The Nation Newspaper

Category: Saturday

  • 100 years of amalgamation: a country or a nation?

    100 years of amalgamation: a country or a nation?

    While the words, nation and country are often used interchangeably, according to the dictionary, they are not really synonyms semantically speaking.  Google has this to say about the two, “A nation is a large group of people with similar characteristics and culture. A country is a geographic region that has boundaries and borders. The important thing to remember is that a country has its own national government while a nation has its own national character”.

    Nigeria as it exists today was an economically expedient creation of the British colonial government with Lord Frederick Lugard the then governor of both the Northern Nigeria Protectorate and the colony and Protectorate of Southern Nigeria. Socially, the word Nigeria has been explained as, ‘Niger Area’ having been suggested by the then partner of Lugard, Flora. There are two prominent rivers in Nigeria, rivers Niger and Benue with a confluence in Lokoja in the present day Kogi state. The amalgamation took place on January 1, 1914.

    The amalgamation is now a century old and the independence of Nigeria 64 years old. Looking back at the amalgamation, nothing prompted the action besides political economy. The Southern Protectorate then had a very buoyant economy and the colonial administration sought to balance out the Northern deficit with the Southern surplus. In economic terms, the situation has not really changed. The poverty index still tilts heavily against the North.

    Read Also; FULL LIST: 22 sacked, suspended Ministers in Nigeria from 1999 – 2024

    Out of school children in Nigeria seems to be the global highest with more than 50% of the number that stands at about 20million in the northern region of the country. Malnutrition, maternal and child mortality, illiteracy and other major indices of underdevelopment weigh heavily against the North. Presently, the economy of the region is not faring better either as social crimes like insurgency, banditry, kidnapping and herdsmen attacks on farmers have not only impacted socio-economic lives of the region but invariably the whole country.

    Since the amalgamation, there have been debates both at forml and informal fora about the viability and value of the amalgamation.  Given the google definition of the words, nation and country, Nigeria seems straddled on the fence of both terms. Even more than six decades after independence, the constituent units of Nigeria seems to be the proverbial oil and water – difficult to mix.

    The Roundtable Conversation believes that the political elites before and after independence have contributed in the alienation that has happened between the people of the two regions. In 1952, Sir Abubakar Tafawa Balewa had said  ““…the Southern people who are swarming into this region daily in large numbers are really intruders. We don`t want them and they are not welcome here in the North. Since the amalgamation in 1914, the British Government has been trying to make Nigeria into one country, but the Nigerian people are different in every way including religion, custom, language and aspiration. The fact that we`re all Africans might have misguided the British Government. We here in the North, take it that `Nigerian unity` is not for us.” (As cited by A. Adeleye, “Amalgamation of 1914, Was it a mistake”? Vanguard, Lagos, May 18, 2012).

    He went on to become the post-independence Prime Minister from 1960 – 1966. Even though he voiced his opinion, politicians from other regions possibly shared his views about their own regions especially after the first and subsequent coup d’etats that seems to have poisoned the political space. Even the first coup was seen as a regional agenda and the pogrom that preceded the civil war cannot be said to be unconnected with spoken and unspoken regional alliances.

    The post-civil war political rhetoric and the inability of the then head of state, Gen. Yakubu Gowon (Rtd.) to keep to his promise of the three Rs; Rehabilitation, Reconstruction and Rehabilitation did little to reunite the amalgamated people. This in a way set the pace for further divisions as the regions started being split into states trying in a way to isolate the Igbo speaking areas. The creation of the twelve states led to the creation of 19 states then to 36 states all by military governments. The reasons were as political as they were divisively incoherent as most of the states are insolvent and not viable. While there has been political capital from the splitting of the amalgamated regions into 36 states, the economic value has been a total disaster a Nigeria is seemingly the poverty capital of the world with governments not serving the people.

    Have there been benefits from the amalgamation 100 years after? This is debatable.  To many scholars, in reality, the regions seem to have been disempowered economically as the regional economic viability seems to have waned. The centralization of power has economically weakened the constituent regions as attention seems to be on oil that came following the discovery of oil in commercial quantity in Oloibiri in Bayelsa state. Nigeria made so much money from oil that the then head of state, Yakubu Gowon had in what many saw as a juvenile exuberant rant boasted then that money was not Nigeria’s problem but what to do with it.

    The regions became very indolent and deviated from their areas of economic advantage and focused on oil money. Mismanagement of government structures by successive governments, whether military or civilian has led to the impoverishment of the entity called Nigeria. The political class seemingly corrupted by the military has done nothing to upgrade the country economically. Nepotism based on regional patronage and weaponization  of ethnicity and religion have been the bane of Nigeria as a country.

    Nations are not divine gifts, they are made by humans who value the human family in ways that encourage them to bring people together and optimally manage the values of differences. It needs leaders with vision and a defined mission to coalesce a people with differences in language, culture, religion and history to work in unity and with a view of building a nation rooted in mutual respect, economic growth and political equity.

    The myopic nature of successive governments in Nigeria since 1960 has continued to inspire divisive tendencies amongst the general population. Leadership has really been lacking and most leaders have lacked the will and charisma to see beyond ethnic and religious affiliations. Nigeria has lacked a sense of unity in real terms because even though there is a working constitution, in practical terms, the leaderships often have worked in breach of the constitution.

    The upholding of law and order is a sine qua non to the building of a cohesive nation. The abuse of power and the monopolization of political structures by certain groups in the Nigerian states continue to push the country towards the edge. Progressively, the political class at local ,state and federal levels keep finding areas of differences to project as far as they can get political advantages to exclude others.  

    While the Roundtable Conversation believes the British was not fair in arbitrarily amalgamating the country in 1914, it might have turned out better and more prosperous were the successive leaders nationalistic enough to unite the country sincerely rather than speaking from both sides of the mouth. At some point when their political ambitions are at stake, they talk unity, when they access the power, they resort to ethnic and religious patronages.

    Even though Nigerian politicians often pride themselves in the adoption of the American presidential system, in practice, they bring in personal idiosyncrasies that are often as negative as they are highly divisive. No nation seems as diverse as the United States when it comes to the population. However, America has at least one of the highest citizen’s sense of citizenship than any other nation on earth.  This is not a divine gift. It is the product of the foresight of the founding fathers of America and the architects of the constitution.

    It therefore says something of the successive leaders of Nigeria that at least 60 years after independence, the country is more divided than expected. The poverty level translates to underdevelopment that must not continually be attributed to colonialism. Nigeria as a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi-religious country can be guided into the path of nationhood with the willingness of the political class to focus on the people and see more value in the diversity than in pushing the difference rhetoric.

    Nationhood stems from the sense of belonging each citizen feels. The fire of patriotism is always lit by the leadership of nations stirring the ship of state that leaves no one behind either based on boundaries,  religion, or ethnic background. The agitations for  ethnic nationalities and the multi-faceted regional advocacy groups are pointers to the inequity and the sense of injustice and exclusion by various groups. Sadly, the architects of the divisions are politicians and not the regular people .

    On the social levels, Nigerians from the North and South have always co-existed together. They have lived together with intermarriages and election victories outside their regions. Today, the narrative is different. Politicians in Nigeria must have some introspection. What has nepotism and ethnic bigotry benefited the people? Nigerian politicians keep widening the trust deficit gap with the people across the country because they do not work hard enough to inspire patriotism and development.

    The amalgamation of 1914 is not the reason for the present state of affairs in Nigeria, the lack of a truly uniting force in the political class from independence is to blame. A country can be nurtured to a nation by the sheer will power of the leaderships to see value in diversity. Britain through Lord Luggard might have had an economic intent but after independence, Nigerian leaders ought to have founded a system of national integration that can inspire development harnessing all the human and natural resources the country is blessed with.

    The dialogue continues…

  • Yakubu Gowon @ 90 Can history absolve him? (1)

    Yakubu Gowon @ 90 Can history absolve him? (1)

    It was Fidel Castro who once used such an expression  while facing trial for the July 26 attack on Moncada Barracks, Castro who defended himself at that trial declared “Condenmade, no importa, la historia mi absolveria” in English it simply means “Condemn me, it does not matter, history will absolve me”.

    For General Yakubu Jack Gowon , Nigeria’s Second military leader, History as well as posterity must be hearing his ‘Closing Statements’ as he clocked 89 recently, even celebrating his birthday amidst the ugly rumors of his demise just a week ago, the man who once declared that to “ Keep Nigeria one was a task that must be done” will certainly need no soothsayers or pastors  to tell him that his time with his maker will surely come.

    So what verdict will history pass on General Gowon, this one time Chief of Staff of the Nigerian Army and later maximum ruler for 9 solid years ? There are a number of strands of thoughts or should I say answers to this question, each possessing a different tangent to the rest, each conceived as a result of one’s perception which has been shaped probably by a number of singular and  aggregate factors.

    For me as an avid student of our nation’s history and politics, I very much possess a view about Gowon’s place in our history and It is my intention to share such a view here with the admonition to those who may choose to disagree to do so or even write their own!

    Read Also; FULL LIST: 22 sacked, suspended Ministers in Nigeria from 1999 – 2024

    Yes,  even though General Gowon wouldn’t naturally fit in to the description of a statesman by Mark Hatfield. Here in Africa, most especially Nigeria, by virtue of serving in some high office, even if you where thrust there and wobbled and fumbled while in office, you would naturally earn the appellation of an Elder Statesman. It is in this context that we may grudgingly confer such on the founder of the Nigerian Prayer Movement and kudos to him Nigeria recently emerged as the Second Most Prayerful country , losing the first position only to the Taliban controlled Afghanistan. I am sure the Nigerian Prayer Movement led by Gowon must have contributed its quota to such a feat!

    Now asides the Nigerian prayer movement, General Gowon also has a number of enduring legacies to his name, legacies such as the National Youth Service Corps, NYSC which has sought to create avenues within the nation for national cohesion and unity.

    The creation of states within Nigeria is another legacy of the Gowon administration which has much influenced the pattern and operational dynamics of the Nigerian Federation or Quasi Federation as it actually is.

     The creation of more Unity Colleges is another befitting legacy to Gowon, who in his attempt to patch through the elusive threads of unity within Nigeria established more of such schools all over the Federation.

    Gowon’s biggest feat would be his prosecution of the Nigerian/ Biafran War which he presided over. Notwithstanding the resultant horrors that came with the 33 months struggle, his singular mandate to keep the Eastern Region within the Federation by force of arms could be chalked of as successful and while one may not resent a number of his actions as regarding the war, since the pervading situation  at that time demanded such of him, however, the same war as well as the taxing events that led the nation to that war  also remain as a tarred brush to Gowon’s statesmanship stature.

    General Gowon came at a period the Nigerian nation needed a leader, even after desecrating the military tradition or dictates of military command and succession, by assuming power while Brigadier Babafemi  Ogundipe his senior in the army was muscled away, Gowon despite his avuncular like mien and gentleman officer posturing behaved more like a member of the mob and engendered forever that indiscipline Nigerians witnessed in the military even to this present day.

    At the time of his triumphant entrance to become the nation’s number one helmsman , the nation was much in crisis. The Head of State, General Aguiyi Ironsi  and Governor of the Western Region, Adekunle Fajuyi were missing, brother officers were reportedly slaughtered in their numbers while Igbo and minority  civilians who had no say nor participation in either of both the January and the July 1966 coups were also massacred in their numbers. Gowon had not only gone on to betray his Supreme Commander but also a number of moderates in the military then who were shocked at Gowon’s inveterate dawdling while these pogroms occurred.

    Even his half hearted attempt at finding a solution to the crisis via the Ad Hoc Constitutional Conference of 1966 appeared to be a ruse as it only encouraged further killings in the North under Gowon’s watch. He was later to suspend the conference after tinkering with the ideas of secession, confederation and then one indivisible unitary cum quasi federation(Another legacy of his)

  • 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.

  • Crisis brews between northern governor, godfather

    Crisis brews between northern governor, godfather

    No condition, they say, is permanent. And that includes human relations. Like the popular Jamaican reggae musician Bob Nesta Marley observed in one of his famous songs, we live in a world where one’s worst enemy could become one’s best friend and vice versa.

    While it may be wrong to assert that the relationship between a northern state governor and his acclaimed political godfather has assumed the proportion of enmity, there are sufficient grounds to fear that that could ultimately become the case.

    At the heart of the crisis of confidence is the refusal of the state governor to pander to the promptings of his godfather who demanded that two top officials of the state’s administration should be kicked out of office and replaced with two nominees provided by him (godfather).

    Read Also; FULL LIST: 22 sacked, suspended Ministers in Nigeria from 1999 – 2024

    The godfather was said to have grown very uncomfortable with one of the state’s officials because he has refused on a number of occasions to heed his orders, while he wanted the second official, a commissioner for information, replaced with a social media influencer he considers more competent to manage the ministry as well as the image of the state government.

    But if the godfather had thought that his governor godson would be a better listener than the state official he seeks to replace, he must have realised by now that he was grossly mistaken.

    The governor was said to have vowed that he would rather have a one-on-one discussion with his godfather before a decision is taken on the matter.

    Instructively, the brewing crisis has already given rise to the emergence of a group in the state whose mission is to mount pressure on the governor to assert himself and stop living in the shadows of the godfather.

  • Reflections on Sam Omatseye’s ‘information in an Age of Flux’

    Reflections on Sam Omatseye’s ‘information in an Age of Flux’

    Not only demonstrating his versatility and depth as a trained historian, Sam Omatseye’s recent lecture at the Trinity University, Yaba’ Lagos, titled ‘Information in an Age of Flux’, also vividly illustrated the writer’s rich immersion in the literatures of the world, his philosophical cast of mind, his virtuosity as a technocrat of words and his vast media experience over the last three and a half decades as reporter, editor, columnist, university lecturer in Canada and the US and currently Editorial Board Chairman of this newspaper.

    Deploying humour, wit and dialectical reasoning to maximum effect, the Fellow of the Nigerian Academy of Arts exhaustively examines the evolution and transformation of information across time and space within historical, sociological, philosophical and scientific contexts. His lecture is thus essentially cross-disciplinary in range and thrust.

    It is understandable and inevitable that Omatseye situates his discourse on the unfolding saga of information in the human experience within the framework of time. It is within the context of time that man lives, works, worships, thinks, invents, entertains, engages in politics, fight wars and dies. Information has become one of the most critical factors in the evolution of man with its influence and impact, both for good and evil, acquiring ever greater significance with the unceasing flow of time.

    As the writer evocatively expounds in his opening sentences, “Time and information intersect like twins. We even need information to know time and time to secure information. Hence, the historian is the most important tool to the social scientist. The historian is the custodian of time. If the social scientist needs the historian, memory is the armour of all humans. History is official memory. But our other memory is in our minds and hearts. And time is the only commodity you cannot get back”.

    Omatseye waxes poetic as he continues: “Time creates the age. Time changes language, changes leaders, recalibrates culture, overthrows regimes, refines the barbaric into a debonair, makes a monster of a prince or transforms an angel into a Mephistopheles. Time passes like stealth, and it is like death. You cannot resurrect time. You can only imitate or mimic it”. He brings a historian’s microscope to dissect the evolution of societies and cultures from prehistoric times to the present. In his encyclopedic treatise, we are given glimpses into the civilization of the Greeks, the rise and fall of the Roman Empire, the dark ages in Europe, the invention of printing, the acceleration of scientific progress and phenomenal leaps in technological growth particularly information and communication technology and the attendant ever increasing cultural complexity of society.

    Read Also: Cholera cases rise to 289 cases with 17 deaths in Niger

    The lecturer utilizes the analytic lenses of the sociologist, Alvin Toffler, to dilate on tidal waves of revolutionary change in our contemporary world. In his words, “All of this fall into what Alvin Toffler in his famous book, The Third Wave, called the Second Wave of history. For him the first wave began with the neolithic age, the hunter-gatherer or what some may call the stone age. His categorization may be arbitrary and the content of each category peremptory, but it shows how the mercurial spirit of humanity has spun many a narrative so much so that it takes a lot of work to simplify”.

    The lecturer’s thoughts in this regard remind us of the path breaking work of Karl Marx who had earlier delineated progressive stages in the evolution of human society spanning the communal mode of production, slavery, feudalism and the emergence of industrial capitalism in the 18th century. Karl Marx sought to demonstrate that capitalism was not an eternally primordial and preexisting form of the organization of society which was in the natural order of things and thus unchanging. Each stage of societal development, Marx averred, depended on a given level of development of productive forces (technology) and further progress in the advancement of the latter would compel changes in the superstructure leading to higher levels in the mode of organization of society. He thus predicted the ultimate transcendence of capitalism when its extant form of social organization became an impediment to the further development of productive forces at the substructural level, and the inevitable emergence of the communist mode of production.

    Ironically, while communism arguably facilitated the rapid scientific and technological progress of previously backward, feudal societies such as the defunct Soviet Union, China and Cuba, within relatively short spans of time, after a point they could not cope with the rate of capitalism’s unceasing transformation of the productive forces of science and technology. China and Russia have thus reverted to market forms of capitalist organization of their economies while retaining essentially authoritarian political systems.

    However, the essential import of Marx’s evolutionary analysis of society was succinctly captured by the political scientist, Ellen Meiskins Wood, in her book, ‘The Origin of Capitalism’, when she argues that “The naturalization of capitalism, which denies its specificity and the long and painful historical processes that brought it into being, limits our understanding of the past. At the same time, it restricts our hopes and expectations for the future, for if capitalism is the natural culmination of history, then surmounting it is unimaginable…Thinking about future alternatives to capitalism requires us to think about alternative conceptions to its past”.

    Alvin Toffler, however, in his work graphically captures relentless changes in technology that drive unceasing, revolutionary socio-cultural transformation even within the capitalist mode of production. Omatseye paints vivid portraits of these changes in his inimitable style. According to him, “Each age claims that prophecy as referring to their own. When the Wright Brothers gave us the aircraft, they said that was the age of prophecy. And that was before the age of the supersonic jets, the email, the WhatsApp, the Instagram, TikTok, Youtube, the drone, et al. People are going to and fro, not through bouffant clouds in an aircraft. Humans these days are spirits. They can be in a village near Ogbomosho and be in Frankfurt in one minute and Oslo the next and Sydney, Australia and Denver, Colorado simultaneously. You can do a job interview via zoom with a CEO in America, looking at each other while wearing a tie and jacket whereas you are naked from the waist down. Both of you, in American and Nigeria. Yet, you were properly dressed for the interview”.

    The lecturer surgically dissects the implications for contemporary society of the revolutionary developments in information technology particularly the emergence of social media and the seeming anarchy of citizen journalism with scant respect for professional rules and regulations. Thus, we see the traditional media having to ceaselessly innovate and reinvent itself to compete effectively and remain afloat. Omatseye also adverts his mind to the immoral and cynical manipulation of information resulting in the prevalence of fake news which is widely perceived as constituting an existential threat to human existence.

    The advances in human knowledge as well as scientific and technological growth captured so magisterially by Omatseye has also, in my view, been accompanied by a growing humanistic disposition to life. According to the theologian, Francis A. Schaeffer, “Humanism is the placing of Man at the center of all things and making him the measure of all things”. Thus, he deplores the shift “away from a world view that was at least vaguely Christian in people’s memory (even if they were not individually Christian) toward something completely different – toward a world view based upon the idea that the final reality is impersonal matter or energy shaped into its present form by impersonal chance”.

    Implicit in the widespread disbelief in the existence of a transcendental being who created reality and dictated moral laws to guide and restrain human behavior has resulted in what Schaeffer describes as “The abolition of truth and morality”. Situational ethics prevail. There are no absolute standards of right and wrong. Everything has become relative. Politicians are free to lie barefacedly destroying the fabric of trust that is critical to democracy if the end justifies the means. Man’s scientific and technological feats are no longer seen as functions of his being made in the image of his creator who gave him a mandate to conquer and exercise dominion over the earth and equipped him with the innate capacity to achieve this. Within this essentially amoral context, ongoing scientific and technological attainments become dangerous weapons in the hands of a largely flawed humanity.

    Thus, Omatseye’s tentativeness is understandable when he submits that “It is probably going to get worse with the new technology known as artificial intelligence, or AI. It is the ultimate mimic technology, as explained in Henry Kissinger’s book, The Age of AI. Anything or anyone can become dispensable. Someone else can present this lecture, if it were done remotely, and pretend to be me, the same face, the same voice. And receive the same applause, the same disapproval. How false that kind of world promises to be? The future is cheery and dreadful. The media is a reflection of the new reality. New reality will be virtual reality. As newspapers are threatened, so is a new world, brave and fragile”.

  • Nigeria: What man has joined together? (2)

    Nigeria: What man has joined together? (2)

    Inspired and informed by the federalist ethos which such Indian leaders as Jawarhalal Nehru had espoused as the best political arrangement for their complex, culturally plural society, Chief Obafemi Awolowo emerged as the most thorough, rigorous, compelling, and unrelenting advocate of a thoroughgoing federal constitution as the most appropriate constitutional framework for a multiethnic, multicultural and multi-religious Nigeria. “One of the pronouncements of the Indian leaders that struck the right chord in me was the one relating to the provincial boundaries along linguistic lines, in the reframing of the country’s constitution. If this was done, it would mean that apart from the Indian Parliament, each linguistic group would have its own legislature and government to deal with matters of peculiar interest to the group and within the competence of a provincial government” Awo had submitted in his autobiography in 1960.

    Earlier, in 1947, he had contended in his ‘Path to Nigerian Freedom’ that “Under a true federal constitution, each group, however small, is entitled to the same treatment as any other group, however large”. Awolowo referred essentially to ethno-linguistic groups. They constituted the indispensable and irreducible building blocks of his conceptualization of federalism in Nigeria. For him, the linguistic factor is the most critical distinguishing variable between groups and should be a key element in Nigeria’s federal design.

    There are those who, 64 years after independence, still hold to this perception and one variant of this school of thought argues for a reversion to a six-regional structure, a slightly modified form of the four regions that characterized the First Republic. These are perceived as more ‘natural’ components of the Nigerian polity than the current ‘arbitrary’ and ‘artificial’ states and local governments.

    Those who advance this logic would appear to underestimate the extent to which a good number of the current states and local governments have developed a common political consciousness and sense of cohesion making it unlikely for them to agree to a reversion to a no less centralizing regionalism. Let us take the energy, passion, and resources that went into the struggle for the creation of Ekiti State for instance. Will the people of the state be willing to surrender their hard-won autonomy to renewed political suzerainty from Ibadan? It is unlikely and the situation is no less different across Nigeria.

    In any case, even in Awolowo’s federalist theory, the linguistic factor as a cementing element in intra-group cohesion may be exaggerated. After all, as Awolowo himself rightly noted in his autobiography, “The Yorubas were a highly progressive but badly disunited group. They paid lip service to a spiritual union and affinity in a common ancestor- Oduduwa. But in all their long history they had waged wars against one another”. That was indeed why he spearheaded the formation of the socio-cultural group, Egbe Omo Oduduwa, to promote unity and harmony among the ever-querulous Yoruba. And in postcolonial Nigeria, the Yoruba political elite has remained as fractious as ever despite the common ethno-cultural and linguistic inheritance that supposedly unites them.

    Eminent political scientist, Professor Eghosa Osaghae understandably pays attention to this issue at some length in his 2019 inaugural lecture at the University of Ibadan from which this column derives its title. In his words, “The basis of all this, which is not generally known, is that many of the ethnic groups and political categories that exist today, the names they bear as well as the territories they claim, the languages they speak and the loyalties now directed at them, took roots and were constructed within the states that emerged from the colonial process and are therefore as new, if not as artificial, as the states to which they belong.”

    From the ongoing generalization from the African experience, Osaghae zeroes in on Nigeria and synthesizes the views of diverse scholars in the debate. He writes: “In Nigeria, according to Ekeh, “What existed before Nigeria were amorphous polities”. Indeed, Thomas Hodgkin, debunked Biobaku’s claim to the existence of an organic Yoruba group by asserting that “Everyone recognizes that the notion of ‘being a Nigerian’ is a new kind of conception. But it would seem that the notion of ‘being a Yoruba is not very much older”. The same could be said for ‘being’ Edo, Igbo, Tiv, and so on”. To buttress the point, Osaghae notes that “In fact, the colonial administrators dismissed the claims of consolidated ethnic groups and insisted “on the right, for example, of the people of Egbaland (not the Yoruba)…of any of the great Emirates of the North (not the Hausa-Fulani)…to maintain that each one of them is, in a very real sense…a nation”.

    If the component ethno-cultural building blocks of Nigeria are not necessarily eternally preexisting ‘natural’ entities, then the presumed ‘artificiality’ of the macro polity should be no insurmountable obstacle to the never-ending process of working towards building an ever increasingly more cohesive, stable, and viable Nigeria. When Osaghae evokes the image of Nigeria as a complex entity which ‘man has joined together’, what immediately comes to mind is the common scriptural admonition on the marital union that ‘what God has joined together, let no man put asunder’. Without a definitive and generally acknowledged divine imprimatur on the Nigerian project, is it therefore inevitably doomed to failure as a man- made contrivance?

    This is not necessarily so but it is up to Nigerians, particularly the political elite, to undertake the necessary hard work and sacrifices to make Nigeria a success and this is largely in their own self-interest. In this regard, he stresses the inevitably and imperative of federalism which “provides a most rational man-made method of binding people together”. Unfortunately, Osaghae argues, Nigerian federalism and state have largely “floundered because for the elite, politics whose high point is state capture, takes precedence over compelling social and economic considerations that are capable of expanding the common good and reinforcing the basis of union, as is the case in many other federal systems”.

    Continuous efforts to strengthen democracy and deepen federalism in Nigeria are necessary conditions for consolidating and solidifying ‘what man has joined together’ and ensuring the transcendence of current difficulties and the emergence of a Nigerian nation-state framework within which flourishing communities can thrive. The recent decision of the Supreme Court which granted financial autonomy to local government councils and compelled the existence and functioning only of democratically elected councils at the grassroots is viewed in some quarters as an attempt to strengthen the federal process and in others as designed to enhance the power of the centre at the expense of states.

    Read Also: From frying pan to fire: Cameroonian refugees in Nigeria relive horrific experience (2)

    What cannot be denied is that the incapacity of local governments to function as vehicles of grassroots development due partly to financial asphyxiation by states is a key factor in Nigeria’s protracted economic crisis and underdevelopment. Many state governments are understandably pushing back against the Supreme Court decision and insisting on their rights under a federal constitution to conduct elections into local government councils; elections which they have turned into farcical exercises with parties in power in various states winning all local government offices contested for.

    It is ostensibly in pursuit of adherence to federal principles that 16 state governments with Kogi State at the vanguard have approached the Supreme Court to declare the statutes setting up the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) a nullity and to make it illegal for federal anti-graft agencies to probe the finances of state governments. While this makes sense in the light of federal theory, can we blind ourselves to the horrendous corruption at all levels of government and the obvious incapacity of both the legislature and the judiciary to tame the scourge at the state level?

    Is the industrial-scale corruption plaguing the country not a major contributory factor to the prevalent economic crisis, current existential hardships, and the heightened fragility of the Nigerian state? In the face of weak or non-existence of preemptive and strong oversight and preventive institutions at sub-national levels, must the powers of federal institutions trying to combat financial crimes at all levels be circumscribed in the name of adherence to federal principles?

    It is apposite in this regard to quote Professor Osaghae at some length in conclusion: “No matter how attractive federal principles may be, federalism is not adopted because people want constitutional purity. Rather, it is because the principles are deemed to be capable of solving immediate and possibly long term problems. According to Shridath Ramphal, former Secretary-General of the Commonwealth, “The practical necessities of a miscellany of national circumstances, not the symmetry of academic reasoning have given federalism its content and form…Federalism does not require that countries must mould their institutions to immutable principles or forms of organization. It promises instead that federal constitutions may be designed to meet the particular needs of the communities establishing them”.

    • Concluded
  • On Onyejeocha’s ambitious 2.5 million jobs initiative

    On Onyejeocha’s ambitious 2.5 million jobs initiative

    The Nigerian government, under the leadership of Minister of State for Labour and Productivity Nkirueka Onyejeocha, has unveiled an ambitious plan to create 2.5 million jobs. This bold initiative aims to address one of Nigeria’s most pressing socioeconomic challenges – widespread unemployment, particularly among the youth. While the proposal has generated excitement and hope, it also raises important questions about its feasibility and implementation in the complex Nigerian context.

    The 2.5 million jobs initiative is part of a broader effort by the Nigerian government to stimulate economic growth and improve living standards. Minister Onyejeocha has emphasized that the program will focus on creating sustainable employment opportunities across various sectors of the economy, including agriculture, technology, manufacturing, and services.

    Read Also: Outrage over death of resident chased into canal by Lagos Police

    Key aspects of the initiative include:

    1. Public-private partnerships to drive job creation

    2. Skills development and vocational training programs

    3. Support for small and medium enterprises (SMEs)

    4. Investment in infrastructure to create construction jobs

    5. Promotion of the digital economy and tech startups

    The government plans to implement this initiative over a period of 4-5 years, with specific targets set for each year. The ultimate goal is not just to create jobs, but to foster long-term economic growth and reduce Nigeria’s dependence on oil exports.

    If successful, this initiative could have far-reaching positive impacts on Nigeria’s economy and society such as reduced unemployment:  Providing jobs for 2.5 million Nigerians would significantly reduce the country’s high unemployment rate, currently estimated at over 30%.While this may not get to Beveridge’s concept of full employment  it could help move Nigeria towards an era of relatively little unemployment.

    2. Economic growth: Increased employment could lead to higher consumer spending, stimulating economic activity across various sectors.

    3. Poverty reduction: Steady employment opportunities could help lift millions of Nigerians out of poverty.

    4. Skills development: The focus on vocational training could help bridge the skills gap in the Nigerian labor market.

    5. Reduced social unrest: High unemployment, particularly among youth, has been linked to social unrest and crime. Creating jobs could help address these issues.

    6. Diversification of the economy: By focusing on multiple sectors, the initiative could help reduce Nigeria’s overdependence on oil

    While the initiative’s goals are laudable, several factors could impact its feasibility and success, such as Economic instability;  Infrastructure deficits; Skills mismatch;  Corruption and governance issues; Security challenges; Funding constraints; the  Informal economy and  Population growth could in one way or the other  negatively impact such lofty plans.

    For the 2.5 million jobs initiative to succeed, careful planning and execution will be crucial. Some key strategies could include:

    1. Targeted sector development: Identifying and prioritizing sectors with the highest potential for job creation and economic growth.

    2. Improving the business environment: Implementing reforms to make it easier to start and operate businesses in Nigeria.

    3. Enhancing vocational education: Strengthening partnerships between educational institutions and industries to ensure skills alignment.

    4. Supporting entrepreneurship: Providing access to finance, mentorship, and business development services for startups and SMEs.

    5. Leveraging technology: Promoting digital skills and supporting the growth of the tech industry to create high-value jobs.

    6. Regional focus: Tailoring job creation strategies to the specific needs and potentials of different regions within Nigeria.

    7. Monitoring and evaluation: Implementing robust systems to track progress and make necessary adjustments to the initiative.

    Nigeria can draw lessons from other countries that have implemented large-scale job creation initiatives: such as Ethiopia, South Africa and india

     These cointries deployed a number of strategic polices which did  attract foreign investment and created thousands of manufacturing jobs, but has faced challenges related to working conditions and skills development.

    These examples highlight the importance of focusing on sustainable job creation, skills development, and addressing structural economic challenges.

    In conclusion, the 2.5 million jobs initiative represents a significant opportunity for Nigeria to address its unemployment crisis and drive economic growth. However, its success will depend on overcoming numerous challenges and implementing well-designed, context-specific strategies.

    To maximize its chances of success, the initiative should:

    1. Set realistic, phased targets

    2. Focus on sustainable, quality job creation rather than just numbers

    3. Address underlying structural economic issues

    4. Ensure transparent implementation and regular progress reporting

    5. Adapt strategies based on ongoing monitoring and evaluation

    Ultimately, while creating 2.5 million jobs in Nigeria is an ambitious goal, it is not impossible. With strong political will, effective implementation, and a conducive economic environment, this initiative could mark a significant turning point in Nigeria’s socioeconomic development. However, it will require concerted efforts from government, private sector, and civil society to overcome the numerous challenges and turn this vision into reality.

  • Sacking a commissioner for voluntary resignation?

    Sacking a commissioner for voluntary resignation?

    When has it become a sin for a member of the State Executive Council to voluntarily resign?

    But that is the wrong message a governor of an Eastern State is trying to pass across: ‘Once I appoint you as commissioner, you can’t quit; I hire and I can fire, but you can’t leave on your own.’

     The erudite scholar is trying to prove wrong what is right, while also proving right what is wrong, without an evidence, which makes the entire scenario very embarrassing.

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

    In the opinion of the governor, the right to resign voluntarily is forfeited once you are inaugurated. You just have to stay on until the chief executive decides otherwise.

    The commissioner politely approached His Excellency to intimate him about his decision to leave the cabinet, which is a rare thing in Nigeria. His decision was devoid of bile. It was never an attempt to spite. He was thankful for the big opportunity to have been chosen to serve. He premised his decision on family consideration and other personal matters.

    But before tendering his letter on the agreed date, the commissioner was fired by the governor, instead of a mini-sendforth that he deserved. What was the motive? Only the governor can say.

    No explanation was given by the governor for going the odd way. No basis can be found for it in law, logic, history and politics.

    So, what is His Excellency up to? Is being commissioner by force? Why the unnecessary ambush?

  • Cash-for-mandate scandal rocks Southern state after LG elections

    Cash-for-mandate scandal rocks Southern state after LG elections

    The conclusion of local government elections in a South-South state has left in its wake an allegation to the effect that the mandate of the party that won the elections in one of the LGAs was traded for cash and appointments.

    Accusing fingers are being pointed at a highly influential politician in the state for masterminding the cash-for-mandate scandal with a view to safeguarding his political ambition in 2027.

    Fearing that his political ambition in 2027 would be under threat with the loss of his local government area to a rival political party already announced by an ad hoc official of the state’s electoral commission as winner, he allegedly prevailed on the governor to dole out millions of naira and appointments to the winners and leaders of the party in the affected local government in exchange for their mandates.

    The development has left a political figure regarded as the leader of the compromised party members in the local government area boiling with anger, accusing the leadership of his party of using the affected local government to do barter.

    Read Also: Outrage over death of resident chased into canal by Lagos Police

    The centenarian political leader, who recalled that the youths in the area protested the development by barricading a major highway, said that he too was not happy with the development but there was little he could do about it because “age has slowed me down”.

    He recalled that the governor had invited him and members of his party in the local government to a meeting at the Government House to discuss matters relating to the election in the local government area.

    At the said meeting, the governor was said to have told the aggrieved party members that they needed to show respect to the influential and uncommon politician, promising to compensate the candidates whose mandates were compromised with appointments in his administration.

    True to the governor’s words, a top official of the state government announced the appointment of nine people from the local government as personal assistants to the governor and two others as special assistants. Among the appointees were the political leader’s wife and son.

    Added to the foregoing was the sum of N20 million the governor allegedly gave the delegation to hold a peace meeting when they returned to their community.

    In all, the governor was reckoned to have spent more than N50 million pacifying the aggrieved people. 

    Is anyone still in doubt that local government elections in the country being  conducted by State Electoral Commissions (SIECs) are a travesty of elections ?

  • 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.