governance? And in advocating a revenue allocation of 15% to the Federal Government, does the Ibadan Declaration take into consideration Awolowo’s sound advice in his address as Federal Minister of Finance to the Conference of Finance Commissioners in Kano on 23rd February, 1970, that one of the seven factors he identifies as critical to determining an appropriate revenue allocation formula for the country is the need “to put the Federal Government in sufficient funds to enable it not only perform its allotted functions in the national interest, but also to come readily to the aid of any state in need”.

    Expatiating on this point, the sage averred that “…if perchance, any state fell on an evil day, it should be the duty of the Federal Government, acting as the accredited agent of all the other states, to come to the aid of such a needy state, without delay. To this end, the Federal Government should be provided with sufficient funds. It will not be easy in the beginning to estimate how much this will be. But as time goes on, experience will guide us”.

  • A safety shot basketball

    Sports Minister Solomon Dalung ascribed the recent cup winning feat of Nigeria’s female basketball team to the reforms he introduced into the sporting federations. I thought it was an early celebration, considering the fact that the team was once the continent’s queens in the dunking game and could reinvent itself with proper management of the key details of cup winning teams. I thought it was a needless attempt to mock the other faction. Dalung, as minister, should be neutral in such matters. He should look at the bigger picture in all his decisions, which is Nigeria.

    The promptness with which Dalung ushered the triumphant girls to President Muhammadu Buhari for the reception attracted complaints from the wrestlers, especially Adekouroye who won a silver medal for the country at a World championship, the first ever by a black woman. She felt slighted by the minister, considering the fact that her feat was at a world championship whereas the girls are collective African queens.

    Has the minister taken Adekuoroye to President Buhari? I don’t think so. Don’t ask me for the reason if he couldn’t tell us that his reforms also gave Adekuoroye the silver medal. Have the Paralympians been received by the President? I don’t think so. These were world beaters at the 2016 Rio Paralympics. Tokyo 2020 Paralympics is three years away? What shall we tell the Paralympians now – that we have used and dumped them? This Animal Farm reward system is responsible for the exodus of our star athletes to other countries. I digress.

    As the minister was celebrating the girls, it struck me that the male team would soon defend its title. I wondered what the minister would tell the President if they failed to defend the trophy weeks later as we have seen. I’m not a prophet of doom. I reckoned that the Tunisians will do everything humanly possible to avert another defeat by the Nigerian side in front of their nationals. Nigeria beat Tunisia to win the trophy which they predictably lost 65-77 to the Tunisians in another final fixture. It has come to pass.  Dalung, how far?

    Aside, only one member of the last golden team reported to camp. They wanted the coach who led them to victory to defend the trophy. It made plenty of sense. But with an acrimonious change of guards at the helm of the Nigeria Basketball Federation (NBBF), the changes and the team’s consequent results shouldn’t surprise us. Those who followed every game of the Afrobasket tournament in Tunis until the finals this year will agree that they were nerve-wrenching matches, underlining the fact that the squad had defects. In fact, the team lost all its games in the third quarter, apparently it lacked stamina, a major coaching flaw, if you ask any avid basketball follower.

    This article isn’t one to mock the minister. It is rather, an appeal to him to seek audience with chieftains of FIBA to amicably resolve the impasse at the NBBF for the good of the game here. FIBA chiefs have an idea of what they want to do if we fail to reach an amicable resolution. It will be sad if FIBA appoints outsiders to run the game for us as its rules state. The November 30 deadline is enough time for the minister to decide using the acceptable parameters for conducting elections. One fact is clear. If Nigeria did the right thing at the last elections, FIBA would have recognised the new body without setting the November 30

    • Continued from back page

    deadline.

    Indeed, the feedbacks from the two factions suggest that there cannot be any truce. If so, will the minister have the courage to wield the stick on both factions and get new people to run the federation without rancour? The minister can appoint a five-man interim body to run the federation with a time frame and mandate to conduct elections ruling out all the combatants in the factions.

    With our women being the best in Africa and the men in the second best in the continent, it is clear that the home of the dunking game is here, despite the in-fighting in the NBBF and our derelict facilities. No surprises at our present rankings in Africa, if we remember that Nigeria produced one of the greatest male basketballers in the world, Hakeem ‘the dream’ Olajuwon, although he was nurtured to greatness by the Americans, to whom the dunking game is a religion.

    Dalung sir, it is instructive to remind you that 80 per cent of the players who won these laurels for us ply their trade in the United States (US). They should be the nexus of a new beginning in the dunking game, only if you play the role of an umpire. They have distinguished themselves based on the training they received outside. This foreign platform has given them the impetus to compete with the best in the world, an edge we have used to conquer Africa. We need to ask the foreign legion what operates where they are based.

    Our boys and girls are schooling and playing the game. Their exploits haven’t gone unnoticed by the Americans. What they want from our system to contribute to our basketball chain for producing talents is a template recognised by the government for them to do sports business.

    Every facet of the game is business – from the billboards inside the halls, the equipment, floors of the courts, scoreboard, changing plates, television rights and the coverage of the matches e.t.c. They will generate revenue to improve the game.

    The Americans have built their basketball around the schools. It is at the nursery level that the basics can be taught. We need to take sports to kids. This can only happen if we have schools that produce games masters and mistresses who know the fundamentals of games.

    Can Nigeria win a medal at the Olympics in basketball? Why not? Who would have thought that Nigeria could clinch the gold medal of the football event in Atlanta, considering the stature of the countries which participated in the games? Nigerians are known to give their best when underrated. We won the football gold medal because our players were doing well in the European leagues where the big boys played. It is the same setting now in basketball. Our boys and girls play in the US. The advantage is that they know those who are in their league. The fear factor for such bigger basketball countries is thrown into the lagoon. Interestingly, these big players know that we can compete with them. It is for this reason that Dalung must rescue this potential medal winning game from the brink.

    I’m excited about the prospect of having the Americans to introduce youth academies here where our kids can combine sports with academics, which is the asset every American carries with him/her at retirement.

  • That kerfuffle over IPOB and terrorism

    ORKING from answer to question, and after the deed had been done, the Muhammadu Buhari presidency on Sunday signed a proclamation to both proscribe and declare the Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) as a terrorist organisation. By Monday, the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) and Minister of Justice, Abubakar Malami, was at the Federal High Court in Abuja to give effect to the presidential proclamation. On Wednesday, Justice Abdu Kafarati, very swiftly granted the president’s wish and declared IPOB a terrorist organisation. It mattered little to all who took IPOB to task, including the military that pummelled it to submission last week, that IPOB was a non-juristic person, having not been registered anywhere in Nigeria, nor was it given fair hearing. They were all satisfied that the organisation, whether registered or not, had indeed troubled and menaced the country, and its leader was, after all, well known.

    It is curious that an organisation that operated rather so openly and did not carry arms, but organised itself with the hollow flourish of a militia and armed itself with rudimentary ‘attack’ implements, could elicit such profound and elaborate military, political and legal rigmarole. The rigmarole began with the Defence Headquarters (DHQ) of the Nigerian military last week, in the thick of the operation against IPOB, declaring IPOB a terrorist organisation. That declaration was immediately followed by the five state governments of the Southeast proscribing the Kanu-led organisation consequent essentially upon the military categorising it as a terrorist organisation. The governors were disdainful of any criticism of their actions, for they were quite clear in their minds that Mr Kanu had grown too big for his britches and represented, to them, a clear political competition for supremacy in the region.

    Shortly thereafter, eminent legal scholar and Chairman of the Presidential Advisory Committee Against Corruption (PACAC), Itse Sagay, a professor of law, weighed in and interestingly argued that though he had not adverted himself to the legal stipulations on the matter, he believed that the declarations by both the military and the Southeast governors were in order. According to him, “Whilst I’m not sure of the legal parameters of that declaration, in practice, I agree. If you look at it, we’re very lucky that this thing did not get out of hand. They (IPOB) were coming in their thousands, establishing road blocks, bringing out Northerners – for what, I don’t know – to kill some of them? If that is allowed, then the country is finished. Then they burned down a police station, killed a policeman. For Christ’s sake, even if you want Biafra, you don’t have to be violent. If you look at the words that Kanu uses on the social media, how he has described our President and the rest of us as living in a zoo – abusive, violent, intemperate words – kill, kill, kill, all those in my view, constitute in totality acts of terrorism in which they can push undiscerning youths into rage and violence, which can be destructive.”

    While Prof Sagay seems to give the impression that the political exigencies of the IPOB agitations apparently justified the declarations, Senate President Bukola Saraki was adamant about the inconsistencies of the declarations with the position of the law. He should know, as a lawmaker himself. In his opinion expressed on Monday, Dr Saraki says: “I (also) wish to state that the announcement of the proscription of the group known as Indigenous People of Biafra (IPOB) by governors of the Southeast states and the categorisation of the group as a ‘terrorist organisation’ by the Nigerian military are unconstitutional and do not follow due process. Our laws make clear provisions for taking such actions and without the due process being followed, such declaration cannot have effect. I am sure the President will do the needful by initiating the right process. This will go a long way in demonstrating to the world at large that we are a country that operates by laid down process under every circumstance. So, those who have been hammering on this point should maintain their cool.”

    Asked on the same day the senate president advertised his perspective on the matter whether the military had the right to declare IPOB as a terrorist organisation in view of the law, the Chief of Army Staff, Lt.-Gen. Tukur Buratai, all but agreed that the proclamation really ought to come from the presidency. Said he: “As regards the proscription, this is what I want to give: the federal government will take a final decision on that. There are guidelines as provided in the Terrorism Act and I am sure the relevant government agencies will take appropriate steps whether to arrest or whether to do any other actions and we will receive the appropriate directives from the authorities.” It was clear he had cleverly backtracked. But what does the law itself say?

    Without doubt, the Terrorism (Prevention) Act, 2011, backs Dr Saraki’s position, a fact the Buhari presidency itself apparently realised shortly after the military jumped the gun on the proscription matter. The law is clear on the issue. According to Section 2 of the Act, under the subhead ‘Proscribed Organisation’, a process must be followed to achieve that declaration in order to avoid allegations of arbitrariness.

    1. Proscribed Organisation.

    (1).    Where two or more persons associate for the purpose of or where an organization engages in—

    (a)     Participating or collaborating in an act of terrorism;

    (b)     promoting, encouraging or exhorting others to commit an act of terrorism; or

    (c)     setting up or pursuing acts of terrorism, the judge in Chambers may on an application       made by the Attorney General, National Security Adviser or Inspector General of Police on the approval of the President; declare any entity to be a proscribed organization and the notice should be published in official gazette.

    Finally, in two dizzying days, the AGF kick-started the process and by Wednesday, Justice Kafarati, making no pretence about any lengthy argument on the matter, had quickly affirmed the president’s proclamation and declared the group a terrorist organisation. This outcome was inevitable, given the fervour of the moment, the temper in Aso Villa, the near unanimity of opinion and panic among the governors of the Southeast, and the frenzied plans by nearly all of the North and huge swaths of the South to avoid what they believed was the likelihood of war if the agitations and Mr Kanu’s militia drills had continued.

    It seemed likely that before signing his proclamation and the military making its declaration on IPOB, the president had reached the governors of the Southeast, all of whom were either locked in a supremacy battle with the irreverent, defiant and megalomaniacal Mr Kanu, or felt threatened by him. Whichever way he turned, it was clear the IPOB leader’s goose was cooked. By Wednesday, the matter, legally speaking, was over, and the misfortune of the would-be revolutionary had become grist for the presidency and its collaborators. In addition, By Wednesday, it was also clear that Dr Saraki had spoken up and acted sensibly in defence of the law contrary to the presidency that had seemed either not to know the law or had intentionally defied it.

    About one week after the insane punch and counterpunch in Abia State between the army and IPOB ended, and a few days after the Information minister, Lai Mohammed, had scorned those he described as ‘fixated on due process’, in other words, the rule of law, the judicious got the simple impression that there was nothing the presidency and the state governments did or said that could not have been otherwise done in accordance with the rule of law. Mr Kanu’s IPOB was undisciplined in pursuing their grievances. It is sadly also clear that the two levels of government were even more undisciplined and clumsy in summoning the constitutional powers eminently at their disposal to fight the Southeast organisation.

    However, all said, labelling and proscribing IPOB as well as pummelling and scattering it is just one small and in fact easy step in the whole fracas. The disease has been left virtually unattended, if not aggravated. Even if the government will not learn anything from the whole skirmishes, from the needless kerfuffle, surely it is sensitive enough to learn the bureaucratic and constitutional lessons it would need subsequently to fine-tune its handling of some of the existential challenges that are certain to grow in leaps and bounds in the coming months and years.

  • Kanu’s needless lionization

    Kanu’s needless lionization

    This column has been consistent in insisting that the President Muhammadu Buhari administration should call the bluff of the leader and members of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Nnmadi Kanu, and firmly assert its authority to defend, protect and preserve the territorial integrity of the country as the custodian of a legitimate electoral mandate until the expiration of its tenure and the next elections are held. Ever since his release from jail on bail, Kanu has violated with impunity the stringent terms he agreed to in order to regain his liberty. His incendiary rhetoric against the Nigerian state and vituperative provocations against other ethno-cultural groups in the country have only worsened to the point of delusive megalomania with the Igbo leadership elite making feeble efforts to rein him in.

    Perhaps buoyed by the godlike adoration of his apparently no less misguided and ill-informed followers, Kanu has acquired an exaggerated and inflated sense of self-importance in which he sees himself as being above the law. His photographs have been posted online seated on a monarchical ‘throne’ of dubious provenance. Pictures of his disciples scrambling to kiss his feet have gone viral on social media. If his admirers’ choose to transmogrify him into deity, it is their business and their right.  The truth, however, is that until he succeeds in actualizing the creation of his idyllic state of Biafra, Kanu is fated to live within the stipulated legal limits and boundaries of the Nigeria he contemptuously dismisses as a Zoo.

    Not only has Kanu’s IPOB vowed to prevent the governorship elections in Anambra State scheduled for November from holding, he has openly incited his members to violence against Christian leaders of Yoruba origin who dare step on Igbo soil. He has launched what he describes as a Biafra secret service. Daring the Nigerian state to re-arrest him, Kanu has called on his supporters to burn down the Nigerian ‘Zoo’ if any such attempt is made. No government will fold its arms and allow its authority and the stability of the polity under its jurisdiction to be so cavalierly and recklessly undermined. That obviously informed the decision of the Attorney General of the Federation, Mallam Abubakar Malami (SAN) to seek a court order for the re-arrest and detention of Kanu for violating his bail conditions.

    It is, however, unfortunate that rather than keep its cool and continue the process of bringing Kanu to book within the framework of the law as the AGF has so commendably begun, the Nigerian State has allowed itself to be provoked into overreacting to the sheer idiocy and buffoonery of Kanu and his supporters. I find it difficult to understand the rationale behind the ongoing show of force in the restive South-East region ominously codenamed ‘Operation Python Dance II’ by the Nigerian military.

    Yes, the armed forces have the right to undertake military exercises in any part of Nigeria in the pursuit of its constitutional responsibility to protect and defend the country’s territorial integrity and cohesion. They have a duty to demonstrate their capacity to contain and neutralize any contestants of the legitimate monopoly of the instruments and techniques of coercion within a stipulated territorial jurisdiction, which is the distinguishing characteristic of the state.

    However, has IPOB become such a potent military threat as to necessitate an exercise on the region-wide scale of ‘Operation Python Dance II’? It is doubtful. Kanu’s empty posturing and baseless boasting really constitute no more than what the late Chuba Okadigbo would readily dismiss as the ‘ranting of an ant’. He must be feeling on top of the world to have the Nigerian army taking him so seriously. IPOB ought to have been at best treated as an irritant by the Nigerian State and contemptuously left to the Nigeria Police to deal with while the professionally furtive, and thus more dangerous, secret intelligence services deploy their training in stealthy operations to insidiously penetrate, monitor and ultimately neutralize the belligerent group.

    As it is, ‘Operation Python Dance II’ has conferred on Kanu an importance and status he does not deserve. It creates the impression that Kanu’s significance encompasses the entire South-East, which it does not. Yes, his exuberant supporters may be more vocal and active than the silent majority. There is hardly proof that IPOB enjoys the support of a substantial stratum of Igbo land in the group’s quest for secession and the violent implications of its methods. Millions of enterprising Igbos not just in the South-East but across the country are working very hard daily to earn a living and many of them are doing very well against all odds. Resort to war must be the last thing on the minds of such industrious Igbos. But exercises like ‘Operation Python Dance II’ can only stir up emotions and drive otherwise indifferent and uncommitted Igbos into the welcome embrace of IPOB.

    Without meaning to disrespect the professionalism of the military high command, it is doubtful that the implications of ‘Operation Python Dance’ were rigorously thought through before the exercise was embarked upon. IPOB has naturally responded by playing the victim and underdog to whip up sentiments in its favour. It has sent unarmed hoodlums to senselessly hurl stones and other missiles at fully armed soldiers knowing well that the latter are more likely to respond disproportionately no matter their theoretical rules of engagement thus eliciting popular outrage locally and globally. On the propaganda front, Kanu’s IPOB has thoroughly outwitted the military effectively utilizing social media for the purposes of disinformation and propaganda towards the achievement of its objectives.

    In Abia state, where the military show of force was flagged off, the impending breakdown of law and order that ensued, resulting in the burning down of a police station, attacks on military posts, vandalization of a hospital, random fatal shootings by unidentified gunmen, throwing of petrol bombs, setting up of bonfires on major highways and the threat to the lives of northerners resident in the state, forced the governor, Mr. Okezie Ikpeazu, to impose a three day dusk to dawn curfew in the first instance. The deteriorating situation obviously compelled the military to accede to the withdrawal of soldiers from the streets of Aba and Umuahia even though it maintained that ‘Operation Python Dance II’ would continue across the region as planned.

    Meanwhile, the Abia state security crisis triggered a reaction in Plateau State where the state governor, Mr. Simon Lalong, on Thursday imposed a dusk to dawn curfew on the Jos metropolis following fears of possible ethnic violence by elements angry at the rumoured harassment of northerners in Abia. This demonstrates how easily combustible the entire country is at present and why wise statesmanship rather than unthinking display of brainless brawn is Nigeria’s most critical need of the moment.

    Even if ‘Operation Python Dance II’ was necessary and justifiable, was there any need for the soldiers to carry their fiery dance right on to the street where Nnamdi Kanu lives at Afara Ukwu in Abia State? This, of course, only provided IPOB with ammunition to fuel its propaganda to the disadvantage of the military. The indirect Lionization of Nnmadi Kanu through the ongoing ‘Operation Python Dance II’ is absolutely needless. Kanu and his IPOB are not synonymous with the Igbo and the South-East. If he has so brazenly violated the terms of his bail and contemptuously threatens the peace, stability and unity of the country, the IPOB leader should simply be picked up with minimum fuss and made to face the law without the current unnecessary and wasteful military razzmatazz.

    And yesterday’s purported proscription of IPOB by the South-East Governors Forum can only complicate matters and be ultimately counter-productive.

  • Tunji Olaopa and the joys of purposeful learning (2)

    Our founding fathers, particularly Chief Obafemi Awolowo, placed premium on the role of western education in development and enunciated and implemented policies designed to liberate large numbers of their people from the strangle hold of illiteracy and ignorance. The Western Regional government’s free education programme, under the inspiration and leadership of Awolowo as Premier of the region in the First Republic, was the most audacious and path-breaking initiative to make affordable education available to the vast majority of the people. Not only did this vision of democratizing education lay the foundation for the perceived edge enjoyed by the South West in the socio-economic and political development of the country, it spurred the Northern and Eastern regions to strive for competitiveness in this critical sphere. But free education, for Awolowo, was not just a campaign slogan or a tool for political propaganda. Giving his rationale for prioritizing mass education, Awolowo once declared with characteristic pungency: “The crucial point, which I want our rulers, planners and official advisers to bear in mind, is that man is the sole dynamic in nature, and that accordingly, every individual Nigerian constitutes the supreme economic potential which this country possesses…Therefore, other things being equal, the healthier his body and the more educated his mind, the greater will be his morale and the more efficient and economical he becomes as a producer and consumer”. Unfortunately, this rather overly materialist and instrumentalist notion of education in Awolowo’s political philosophy has overshadowed his other insights on the subject, which reflect and demonstrate an appreciation of Dr. Tunji Olaopa’s adumbration of purposeful education as an all round, lifelong process that transcend the narrow boundaries of formal learning and instruction. In a lecture delivered at the Centenary Hall, Ake, Abeokuta, on Monday, 22nd January, 1973, titled ‘As a man thinketh’, Awolowo advocated not just the proper nourishment and nurturing of the physical body but also the continuous cultivation, through formal and informal learning, of the objective and subjective or conscious and unconscious phases of the human mind.

    While Awolowo recognizes the indispensability of the relationship between a living pupil or student and a living teacher in a formal, structured learning process, he also stresses the importance of informal learning by the individual both through the observation of nature as well as in interaction with other fellow human beings in society. In the statesman’s words, “The motto of a school of practical psychology in Britain is ‘mens sana in corpora sano’ – a sound mind in a sound body. This maxim, in my view, epitomizes the essential and cardinal purpose of education, and should be the fundamental basis of any educational policy that can be regarded as sound and utilitarian”. One of the definitions of education accepted by Awolowo is helping the individual “to evolve an integrated personality”.

    But then, what constitutes a sound mind or an integrated personality? Here, Awolowo and Olaopa are on the same page. Indeed, Awolowo’s insights help us to apprehend better Olaopa’s articulation of the imperative of consciously and deliberately encouraging learning as a lifelong process that includes formal training in a specialized discipline but also encompasses the sustained cultivation of ethical consciousness, broadness of perspective and horizon, tolerance, compassion and a high sense of individual and moral responsibility. As Awolowo explains, “All the functional attributes of the subjective mind can be summed up in one word – THINKING. In other words, any scheme for the instruction, cultivation and development of the subjective mind must be designed to make the pupil or student THINK – to think constructively, rigorously, scientifically and morally on objects and subjects which are, in every respect, beneficial both to himself and others.

    This is to say that all the attributes of the subjective mind must be developed with the aim of employing them not for self-regarding ends alone, but for ends that are certain to benefit the thinker and others as well. ‘Love thy neighbor as yourself’ is, therefore, not just a religious tenet; it is also one of the laws of the development of a morally constructive subjective mind”. Awolowo, in my view, concisely encapsulates Olaopa’s thesis of joyful, healthy and productive learning in one word – love, which is the very antithesis of the greed and self-centeredness that undergirds the ‘excessive materialism, nepotism, corruption and aggressive selfishness’, the prevalent ills of our contemporary society that provoked Dr. Olaopa’s book. If you learn to truly love your neighbor, you will not covet or steal his or her property or loot society’s common patrimony to the detriment of the public good.

    You are unlikely, motivated by love, to want to criminally accumulate billions in cash and physical assets thus retarding the development of the society of which you are a component part. The thinking, morally conscious and sensitive individual that Awolowo believes will be the product of the right type of education, will continually ask himself four critical questions outlined by Olaopa that can empower him to reconnect with the human essence, “Who am I? What is my purpose in life? What is my role in society? How should I relate to others?” The ‘educated’ individual who does not constantly engage in this kind of lifelong introspection cannot involve into what Olaopa describes as “the TOTAL PERSON – that is a person who not only knows but is also able to act well; someone who combines knowledge with virtue…a person whose knowledge and skill are infused with moral and social dimensions”. There is no doubt that our educational institutions understand this very well because the certificates for which their graduates qualify are awarded purportedly for ‘learning and character’.

    Given the state of moral decadence and ethical famishment in our society, a condition of collective putrescence which even most first class products of our educational institutions have been unable to transcend, the character side of the equation is certainly grossly deficient. It is obvious that the acquisition of specialized skills for professional practice must only be complementary, not an alternative to, the cultivation throughout life of the requisite wisdom for healthy, useful and constructive citizenship. The author aptly quotes Dr. Waziri Junaidu who avers that “I cannot see how being experts in say geography or physics or a given language alone can produce an honest, disciplined and considerate good citizen, if the expert has received no injection of noble and lofty ideas pertaining to his duties to his fellow countrymen and to humanity at large and to his self criticism, his accountability, etc”. Dr. Olaopa identifies five factors that militate against the institutionalization of the kind of all embracing education he advocates in our society.

    These are the practice of politics as the no holds barred pursuit of power devoid of moral purpose; the persistence of underdevelopment and the associated pervasive poverty that helps to magnify crass materialism; declining social values that diminish the possibility of civilized living; religious bigotry that promotes human degradation and exploitation to the denigration of true spirituality and, lastly, the crisis of values in our education that discourages “the balanced growth of the total personality of man through the training of man’s spirit, intellect, rational self, feeling and bodily sense”. To confront and transcend this debilitating condition, Dr. Olaopa argues that a leadership re-orientation that de-emphasizes material accumulation as the measure of achievement and self-worth and elevates more ennobling and enduring values is imperative.

    This can, however, not be achieved, he contends without the emergence of a critical mass of the citizenry determined to organize and actively work towards reclaiming and liberating our country from the flourishing ills that obstruct the actualization of the country’s caged potentials. In a no less insightful and educative foreword to the book, Professor Tony Ghaye, Director, Reflective Learning – UK, offers useful tips, citing his own personal experiences, on how the individual can move from the perception of learning as a painful experience that involves laboriously cramming the head with facts to be regurgitated at examinations, to embrace learning as a fulfilling and joyful enterprise indispensable for a truly successful and maximally productive life. As he put it, “I remember feeling I had to cram everything into my head. It was painful! And then, when the exam was over, I felt the relief of deleting it. What I had learned was disposable. I could get rid of it”. Ruminating on such issues as learning as emotional labour, why some people learn better than others, how to learn with others and learning to trust, Professor Ghaye prepares the reader to enthusiastically embrace Dr Olaopa’s vision of becoming ‘a reflective lifelong learner’.

  • League without end

    In developed countries, sport is business because deliberate attempts are made to create a product which is packaged in such a way to make it a brand. It is only when it is a brand that connects with the people that the blue-chip companies seek to identify their products and services with it. However, such a brand shouldn’t be linked with any unit that thrives in controversies and sharp practices. Otherwise the big players would look elsewhere for less controversial brands.

    In Nigeria, our reliance on government sponsorship for sports has blinded our administrators to the need for creating business activities around the existing 29 sports. All sports are business concerns in countries that understand how each entity can create employment, mobilise the citizenry and improve health. Our administrators muddle up the finer details of creating brands at critical moments. A case in point is the ‘concluded’ 2016/2017 Nigeria Professional Football League (NPFL).

    Our sports administrators hardly learn from their mistakes because there are no structures to plug loopholes of the previous season. Otherwise, how would they present Plateau United of Jos with its trophy as the Nigeria Premier League champions for the 2016/2017 season yet three clubs (Wikki Tourists of Bauchi, Gombe United of Gombe and Shooting Stars Sports Club (3SC)) are still waiting to know which one of them will be demoted? Is this not a joke?

    Battles involving teams climax any league season, with the organisers focusing their attention on the six teams at the top and the last six teams at the lower rung of the ladder, with five matches to go.

    In fact, on the last day of the league, matches involving the top four are closely monitored, especially if it is a tight race. In the case of the NPFL, Plateau United and MFM FC of Lagos stood a chance of winning the title. The difference was that Plateau had its last game at home against Enugu Rangers while MFM had a difficult game against El-Kanemi FC in Maiduguri. It would have been easy to wave off MFM. But it is a team that has remarkable records away from home.

    Pundits felt that MFM should be taken seriously, considering the fact that the games involving Plateau and the Lagos sides would be shown live on television. These purists reasoned that Rangers, incidentally the defending champions, could come up with their Spartan fighting spirit to shock the Jos side at home. Such is the dynamic nature of the beautiful game. For the records, Plateau beat Rangers 2-0. El-Kanemi stopped MFM’s away record with a 2-1 victory over the Olukoya Boys.

    The League Management Company (LMC) did very well in covering the two matches to decide the winners on television. But the LMC chiefs ought to have ensured that the relegation dog fight was closely monitored. If they had given the games involving these relegation battlers some serious thoughts, officials of 3SC won’t be disturbing the media with hopeless analysis that it could escape relegation if Gombe beat Wikki in Gombe. The game in Gombe ended in a fiasco with part of the stadium premises burnt by irate fans who came to the stadium after rumours of a sellout in favour of Wikki. Ordinarily, a game involving Gombe and Wikki Tourists of Bauchi should be a stroll in the park for the team that needs assistance. Gombe used to be part of Bauchi, which is Wikki’s home. Historically, the rivalry between Gombe and Wikki is so fierce. It would please already relegated Gombe FC’s fans to drag Wikki down than to be beaten by their worst enemy.

    I’m miffed by the stoic silence of the organisers. LMC’s COO comes from Gombe. He knows the fierce rivalry between both teams. This writer is forced to ask what mechanisms the league body has been adopted to forestall this imminent fiasco. LMC’s COO is adept in the administration of the league. My fear is that he may have chosen to be neutral in order not to be accused of being partial.

    In other climes, the LMC COO would have been present in Gombe to see things for himself. I won’t blame the COO because Nigeria is a different kettle of fish. As it is, the game has been taken to the political realm, leaving either 3SC or Wikki condemned to relegation.

    It should be an easy verdict; awarding the three points and three goals should go to Wikki, who were leading 1-0 until the game became violent. But the LMC has ruled against awarding boardroom points. Stalemated matches are usually replayed at the same stadium under closed doors, with the game continuing from when it was stalemated.

    Will LMC still stick to its rules by continuing the game in Gombe? Will the referees who may still be nursing injuries have the courage to handle the game again? Will Wikki not insist that the game is continued outside Gombe, given what they experienced in the stalemated game? This kind of show of shame won’t encourage the business community to identify with the domestic league. It explains why our local league players cannot compete with their foreign counterparts.

    Sadly, the league has not been able to get a credible title sponsor since telecommunication giants, Globacom ended its sponsorship package. The best way to get the corporate world to sponsor the league is for the matches to be shown live. That way, sponsors can either create a window which they hope to support or find the cash the LMC’s marketing packages, which will improve on the weekly matches.

    Our administrators blame the media for highlighting the flaws of establishments, forgetting that there isn’t another way to report the truth. How can anyone distort the fact that the result of the match between Wikki and Gombe hasn’t been decided, four days after it was played? For instance, the controversial incident involving Liverpool’s striker Sadio Mane and Manchester City has been decided, yet the Liverpool game held earlier than the Wikki game.

    With the Liverpool game shown live, it was easy for pundits to critically analyse every detail of the crunchy tackle in slow motion to see if Mane’s tackle was deliberate or an accident. It didn’t shock Barclays English Premier League followers that Mane’s three-match ban was upheld after Liverpool’s management appealed for a reduction of the matches that Mane would miss. The organisers stood by the referee’s decision because they had done their homework. The game was played last Saturday. A decision was taken the following Tuesday, less than 72 hours after it was played. No discussions. All the parties agreed on the outcome.

    LMC’s N7 million sanction on Gombe may look weighty but it doesn’t solve the problem caused by the urchins.  Continuing the game in Abuja would have been avoided if the organsiers had taken adequate precautionary measures before the game. What if Gombe wins the game in Abuja? Would it not be a subtle way of asking clubs to take the laws into their hands if they smell foul play?

    The LMC has improved the domestic league. There is the urgent need to fix security at match venues before, during and after matches. The LMC must identify high-risk matches and send credible officials to such games, which must be shown live. The LMC must get the Inspector General of Police (IGP) to send a special squad to match venues with instructions to arrest people with unsportsmanlike conduct, which would have been captured by the television crew inside the stadium. Those arrested must be investigated and prosecuted. These urchins are no spirits. We know them but we have been tolerating their nuisance weekly.

    Perhaps, this is the time to ask the Inspector General of Police whose duty it is to ensure security in any gathering. How come the police are disinterested in securing our match venues, knowing that football is an emotional game where some criminals can take the law into their hands?

    Dear Inspector General of Police, thugs, roughnecks, and urchins storm the stadium with raised chests, warning that they are around and not scared to repeat the mayhem. This impunity won’t occur if security operatives whisk them away for punishment. Others will behave properly. The IGP should, as a matter of urgency, ask Police Commands in the states where matches are played to storm the venues before a referee is killed simply because some fans are unhappy with a decision. Teams which suffer from such unruly behaviour return home to await their hosts in the second leg game.

    We shouldn’t wait until deaths are recorded in the stadia before taking action. Match commissioners must insist on having 80 policemen to man security. The LMC must get the Commissioners of Police in the states where games are held to post their men to the stadia. The few security operatives seen in most stadia are supporters of clubs. You see them where referees are molested but no arrests are made. Where arrests are made, eminent personalities ensure that there is no prosecution in the law courts.

    The LMC has taken many of these urchins to court, with few let off the hook or given a slap on the wrist. But with the magnitude of injuries inflicted on referees, the three fans caught in Bauchi should be allowed to go through the court process. The media must follow this case to its logical conclusion.

    The backlash from the fans’ misdemeanours explains why the league is struggling to have a sponsor. Dikko et al have done well to reinvent the workings of the league. But these criminals’ invasion of match venues is a big smear on the game. It must stop.