Category: Saturday

  • How sharks in govt plotted Southern governor’s defeat in 2023

    How sharks in govt plotted Southern governor’s defeat in 2023

    Fresh facts have emerged to the effect that one of the governors in the southern states lost his re-election bid in 2023 because many government officials considered him too prudent and meticulous in his handling of the state’s finances.

    Many of his political associates were also said to have complained about his style of governance, saying that he conducted government business like a private enterprise.

    The former governor was said to be in the habit of spending long hours perusing files that were brought to him for signing and never hesitated to return such files if he noticed any defects.

    READ ALSO: Policy flip-flops, power crisis behind North’s stunted growth, rising insecurity — Dangote

    “Some government officials even used to remind him that he was now the governor and no longer in his previous office where he served as an aide to the governor.

    “But he would thank them for reminding him and also tell them that he was taking his time to go through files because he did not want a situation where a hundred thousand naira expenditure would be presented to him as one million naira,” a source said.

    Consequent on the foregoing, many of his supposed aides were said to have either worked against him when the time came for his re-election or simply stood aloof, resulting in his loss of the election.

  • Why ex-governor is lying low

    Why ex-governor is lying low

    Not a few Nigerians have noticed the absence from public glare of a once ubiquitous former governor of a prominent state and chieftain of the opposition parties, in recent times.

    Until recently, the former governor was as visible as he was vocal, acting as the face of a would-be coalition of political parties.

    But the vocal former governor is hardly seen or heard in recent times, leaving political observers to wonder why he has chosen to lie low after the initial gragra. Close associates of the opposition chief, however, told Sentry that he decided to slow down for two reasons.

    The first, according to them, is that despondency has set in for the politician just like some others in his new party because it is not making the instant impact they had anticipated.

    READ ALSO: Only Nigerians can save the country, not Trump – Ex-Foreign Affairs Minister

    Secondly, the former governor is said to have been jolted by recent threats from the US to deal with Nigerian leaders who had indulged the characters responsible for the poor security situation in the country in any way.

    It will be recalled that the governor once granted an interview while he held sway as state chief excutive wherein he admitted pacifying killer herdsmen with huge sums of money so they could live in piece with farmers.

    Besides, he is said not to be in the good books of the predominantly Christian inhabitants of a section of his state who accuse him of encouraging their persecution while he wielded power.

  • Dream is dead

    Dream is dead

    I’m not a seer. I don’t claim to be one either. I enjoy speaking the truth to constituted authorities no matter whose ox is gored. As a watchdog, which is what journalism professes, I strive to raise the alarm over impending problems early, especially those that stare us in the face like a sore thumb. My heart bleeds when mundane suggestions are being applied to problems which can be solved only if those in authority are eager to rationalise a bit on solutions offered by discerning people. I dare to be different.

    Here in Nigeria, we thrive on demonising the messenger, leaving the message and its content unattended to until they consume us. The death knel for the game here began in 1994, in the United States, when our players with the backing of our officials refused to leave the noisy hotel where we were camped for a more serene place  to train ahead of the second round tie against Italy. No prize for guessing right that the Azzurris beat us 2-1 to exit from our maiden appearance at the senior World Cup in the US.

    For all that Clemens Westerhof did to repackage the team to greater heights, he was humiliated by the boys he assembled, nurtured and exposed to global football. I knew back in the days that we were going to pay dearly for it. Sadly, it has come to pass. The World Cup holds again with the US co-hosting with Canada and Mexico with Nigeria’s flag not among those in the comity of World Cup nations to be hoisted in the three countries in 2026. Add Westerhof’s humiliation by those he made to the pain which Johannes Bonfrere experienced after he guided the country to the Atlanta1996 Olympic Games, winning the gold medal of the boys soccer competition, you will agree that what hit us in Morocco on November 16 was karma waiting to happen.

    For the records, the gold winning team returned to Nigeria without Bonfrere, who in tears with his whole body pink with rage boarding one of the KLM flights from Atlanta to Amsterdam – alone, all alone. I was at the airport live to witness this traumatic moment with the late Chris Eseka patting Bonfrere’s back to take heart. Yes, I reported this story for Thisday newspapers back in 1996.

    Super Eagles players became absolutely unruly choosing the coaches they wanted to play with and literally picking the players they wanted. Again, the 1998 World Cup was a fiasco, so much so that we had an injury laden assemblage of players who got selected not by their present form but by their pedigree in the game and for the team. It got so bad that holidaying players among them joined the team in Amsterdam after Holland annulated us in one of the friendly games before the Mundial.

    Renowned telecommunication giants intervened by sponsoring six wise men to interview coaches in London to pick the best as the next Super Eagles Technical Adviser for the 1998 World Campaign. This exercise was fruitful as it chose the white witch doctor, Frenchman Phillipe Troussier. Troussier introduced the 3-5-2 formation which sought to bring in new players to compete with the USA 1994 World Cup star and the Atlanta 1996 Olympic Games gold medallists. These spoilt brats ensured that Troussier was replaced in spite of the fact that Nigeria got the ticket with games to spare. In concert with a cantankerous top sports brass, they booted out Troussier with Nigeria going to the Mundial with half fit players.

    Point here is that our players found companionship with top sports brass in government to hijack the system. This systemic problem is one of the banes of our game. The White Witch Doctor returned the following year to guide Japan U-20 boys to win the silver medal after losing 2-0 to Spain at the 1999 FIFA U-20 competition hosted in Nigeria. I won’t forget to add the late Shuiabu Amodu who qualified the nation twice (2002 and 2010) for the World Cup but was dropped for reasons best  known to those who took the decision.

    For this writer, Eric Chelle should be paid off because he is a mono track coach as evident in the second half of the game against D.R Congo. The coach watched in awe as the Congolese tossed the ball around the pitch with no counter tactic to stop them. You could see from the way the Congolese played that they had practised for the penalty kicks by bringing their substitute goalkeeper who shone like a thousand stars, stopping Nigeria’s first two kicks and the last one taken by Semi Ajayi, much to the consternation of the Nigerian coaching crew. Many had thought that Chelle would have introduce William Troost Ekong for the penalty shoot-out. He didn’t but chose to chase the juju carrying official.

    Chelle made the subject for his removal tenable by being concerned with the sprinkling of water by one of the Congolese officials each time our players were going to take a penalty kick.

    “During all the penalties, the guy of Congo did some voodoo every time, every time, every time,” Eric Chelle told ESPN Africa, while demonstrating the action by raising an arm.“This is why I was nervous and went after him.”

    What a shame! I reckoned it was part of the Congolese mind games. After all some of our players scored theirs, even with the official sprinkling water. Those saying it is too close to ease off Chelle on grounds of the forthcoming AFCON starting from December 21 are poor students of history.

    Read Also: Saving Nigeria from insurgency without end

    Yes, the internet never forgets. It revealed that: ” Brazil used four different coaches during the entire campaign (qualifying and the final tournament) for the 2002 World Cup.

    ”The coaches were: Vanderlei Luxemburgo (coached the first 8 qualifying games). Candinho (coached for a single match). Émerson Leão (coached for 3 games).

    ‘’Luiz Felipe Scolari (took over for the final 6 qualifying matches and led the team through the World Cup final tournament, which they won). Luiz Felipe Scolari was the sole coach during the final tournament in South Korea and Japan, where Brazil won all seven of their matches to lift the trophy.”

    Howzat Sir, as we appeal in cricket. Indeed, England gave German coach Tomas Tuchel the Three Lions’ job very close to their qualifiers.  Tuchel has guided them to eight victories on the trot without conceding a goal in eight matches. Need I waste space to list out Tuchel’s coaching exploits? Football’s greatest nation, Brazil have chosen an Italian manager Carlo Ancelotti as their coach to the 2026 World Cup. Here in Nigeria a few arm chair analysts disturb our ear drums with cheap talk that no foreigner has won the World Cup. True, who says it won’t be broken soonest? Yet these people have their kids schools everywhere overseas but in Nigeria.

    Super Eagles’ major problem is with coaching arising from poor selection of players. Until we jettison our penchant for players with experience for those doing well on current form, we will always rue our losses. We need to dust up the 10-year master plan drawn by the former Sports Minister Sunday Dare and implement it to the letter. That way, we would have provided the platforms for any Nigerian interested in being in the NFF. Not this dubious pattern where the 36 States and the FCT’s chairmen having the voting advantage to install one of their own into the board.

    The government should direct that funds approved for the NFF are paid directly to the federation’s account. If there are allegations of misapplication of cash, then the EFCC and ICPC officials cab be directed to do their jobs.

    One would have asked the NFF to reveal how much they paid to prosecute this failed dream? A staggering figure which could also have been used to recruit a top level functional manager like England and Brazil have done? Both managers were club coaches making their World Cup debuts in 2026.

  • Kabiru Turaki, Peter Obi and Trump’s threat

    Kabiru Turaki, Peter Obi and Trump’s threat

    A significant proportion of Nigeria‘s political class, particularly opposition elements still bitter at the outcome of the 2023 presidential elections and vehemently hostile to the President Bola Tinubu administration, obviously perceive US President Donald Trump’s recent threats of military intervention in Nigeria to dislodge Islamic terrorists allegedly engaged in genocide against Christians as a rebuke only of the incumbent government. Thus, with the major opposition political parties – Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP), New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP)- in various degrees of disarray and the emergent African Democratic Congress (ADC), still largely inchoate, they relish external military intervention as threatened by Trump as a better option to confronting the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) in the 2027 presidential elections that they appear grossly ill-prepared for.

    Some of the opposition elements and their supporters, including leading columnists in the media, were openly exultant at rumours of a recent foiled coup attempt against the APC administration, as many of them had desperately advocated military intervention after Tinubu’s electoral victory in 2023, with the security agencies inexplicably doing absolutely nothing to check such clearly treasonable acts. They forget that while external military intervention or internal military insurrection could destabilise the polity or derail the incumbent administration, neither option offers a pathway for leading opposition leaders to achieve their aspiration to preside over the affairs of Nigeria as they so intensely desire.

    Indeed, it is unlikely that the country can survive either eventuality as a cohesive entity, and the attendant most likely disintegration of Nigeria would result in the possibly irreversible demolition of democracy and the consequent obliteration of the political elite and the larger ruling class. As the contending factions of the PDP battled for control of the party’s Wadata Plaza headquarters in Abuja this week, the factional National Chairman elected at the contentious Ibadan elective Convention, Alhaji Kabiru Turaki, made a desperate call on President Trump to intervene to save democracy in Nigeria, which he claimed is under threat. In his words, “I want to call on President Trump…What is at stake is not just genocide against Christians; he should come and save democracy in Nigeria. Democracy is under threat. I am calling on all other developed nations, all advanced democracies, come and save Nigeria, come and save democracy.”

    By that pathetic outburst, Turaki, a former Minister of Special Duties, demonstrated alarming political naivety as well as deficient appreciation of the nuances of international relations and diplomacy. Such appeals to Trump to help save democracy in Nigeria would only reinforce whatever Messianic complex he harbours, strengthens his perception of his country as the policeman of the world, as well as deepen his unhidden contempt for the black race which he treats as an inferior species both within the US and in Africa, whose countries he once described as “shit hole” entities. Turaki is clearly incompetent to lead a national political party in a large, complex polity like Nigeria.

    Although some elements within the PDP try to frame the narrative of its protracted internal crisis in terms of an attempt by the ruling APC to destabilize opposition parties, the truth is that the wounds from which the former ruling party is bleeding almost terminally were self-inflicted especially due to its insensitivity to the geopolitical power dynamics of the country after the emergence of Alhaji Atiku Abubakar as the party’s presidential candidate in the 2023 general elections. Now, Atiku has left the PDP with his supporters for the ADC in his perennial quest for a platform to contest in the next cycle of elections. There were two court injunctions obtained in the Federal High Court, Abuja, prohibiting the PDP from going ahead with its Ibadan convention until it had fulfilled certain conditions for a national convention to hold in accordance with its own constitution. The governor Seyi Makinde-led faction of the party went ahead to organise the convention on the basis of another ruling from a High Court in Ibadan, which held that the exercise could hold.

    The experienced and astute former governor of Kwara State and President of the Senate, Dr Bukola Saraki, foresaw that the outcome of any such convention in the prevailing circumstances would possess doubtful legality and dubious legitimacy. His advice that the convention be put on hold and an interim National Executive Committee representative of all factions and tendencies in the party be constituted to run its affairs pending the resolution of all contentious issues, so that a legal, proper and inclusive convention could be organised, was ignored. Now the convention has held and resulted in suspensions and counter suspensions of leading lights in the party and a violent factional confrontation in a bid to seize control of the national Secretariat, with the facility now totally shut down and barred to all factions by the security agencies. How then is the ruling APC to be blamed for all this?

    On his part, the presidential candidate of the LP in the election, Mr Peter Obi, has characteristically, reflexively endorsed President Trump’s description of Nigeria as a “now disgraced country” when the latter gave his threat of military incursion to uproot Islamic terrorists from Nigeria. In a statement posted on his verified X (formerly Twitter) account, Obi submitted that “A few weeks ago, when President Trump described our country as “now disgraced,” many were outraged. Yet, how can we dispute it when, within a single week, 25 people were kidnapped, and one of our generals, along with other officers, was killed? Today, we witnessed another troubling terror attack in Kwara State. Rather than uniting in this critical moment, we are consumed by internal wrangling, party squabbles and distractions”.

    It is unfortunate that a person who sought to be President of Nigeria and still has plans to contest for the country’s apex position in future can so glibly identify with such ferocious disparagement and derogation of the polity he seeks to rule by outsiders. Nigeria is a vast, complex country plagued by problems rooted in its ethno-regional, cultural and religious plurality, inherited historical challenges and flawed structural configuration that fuel rampant violence and insecurity, among others. Her protracted economic crisis, characterised partly by pervasive poverty and dysfunctional inequality, is compounded by problems of elite corruption, ineptness and lack of vision from which Obi cannot extricate himself. But these challenges cannot be a basis for an aspiring national leader to concur sheepishly with the external denigration of his country as “now disgraced”.

    In truth, there is no human community without its share of challenges, which vary in intensity and variety over time. Patriotic leaders of countries strive to play up the strengths of their societies without denying their weaknesses or being complicit in the degrading and abusive labelling of such countries by others. Despite its perceived substantial decline in many areas, America remains the greatest power on earth today economically, militarily and technologically. But she still battles serious political, economic, social and cultural challenges for which no one describes her as “now disgraced”. Despite her hundreds of years head start over Nigeria in the practice of liberal democracy, America faced a legitimacy crisis over the outcome of the 2020 presidential election that saw hundreds of stalwarts of the Make America Great Again (MAGA) movement storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021, destroying property, attacking and injuring 140 security and legislative officers, killing five other persons and seeking to destroy the very foundations of the country’s democracy.

    A global audience watching the horrific scenes across the world considered the insurrection utterly disgraceful for a country that had been a light of liberal democracy and liberty for over 200 years. But American leaders, irrespective of their political or ideological leanings, would never acquiesce to the description of their country in such insulting terms. Despite her phenomenal military machine, America withdrew in defeat and humiliation from a militarily puny Vietnam, had her elite soldiers killed and their bodies displayed on the streets of Somalia under Bill Clinton and fled in defeat from Afghanistan under Joe Biden, leaving considerable valuable equipment behind. The extremist Taliban Muslim extremists that America intervened in Afghanistan to dislodge from power remain in firm control of the country.

    Read Also: Excessive use of telephone devices harmful to health, says QNET Nigeria chief

    According to Sandy Hook Promise, in an online resource on pervasive gun violence in America, which is described as an epidemic, “Each day 12 children die from gun violence in America. Another 32 are shot and injured. Guns are a leading cause of death among American children and teens. In a 2022 study, firearms were the leading cause of death for children and teens (ages 1-17). Since the shooting at Columbine High School in 1999, more than 390,000 students in the U.S. have experienced gun violence at school. According to the Gun Violence Archive, 2024 saw more than 1,400 children and teens (aged 0-27) die by firearms, and more than 3,700 were injured. These figures are only a tip of the iceberg of the gun violence epidemic in America. Does that make her a “now disgraced” country? America’s leadership elite across party lines would disagree.

    Another plank of Peter Obi’s endorsement of Trump’s description of Nigeria as “now disgraced” is what he describes as the Tinubu administration’s deliberate fuelling of crises across major opposition parties to weaken the democratic space. According to him, “The current government seems more intent on weakening parties than strengthening our democracy, seeking to fragment the PDP, SDP and others…In democratic nations, opposition is respected, elections reflect the will of the people, and governance involves carrying everyone along for peace and prosperity”. In the first place, Obi provides not a scintilla of evidence, empirical or logical, that the ruling party is responsible for the crises in his LP and other opposition parties.

    If respect for the opposition were an accepted canon for gauging the health of democracies, Trump is certainly not the exemplar in this regard. In a departure from the norm in American politics, the American President has been incendiary, unsparing and ferocious in his excoriation of the Democratic Party opposition. This week, he caused uproar when he stated online that a group of Democratic Party legislators who told soldiers not to carry out illegal orders should be prosecuted for sedition and shot. The former Director of the FBI who conducted an extensive investigation of alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election in aid of Trump, James Comey, is currently on trial in what the President’s critics see as a political vendetta and persecution.

    Peter Obi states that when there was a crisis in his former party, the All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA), the late President Umaru Yar’Adua directed INEC under Professor Maurice Iwu to play by the rules and ensure the stability of the party, since an effective opposition was critical to democracy. He cites no source to substantiate this story. As we noted last week, at least three opposition governors dumped their parties for the PDP during Yar’Adua’s tenure, and the late President was personally on hand in Owerri to receive governor Ihedi Ohakim from the Progressive People Alliance (PPA) to the then ruling PDP. In any case, why did Obi dump APGA for the PDP immediately at the end of his tenure as governor of Anambra State, despite his pledge to the late Chief Odumegwu Ojukwu that he would never dump the essentially regional Igbo party?

  • Wadata House of Commotion

    Wadata House of Commotion

    It was an ugly spectacle. Dozens of men in well-laundered dresses and shimmering shoes filed out in the morning to enter the national secretariat of their party, Wadata Plaza, in the Zone 5 area of Abuja, for a meeting. They dressed like partygoers; some tucked their hands in the pockets of their Sunday dresses; others looked upset. There was hardly an exchange of banters expected from adults draped in such outfits befitting an important occasion. As they lined up to enter the beleaguered building, they were confronted by armed security men who had taken positions in different parts of the building and its surroundings. The security operatives, mostly policemen in battle gear, cut the image of men on a mission to repel an envisaged confrontation. Within minutes, there was pandemonium. The security agents refused to open the gate for some of the party men to enter the building. It became clear that the policemen were on an instruction to stop the rival politicians from entering the plaza. Obviously, one faction was using its power over the other to claim legitimacy for the landlord of Wadata Plaza. But the other faction was poised for resistance. There was a brawl. Some of the gentlemen who looked trim like guests at a wedding a few minutes earlier were hauled off the floor and thrown out like gate crashers.      

    The Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was fighting the PDP.

    Since losing the central power in 2015, the party has been experiencing the dark side of life. The platform has not got its bearings right since then.

    Ahead of 2027, its aggrieved, angered, divided, and disorganised leaders are locked in acrimony. They dissipate so much energy to worsen the party’s internal conflicts instead of presenting themselves as a united force ready for ready to form a formidable opposition.

    Reconciliation has totally broken down and more chieftains are cleverly jumping out of the sinking ship. That is now the fate of a party that loomed large for 16 years; the platform that produced three presidents – Olusegun Obasanjo, Umaru Yar’Adua, and Goodluck Jonathan.

    The PDP collapsed during the 2022 presidential primary. The factors in that collapse are Atiku Abubakar and Waziri Tambuwal, serial defectors and returnees to the party; Wike, a cantarkerous, ambitious moneybag and an acclaimed party financier; and Iyorchia Ayu, an ethnically-inclined and regionally-biased national party chairman who pronounced the former Sokoto governor as the hero of the presidential convention, following the success of an intra-party coup that left the zoning question unanswered.

    Some critics fear that the nation might be moving towards a gradual descent into a one-party state. The apprehension is unfounded as the constitution clearly makes Nigeria a multi-party, federal democracy. However, the opposition that should give operative content to the constitutional provision is floundering. That 27-year-old PDP is unable to put its house in order and reposition itself as a formidable alternative route is a disservice to the party system and plural democracy.

    READ ALSO: Policy flip-flops, power crisis behind North’s stunted growth, rising insecurity — Dangote

    Although its factional convention was ill-timed and unnecessary, the Damagun group, backed by the three musketeers – Governors Seyi Makinde of Oyo State, Bala Mohammed of Bauchi, and Ahmadu Fintiri of Adamawa – insisted on the thoughtless convention, despite serious warnings by discerning party stalwarts that the atmosphere was not right and more strategies were required to cross some hurdles.

    Their suggestion that a national caretaker committee saddled with the responsibility of uniting the two divides was blatantly and uncritically ignored. Sensing the looming disaster, they stayed away.

    Makinde appeared to be the moving spirit. He was the host and big financier who thought that the PDP should be preserved as an opposition that can bounce back. That altruism is polluted by a glaring presidential ambition, which is not a sin, but a source of concealed envy among his peers.

    The fourth governor, Caleb Mutfwang of Plateau, was like an observer at the Ibadan gathering. The suspicion that his body is in the party while his soul is elsewhere has continued to grow. Right there at Adamasingba Stadium, the lack of factional cohesion also came to the fore.

     The governors, definitely, were confused. The discomfort was visible. There was the feeling that something was amiss.

    Midway, the convention ran into turbulence. The convention organising committee chairman, Fintiri, detected an error. He sought to correct it, but he failed to garner support. It paled into a failure of courage. The Adamawa helmsman reasoned that since officials of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) were not on the ground to witness the jamboree, there was no point going ahead with the exercise.

    He, therefore, threw the challenge at the delegates, who barely understood the implications. When another party leader mounted the podium to move a motion that the convention should continue, the crowd chorused “yes.” The opportunity for self-correction was bungled.

    But the governors were not actually in one accord too. They were sharply divided over the critical matter of expulsion targeted at certain recalcitrant party colleagues, whose moles also witnessed the Ibadan gathering.

    Many delegates, in utter gullibility, cheered the expulsion of 11 chieftains, including Federal Capital Territory (FCT) Minister Nyesom Wike, National Secretary Senator Samuel Anyanwu, former Ekiti State Governor Ayodele Fayose, and National Organising Secretary Umar Bature.

    But two governors frowned. Although they could not openly protest, they rejected the dismissal on their X handles.

    The lack of agreement or cohesion set tongues wagging among other top leaders who applauded the rustication but could not find an explanation for its rejection by Fintiri and Mutfwang.

    The Adamawa governor, a good friend of Wike, feared that the action could escalate the crisis, lead to further disintegration of the party and block the path to unity. His Plateau counterpart gave a better explanation. He said the expulsion was never discussed at any meeting of the seven-member PDP governors’ forum and the National Executive Committee (NEC).

    That the two governors promptly dissociated themselves from the sanction underscored the lack of synergy and team spirit, and the absence of mutual understanding among the arrowheads or undertakers, as they are now aptly described, and unwillingness to collaborate without basis.

    It means that PDP battles with multiple cracks, as manifested by the exit of the Atiku group to form a camouflage coalition, using African Democratic Congress (ADC) as a borrowed platform; the split into two factions, led by Wike/Anyanwu and Damagum/Turaki; and the manifestation of suspicion, distrust and broken confidence among members of the PDP Governors’ Forum.

    At issue is the antagonist interest driving the different actions and positions taken by the warring PDP leaders. The core issue they are all responding to is the 2027 election. Today, they are working at cross purposes. After the presidential poll, which the PDP is not preparing to win, the gladiators would then retrace their steps from the perfidy, close ranks and embrace the reality that unity is the strength of a political party.

    The question is: why can’t they come together now instead of coming together after the next poll? Can the three factions – Atiku of ADC, Wike/Anyanwu, and Damagum/Turaki – really do without one another?

    Consequently, the convention paved the way for a further disaster instead of clearing the pathway to unity and understanding. It was organised amid contrasting court judgments, with the various armchair commentators within PDP indulging in false interpretations.

    A Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice James Omotosho, halted the preparations on the ground that they violated the PDP constitution and the Electoral Act.

    Another Federal High Court in Abuja, presided over by Justice Peter Lifu, ruled that the congress should not hold until former Jigawa State Governor Sule Lamido, who was excluded from the chairmanship contest, is allowed to participate. The two court rulings were ignored.

    But there was a cover. Party leaders leaned on the ex parte order delivered by Justice Ladiran Akintola of the Ibadan High Court, granted and later extended till December 8, when the tenure of Damagum and his divided NWC will expire.

    That will be a defining day for the party in distress.

    But there is a puzzle begging for a solution: would Turaki or Abdulrahman assume the reins as national chairman or acting national chairman?

    Neither of the two factional leaders has been recognised by INEC, despite their show of shame on Monday at the Wadata Plaza national secretariat of the party, where their supporters engaged in a physical combat.

    The solution, therefore, would lie with the courts, where legal fireworks are expected to resume next month. The claim of Damagun/Turaki camp is that the Supreme Court had ruled that the national convention is an internal affair and cannot be entertained by the court.

    But the Wike/Anyanwu group has insisted that the process and provisions outlined by the party’s constitution and the Electoral Act should not be violated. The Wike/Anyanwu faction is being suspected by the Damagun/Anyanwu faction because Wike has declared his support for President Bola Ahmed Tinubu for a second term. Lamido continues to cry foul, saying the convention that excluded him was held in error by “small boys” who were not around when he and other gerontocrats were sweating to form the party in 1998, contrary to the judgment in his favour.

    The division is likely to jeopardise the preparations for the Osun State governorship primary. Who conducts the primary between Turaki and Abdulrahman? Again, only the court can decide. But Osun State Governor Ademola Adeleke, a PDP chieftain, is not leaving anything to chance. His application for defection has been turned down by the All Progressives Congress (APC) chapter. He has put on his thinking cap, liaising with other mushroom parties in a bid to avoid becoming “partyless”.

    So far, no politician of repute has defected to the PDP. The main opposition party is being avoided like a plague, despite its vast taproots across the 774 local governments.

    Will the party survive the current storm and stress? Only time, the silent monitor of human follies and foibles, will tell.

  • A tale of two states

    A tale of two states

    Charles Dickens, in his classic novel, ‘A Tale of Two Cities’, contrasted the turbulent similarities and differences of London and Paris during a time of profound change. For London and Paris, Dickens famously summed up his assessment as being “the best of times and the worst of times.”

     Ekiti and Osun are currently undergoing a deep political transition, as they present both similar and contrasting situations. In Ekiti, the incumbent governor, Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji (BAO), has accomplishments to show the people and is seeking re-election. Osun, however, presents a contrasting tale!

    Next year will be a buildup to the real, pivotal 2027 elections which could determine the nomenclature and the political landscape of Nigeria for decades to come. Osun and Ekiti States, like Anambra which had its own dose of electoral activity a few days ago, will be a test run, or a dress rehearsal for the real thing. In effect, Professor Joash Amupitan (SAN), the newly-appointed Chairman of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC), will have his feet held to the fire to demonstrate his managerial competence and transparent independence. It is going to be hard on Johnny-come-lately!

    Ekiti and Osun reflect different undercurrents. In Osun State, the current governor, Ademola Adeleke, is swimming against the tide where decamping to the ruling party at the centre is no longer considered, in the editorial judgment of many would-be editors, a front-page Breaking News. Unlike Ekiti, the All Progressives Congress (APC), Osun State Chapter is arguably fragmented, appears to lack a cohesive anti-Adeleke position and the perception is that the aspirants are not offering a clear alternative manifesto to rally the state around.

    READ ALSO: Only Nigerians can save the country, not Trump – Ex-Foreign Affairs Minister

    In contrasting fashion, the situation is unlike that in Ekiti State. There, the current thinking among neutrals and the discerning is that the governor, despite some contrived internal wrangling, is gaining acceptance. This acceptance, largely from the non-party-affiliated electorate, suggests that a second term would allow him to conclude a steady start to his administration.

    The opposition in Ekiti and the APC counterpart in Osun face a similar dilemma: how to successfully campaign to unseat the incumbent. This difficulty presents a fundamental flaw in Nigeria’s current political landscape. The flaw is that, despite the intra-party rivalry and maneuvering for party candidacy, parties often fail to develop and sell a clear, alternative prospectus to the electorate. In the absence of a viable alternative vision, this reveals ill-preparedness.

    Such ill-preparedness fails to provide the necessary stimulus for voters to ride an anti-incumbent wave. History shows that nobody dethrones an incumbent without first stimulating and amplifying negative public perceptions against the current administration. This is, of course, in contrast to the national level, where the current wave of decamping and the mood of the electors unambiguously point to a solid electoral victory for the incumbent president, Bola Ahmed Tinubu.

    For the opposition at the center, and in Ekiti and Osun States, it’s going to be a very steep mountain to climb. But it is climbable because the dynamics of politics is fluid; and, as the master tactician, Harold Wilson, has been quoted a million times in observing, a week is a long time in politics. However, if the current changes, we must be prepared to seize the moment!

    In the case of Osun, we can ask questions such as: What does the surge in voter registration represent, what is motivating it, and who is going to gain from it? For Osun, APC should be well advised to answer these questions. The party should also look at the critical question of zoning. Will the issue of zoning become a decisive factor? Will it make political sense, leaving aside the moral question, to pick the candidate to run against Adeleke from outside of the West Senatorial District? Osun APC had better look at this critical factor before choosing its candidate and running for the election!

    Osun APC should also take a realistic look at the effect of the smaller parties, such as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) and the Social Democratic Party (SDP), and their chances. Something is almost certain: wherever the Governor successfully pivots governance into a political spectacle, the PDP will most likely vote as a bloc, which means that the smaller parties might be taking votes from the APC. In our first-past-the-post electoral system, this swing in votes will be a critical factor. One can only hope that the APC already has strategists working on various permutations to counter this.

    For Ekiti, the anti-incumbent people are so disparate that it is difficult to see them being galvanized on a common focus. The two states therefore represent contrasting dynamics. Events will unfold, and we intend to keep a continuing eye on the twists and turns as well as the possibility of tales of the unexpected. For instance, will the parties, after fractious primary elections, still be intact, or will there be decamping into other parties, further weakening the already unsteady party structures? These are the key issues to monitor!

      As far as Ekiti is concerned, the political landscape suggests the government’s strategies are working. Oyebanji, a leader of discipline and direction, has demonstrated steady, determined gains. His administration has done enough to convince the Ekitis that a second term would be in their collective interest, especially since the opposition has failed to present a clear, alternative vision. Consequently, the odds clearly favour him.

    BAO is credited with completing every General Hospital within three years and successfully connecting all Ekiti towns to the national grid. Good for the governor and the state. He must now focus on improving this transformative vision and developmental strategies, as leaders who tap effectively into the electorate’s aspirations and sense of identity tend to fare better.

    Speaking generally, electoral success is often elusive for candidates who place partisan loyalty above the practical concerns and lived experiences of voters. What’s more, mere endorsements do not win elections, as the 2014 presidential election has shown. Similarly, defections alone rarely deliver victory, as the 2022 Osun governorship election has revealed. But purpose does.

    Before the 2014 Osun governorship election, I asked my son, who was barely four years old at the time, the name of the then state governor. As young as he was, Abiola was able to mutter something very close to the answer I had in mind. Last year, I asked him the name of the Minister of Information as one of his birthday tests which I had promised would attract a gift. My boy started struggling with his phone! The contrast reflects the current decline in political awareness in the land.

    Again, James Carville’s strategic approach in Bill Clinton’s campaign highlights the fact that Osun APC has much work to do if it aims to achieve an upset in the 2026 Osun guber election.

    One of the tragedies of Osun is that the present governor is focusing largely on misplaced priorities which, unfortunately, the opposition has not done enough to capitalize on. In our very eyes, the standard of the social contract has fully collapsed, even as we are in a state of very complex ethnic and regional dynamics, and it is as if real intellectuals or names that could inspire confidence and hope are in short supply!

    For example, given the lack of significant or imaginative improvement in the health and education sectors, how do we classify local government workers who have abandoned their duty posts since February 2025? Consider also the judiciary workers who have been on an industrial action with the state government practically looking away! For God’s sake, what is the percentage of the citizens of Osun State who’d never have the opportunity to become governor?

    May the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world, grant us peace in Nigeria!

    • KOMOLAFE wrote from Ijebu-Jesa, Osun State, Nigeria (ijebujesa@yahoo.co.uk; 08033614419 – SMS only)

  • Vintage Obasanjo at Fayose’s 65th birthday

    Vintage Obasanjo at Fayose’s 65th birthday

    Former Ekiti State governor, Ayodele Fayose, obviously made no room for a spoilsport when he set out for the celebration of his 65th birthday last Saturday. But it is one of the realities of human existence that issues never contemplated sometimes tend to override and overshadow others that were planned for. That is the basis of the popular Yoruba prayer that God should not disrupt our plans with occurrences that were never contemplated. The ex-governor and his wife probably overlooked this important supplication as they prepared for his birthday party with an invite to former President Olusegun Obasanjo. It was a case of trouble dey sleep, yanga go wake am.

    The birthday celebration had begun on a high note with bold congratulatory adverts on the front pages of major newspapers, featuring the good wishes of no less a VIP than President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Determined for a birthday party that would define the social milieu of the outgoing year, Fayose thought he could push his luck a bit further with an invitation to the rambunctious former president, but that became his undoing.

    On receiving the invite, Obasanjo, who was in far away Kigali attending a conference, abandoned everything else and jumped on billionaire businessman Aliko Dangote’s private jet with eyes fixed on the Lagos venue of the birthday party. His arrival at the gathering naturally drew a rapturous applause, particularly from those in the know of the no love lost relationship between the two statesmen since Obasanjo orchestrated Fayose’s impeachment as Ekiti State governor in the early part of the Fourth Republic.

    As the sitting President, he had sent the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) after Fayose over a poultry project embarked upon by the latter. On the basis of the anti-graft agency’s findings, the Ekiti State governor was removed from office while Obasanjo appointed a sole administrator in his place. Since the ugly experience, Fayose has not spared any opportunity available to him to lash out at Obasanjo even at public functions. He accused Obasanjo of corrupt practices as President for compelling governors elected on the platform of the People’s Democratic Party (PDP) to contribute N10 million each to his presidential library in Abeokuta, Ogun State. He has also insisted on Obasanjo returning the N10 million he contributed to the library during his second stint as the governor of Ekiti State.

    READ ALSO: Policy flip-flops, power crisis behind North’s stunted growth, rising insecurity — Dangote

    It was against this background that Obasanjo showed up to a very warm reception at Fayose’s 65th birthday, as many at the gathering saw his presence as an obliteration of their querulous past and the beginning of a new chapter in their inter-personal relationship. How wrong.

    As it later turned out, Obasanjo’s hasty departure from Rwanda to Nigeria was motivated not by his love for Fayose but by an opportunity to take yet another pound of flesh from the ex-governor.

    The moment the former President held the microphone, rocked from side to side and paced the floor in serious motion without movement, it was clear to any discerning mind that the former president was up to something sinister. In front of an attentive crowd in which many had thought that Obasanjo was at the occasion to sing Fayose’s praises, the former president began his speech as a special guest of honour by recalling the instances that Fayose had insulted him and expressing shock that Fayose couls muster the courage to invite him to his birthday party.

    He said: “Some people called me and said ‘we heard that you are going to attend Fayose’s 65th birthday; have you forgotten how he abused you?’ I thanked them for reminding me and told them that he remains one of my children irrespective of his character. The Yoruba say ‘A kii le omo buruku f’ekun paje (you don’t drive your stubborn child for the tiger to devour)’. You are not the best of my political children, but you have made achievements that must not be ignored.”

    Obasanjo then told the gathering that Fayose had to suborn a former minister, Osita Chidoka, to sound him out before summoning courage to invite him to his birthday.

    He said: “You could not come to me directly because you knew that you had not done so well by me. I told Osita to tell you that he had delivered the message you sent him to me. You later called me and I said you could come to see me at any time. Even at that, you could not come directly to knock at my door. You sent Foluso ahead of you, who came before you to gauge my feelings and pulse, after which you arrived about an hour later.

    “When you came to me, you called your wife, and while on the phone with your wife, I said that the two of you have not done well. Mo ni eyin mejeji kii se omoluwabi (I said that both of you are not well-behaved people). And your wife completely disarmed me. She said, ‘Yes, Baba, you are right; please, forgive us’. What else can I do? You have asked for forgiveness and I have forgiven you. But the right lesson must be learned.

    The former President went on and on, touching on various issues intended to at least humble Fayose if he was not able to humiliate him. Not one to allow such shenanigans pass without a response, the former Ekiti State governor has since made public the text message he sent in response to all that Obasanjo said at his birthday, saying that the former President belongs to nowhere else but the zoo.

    Personally, I will be surprised if Fayose is surprised that Obasanjo did what he did at his birthday, given the former President’s predilection for acting as a spoilsport. For instance, in the heat of the widespread agitation for the late Bashorun M.K.O. Abiola’s mandate from the annulled June12, 1993 presidential election, Obasanjo came from the blue when his voice mattered the most, and declared that Abiola was not the messiah Nigeria needed. As the President elected on the platform of PDP, he tricked the opposition Alliance for Democracy (AD) governors in the Southwest states to lose their seats to his party with a deceptive alliance and did everything he could to frustrate Tinubu as the only surviving AD governor in Lagos.

    Even his biological son once dragged him to court, accusing him of flirting with his wife! The crocodile that ate its own eggs, what else would it hold sacred? Playing the spoilsport is a calling Obasanjo himself can do nothing about.

  • On the Wike-Yerima incident

    On the Wike-Yerima incident

    In a nation still bearing the scars from years of military rule, where our democratic institutions remain frail and the supremacy of civilian authority over the armed forces is a hard-won principle, a section of Nigerians recently found themselves cheering what amounts to an affront on the Nigerian constitution.  The incident involving Nyesom Wike, Minister of the Federal Capital Territory, and a naval officer identified as Lieutenant Yerima, who blocked the minister’s access to inspect a contentious piece of land in Abuja, has generated a peculiar kind of national jubilation—one that reveals more about our collective democratic immaturity than it does about accountability.

    The facts are straightforward, even if the public reaction has been anything but. Wike attempted to inspect a parcel of land in the FCT that had allegedly been irregularly allocated. According to available information, the land was originally acquired by the government for the construction of a recreational park—a public amenity meant to serve the residents of the Federal Capital Territory. However, somewhere along the administrative chain, this public land was reportedly subdivided and sold off for residential purposes, transforming what should have been a communal green space into private real estate. When the Minister sought to inspect the property in line with his statutory duties, he was met by naval personnel who refused him entry, with Officer Yerima leading the resistance.

    The confrontation that ensued was captured on video and rapidly circulated across social media platforms, generating what can only be described as a national spectacle. Nigerians, it seemed, had found their hero—not in the minister attempting to investigate alleged land fraud, but in the military officer who stood in his way. The hoopla was immediate and deafening. On Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram, Nigerians celebrated Yerima’s defiance with memes, adulatory posts, and commentary that framed the incident as a David-versus-Goliath narrative, with the naval officer cast as the righteous underdog standing up to a bullying minister.

    But this narrative, as emotionally satisfying as it might be for those who harbor personal distaste for Wike, fundamentally misunderstands what transpired and, more dangerously, what it represents.

    Section 11 of the Land Use Act is unambiguous: the Minister of the FCT, or any public officer duly authorized by him, has the statutory right to enter upon and inspect any land held under a statutory right of occupancy at reasonable hours. This is not a courtesy or a privilege—it is a legal mandate designed to enable government to monitor land use, prevent illegal allocations, and ensure compliance with approved purposes. The occupier of such land has a corresponding duty to grant access. There is no exception carved out for military installations, no clause that permits armed personnel to substitute their judgment for that of the law.

    Officer Yerima’s obstruction, therefore, was not an act of courage or principle—it was a violation of the law. More troublingly, it was an assertion of military authority over civilian governance, a regression to a mentality that should have been buried with our last military regime. Section 217(2)(c) of the 1999 Constitution explicitly subjects the armed forces to civilian authority. This is not decorative language; it is the bedrock principle that distinguishes democracies from military states. When a uniformed officer prevents a civilian minister from exercising his lawful functions, alleging that he is under orders he is not defending order—he is subverting it.

    Read Also: Wike, Yerima face-off: We owe Gambo nothing but gratitude

    Yet Nigerians, blinded by their antipathy toward Wike, chose to celebrate this subversion. The irony is as bitter as it is dangerous. A population that spent decades chafing under military dictatorship, that watched soldiers truncate elections and suspend constitutions, that mourned journalists and activists who died resisting military impunity—this same population now applauds a military officer for obstructing civilian authority because of the civilian in question.

    This is the peril of allowing personal sentiment to override legal principle. Wike is undoubtedly a polarizing figure. His tenure as Rivers State governor was marked by controversies, his political maneuvering has earned him enemies across party lines, and his confrontational style alarms  many. These are legitimate grounds for criticism. But they are not grounds for suspending the rule of law or celebrating its violation. The law does not discriminate based on likability. It applies to the charming and the abrasive alike, to the beloved and the reviled.

    When we cheer its breach because we dislike the intended beneficiary, we are not striking a blow for justice—we are undermining the very framework that protects all of us.

    Consider the implications. If a military officer can lawfully prevent a minister from inspecting land today because some Nigerians find that minister distasteful, what prevents another officer from preventing an election official from accessing a polling station tomorrow? What stops a colonel from obstructing a governor he dislikes, or a brigadier from overruling a judge whose decisions he finds inconvenient?

     The principle of civilian supremacy is indivisible. Once breached, it invites a cascade of violations, each justified by the subjective grievances of those wielding arms.

    To be sure, Wike himself is not blameless in how the situation unfolded. Many watched the minister resort to hurling insults at Officer Yerima—language that was unnecessary and unbecoming of his office. As a senior government official, Wike could have simply documented the obstruction, presented the evidence to military authorities and, if necessary, escalated the matter to the President. A measured, procedural response would have demonstrated the dignity of civilian authority without descending into a shouting match. His decision to exchange barbs with the officer muddied what should have been a clear-cut case of lawful authority being unlawfully obstructed.

    But even acknowledging Wike’s missteps, the central issue remains: what the officer did was illegal, and what Nigerians celebrated was the erosion of a constitutional principle. We cannot afford to be so consumed by our dislike of individuals that we lose sight of the institutions and norms that sustain our democracy.

    The land at the center of this controversy reportedly represents yet another instance of the endemic corruption that has turned Abuja’s public spaces into private commodities. Land meant for a recreational park—a space where families could gather, children could play, and communities could find respite—was allegedly carved up and sold to the privileged few who could afford it. This is the real scandal, the genuine outrage. Yet instead of demanding accountability for this theft of public patrimony, Nigerians directed their attention to the personality clash, choosing sides based not on law or principle but on which party they found more objectionable.

    This is how we lose our democracy—not to a sudden coup, but to a gradual acceptance of illegality whenever it serves our immediate emotional needs. We must do better. We must learn to separate our assessment of individuals from our defense of institutions. We must recognize that celebrating a military officer’s defiance of civilian authority, regardless of the civilian involved, is a betrayal of every Nigerian who fought, bled, and died to end military rule.

    Nigeria’s democracy is young and fragile. It requires constant vigilance, not just against obvious threats like electoral fraud or executive overreach, but against the subtler danger of our own inconsistency—our willingness to abandon principle when personality intervenes. The Wike-Yerima incident should serve as a wake-up call: our hatred for individuals must never eclipse our commitment to the rule of law. The alternative is a return to the chaos we claim to have left behind.

  • Vote-buying: A threat to democracy

    Vote-buying: A threat to democracy

    A democracy is as rugged or fragile as its election, the major pillar that props up the government of the people by the people and for the people. A compromised election is like a structure built with fake materials. It is only a matter of time before it crumbles. Thus, the credibility of an election lies with the people – all those who contribute the materials that are mixed to build the system. The politicians, the electoral umpire’s officials, the security agents, the voters, and the agents of the political parties involved in the conduct of the polls determine the extent of an election’s integrity or otherwise.

    Nations can dismantle their democracy after disputed elections, often due to the menace of vote-buying.

    But how does this menace creep into an election? How do politicians perceive this malpractice? What are the consequences of vote-buying on democracy? How could a nation systematically ease the menace out of its elections?

    Vote-buying, which connotes the intent to alter political behaviour and swing the votes through financial inducement, is perhaps the greatest threat to democratic elections in the country and many other parts of the world. For Nigeria, it has been conjoined with the electoral system, like Siamese twins. It is an affront on the sanctity of the ballot box; a special case of influence that elicits instant compliance at polling booths on election day, with severe losses to the unsuspecting or helpless opponents who may not be able to match the deep purse of desperate rivals, particularly the highest bidder.

    Many believe that this form of bribery is immoral, yet they find it irresistible. But sometimes, vote-buying is exaggerated. These days, it is also employed as a weapon of blackmail to discredit the integrity of a substantially free and fair election.

    At a time the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) is working hard to deliver credible elections, vote-buying creates a dent on the nation’s electoral scorecard. It is a peculiar style of electoral fraud that may continue to defy solution, unless all stakeholders make concerted efforts to weed it out of the system, with the honest intention that it is an ill will that does no one any good. It may affect Part A today; tomorrow, it might wreck Party B. Vote-buying is a tsunami that spares no party. 

    The umpire is helpless in the face of the monetisation of voting before, during, and even after the electorate has cast their ballot. It lacks the power to curb the menace, which is the last trick of politicians to secure victory through the back door.

    Efforts by security agencies to also track the deviant behaviour have not succeeded to a large extent.

    It is a complex matter. Not all forms of vote-buying can be easily interrogated, especially when the shoddy action may not happen in broad daylight or very close to the polling booths during elections.

    Many have been arrested and prosecuted for electoral offences, such as ballot stuffing, hijacking of voting materials, thuggery, falsification of results, disruption of collation and violence. But vote-buyers often escape the eagle eyes of the law. While a few arrests were made in past electoral seasons, the trial of suspects never saw the light of day.

    As Nigeria began to experience political stability, the competition for power became stiffer. The urge to occupy political seats became more attractive and voters started making demands from politicians, both popular and unpopular, beyond their constitutional responsibilities of defending public welfare. The perception is that the money is with the politicians to spend.

    The gap between the political class and the voting public widened and interactions have paled into periodic engagements during electioneering. Those in power swim in opulence and the only way to warm themselves to the electorate is through clientelism, accompanied by the promise of cosmetic material empowerment in the post-election period.

    A few years ago, “di’bo koo se’be” (vote to cook soup) became a popular slogan of mobilisation in a part of the country. Attention shifted from previous achievements of political actors and campaign promises to the expectation of crumbs falling from the tables of power mongers. Monetary exchanges, distribution of food, and goods, particularly clothing materials, became the vogue. No matter how popular a candidate is now, party members believe that it is risky to dismiss patronage politics with a wave of the hand. Stomach infrastructure is accorded priority.

    Read Also: The missing opposition: Why Nigeria’s democracy is losing its pulse

    Buying and selling of votes is not peculiar to Nigeria. But it is a serious political infection that undermines the predictive value of elections and the accuracy of electoral outcomes. It is a secret affair, often concealed from the public glare. Direct buyers may not be candidates, but their skilled and overzealous agents who have acquired informal training on how to target and persuade potential voters, without the security agents knowing the plot.

    The agents are armed with a voter register, which enhances their spade work. They act as legitimate canvassers ahead of elections, and in the process of mobilisation, introduce the dimension of inducement.

    An essential feature of vote-buying is bargaining. The buyer and seller are familiar with each other because they reside in the same community. Clever voters engage in double dealings by playing along with agents of multiple candidates, although each voter has only one vote to donate. Ultimately, the highest bidder is favoured.

    In the rural areas, innocent elderly voters who are financially induced remain faithful to the deal. Although they are often aware that they mortage their conscience, they see it as a new way of life, especially when they see their neighbours also partaking in the sharing of money

    Generally, certain populations are clearly susceptible to accepting gifts or other forms of compensation in exchange for votes. Poverty is a factor, as vote-buying is targeted at people from the lower socio-economic stratum of society.

    The involvement of wealthy people raises concern about inordinate influence peddling. The high class and patrons of candidates and parties participate as middlemen by deploying their clout to organise, mobilise, and distribute money on behalf of the candidates to those in the neighbourhood who look up to them in the community as influencers.

    As voters accept money from them, they tend to impose on the electorate the obligation of compliance. As they vote for the particular candidate after collecting money, the rival candidate is deprived of the legitimate right to a fair contest. But in some cases, vote buyers also target those who have made up their minds to vote for only those who are ready to pay them, without the agents knowing.

    In the past, car booths of vote buyers were loaded with cash. These days, technology makes it easier. The money is transferred to the bank accounts of voters. This is evidence that the agents really target the voters. It also ensures accountability.

    The monitoring of compliance is challenging. It is a game. The players are locked in the infamy. Some voters renege on their promise to vote for a particular politician,  and criminals who induce them with money cannot report to the police. Some voters manage to enter the polling booth with their phones to snap the ballot paper, which serves as evidence of a duty fully discharged.

    Usually, the efficacy of vote-buying is measured by the outcome. Losers become winners, and democratic decline is inadvertently celebrated in their camps. But integrity is at stake. This is the first consequence of the malpractice.

    Also, popular votes cannot be ascertained and the genuineness of the authentic winner is suspect. To that extent, there is no popular choice. The autonomy or independence of voters is destroyed when voting behaviour is shaped by the crumbs falling off the tables of unpatriotic politicians.

    The greatest danger is the post-election behaviour of the winner. He sees an election as an investment that should enable him to garner returns. It is the baseline for graft in high places and bad governance.

    The Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC) is usually on the prowl during the off-cycle elections. During the general elections, the commission’s officials cannot go round all the voting units. They lack the resources – money, men, and materials.

    Obviously, an election is a joint responsibility involving all the stakeholders – candidates, parties, government, security agencies, traditional institutions, and the electorate. All hands must be on deck to sanitise the electoral system.

    INEC has called for the setting up of a special electoral tribunal for the trial of electoral offenders. It is up to the National Assembly to bring it into fruition. But the most effective solution is to educate the voters on the danger of selling their franchise to the highest bidder. The more enlightened electorate we have, the fewer cases of vote-buying we will record. The fewer case of the malpractice we record, the stronger this pillar of democracy will become.

  • Day wife ordered powerful general to enter rain

    Day wife ordered powerful general to enter rain

    Among men who are yet to be caught in the web of woman’s power, there is a tendency to underestimate the influence of the feminine gender on their spouses.

    History is replete with cases of great rulers whose kingdoms were ruined by their inability to rein in their spouses when their influence becomes overbearing. In Shakespeare’s Antony and Cleopatra, the story is told of how Mark Antony, the co-ruler of Roman Empire with Octavius Caesar and Lepidus, who was needed urgently in Rome as Pompey, another military leader, sought to take control of the empire, remained stuck with Cleopatra in Egypt

    In the middle of the hot battle for the control of the empire, he abandoned his army and ran after Cleopatra.

    In the bible, there are numerous examples of supposedly powerful men genuflecting before their wives or pandering to their promptings like Adam did with Eve, Samson with Delilah and Ahab with Jezebel, to mention a few.

    Read Also: Igbobi, IGOT train surgeons to save limbs, improve trauma care in Nigeria

    Within our clime, army generals and even heads of state are reputed for bowing to the whims and caprices of their female partners no matter how discomforting.

    An aide to a former head of state once recalled how the head of state in question was lefty in torn uniform and injured face after a violent attack by his wife and First Lady, in his office! So much so that he had to be ferried back home by his aides to change his torn uniform.

    In yet another case of woman power, another widely respected General from the north was said to have gone to a social function with his wife, who was young enough to be his daughter behind the wheel.

    However, a heavy rain had started by the time the party was over and they needed to depart the venue but the car was parked at a distance. The woman, mindful of the prospects of her dress getting drenched or her facial powder messed up, turned to the elderly husband, handed him the key and commanded: “Go and bring the car”.

    Like an obedient servant, the elderly general jumped into the rain and walked gingerly towards the car.