Category: Segun Ayobolu

  • James Faleke’s unflagging flame of service

    James Faleke’s unflagging flame of service

    To have been at the forefront of progressive politics in a dynamic, diverse, cosmopolitan and sophisticated constituency like Ikeja, the capital of Nigeria’s commercial, financial and industrial nerve-centre, and with unbroken electoral success for over two decades since 2004, Honourable James Abiodun Faleke, is no doubt made of no mean stuff.

    On Christmas Day, Honourable Faleke clocked 66 eventful years this side of eternity. Ikeja Federal Constituency and far beyond were agog. What can be described as the constituent elements of Faleke’s political philosophy and praxis? First, is an uncompromising commitment to the communal good.

    The efficiency, diligent organisation, methodical exactitude and consistent regularity with which he organises his constituency outreach poverty alleviation programmes for maximum impact reflect his educational training in logistics planning, procurement processes and business management.

    Read Also: Fed Govt: Borno attack won’t deter us

    A second element of his politics is ideological fidelity and loyalty to leadership and party ethos. He is one of the enduring and unflinching pillars of support, ever constant as the northern star in President Bola Tinubu’s political firmament. The third essential feature of his politics is a humble disposition, a close affinity with the grassroots and personal accessibility to both the high and the low.

    He was the first Executive Secretary of the Ojodu Local Council Development Authority (LCDA) and was elected as substantive Chairman of the Council in 2004. Apart from his indelible achievements in infrastructure provision and social service delivery, it is noteworthy that he was the Chairman of Conference 57, the association of Local Government Chairmen in Lagos State, during his tenure.

    In 2011, he was elected to represent the Ikeja Federal Constituency in the Federal House of Representatives and has brought his characteristic commitment and seriousness to the enormous responsibility of law-making and pursuing the interests of his constituency.

    Faleke was elected to Nigeria’s Federal House of Representatives in 2011, to represent the Ikeja Federal constituency of Lagos State. He is currently the Chairman of the House Committee on Finance.

    An indigene of Ekirin-Adde in Ijummu Local Government Area of Kogi State, Faleke’s teeming supporters in the state are awaiting his next political move, especially given his continued close links with the formidable structure of the late political colossus, former governor Abubakar Audu, in the state.

  • What irks Nasir el-Rufai?

    What irks Nasir el-Rufai?

    Reacting to this week’s launch of a new book on the life, times and legacy of the late President Muhammadu Buhari, former federal Minister and two-term governor of Kaduna State from 2015 to 2023, Nasir el-Rufai, appealed to Nigerians to let the former President “rest in peace”. Expectedly, a major book on a man like Buhari, who served first as military Head of State after the collapse of the Second Republic in December 1983 and was elected President for eight years after three unsuccessful bids for the position in 2003, 2007 and 2011, is bound to generate a lot of interest and controversies. This is moreso because Buhari was an enigma for the better part of his private and public life and, like most great leaders, was as intensely admired by his supporters as he was derided with equal passion by his traducers.

    Titled ‘From Soldier to Statesman: The Legacy of Muhammadu Buhari’, and written by Dr Charles Omole, Director-General of the Institute for Police and Security Policy Research, the book gives insider details on such issues as Buhari’s position on the choice of his successor in the run up to the 2023 presidential election, how the plot to impose former Senate President, Ahmed Lawan, as presidential candidate of the All Progressives Congress (APC) failed or the late President’s management and leadership style.

    From media reports of the contents of the book, the author’s research involved detailed interviews with close family relations of Buhari such as his widow, Aisha Buhari, and some of those who worked closely with him as President such as former Director-General of the Department of State Security (DSS), Yusuf Bichi, former Inspectors-General of Police, Mohammed Adamu and Usman Alkali Baba, and former Chief Security Officer to Buhari, Abubakar Idris, among others. Surely, these are people who are in a position to speak authoritatively on the subject of the book, even though their account of events and interpretation of issues will naturally be coloured by their subjective value-preferences.

    Read Also: Buying Range Rover Sport was my biggest financial mistake – Zicsaloma

    Although el-Rufai admits that he has not yet read the 600-page book, he cautioned against the “selective revelations” about a man who is no longer alive to give his own account, stressing that “Explaining the thoughts and motivations of a complex leader through selective anecdotes risks distorting, rather than preserving his legacy.” One would have thought that the stormy petrel should have at least read portions of the book before making magisterial pronouncements on the content, especially when he admitted that “it is possible that some media reports lack context.”

    Nevertheless, he felt confident enough on the basis of perfunctory media reportage to conclude that “many of the so-called revelations attributed to the late President appear one-sided and unfair”. el-Rufai is himself a published author. His reminiscences on his not-uneventful public life, titled ‘The Accidental Public Servant’, generated considerable media attention when published in 2013 and understandably attracted its fair share of controversies.

    Rather than calling on potential authors on the life of Buhari to perhaps exercise self-censorship to allow his soul to ‘rest in peace’, el-Rufai should avail the reading public of his own insider account of the public life and leadership style of a man he was privileged to observe and work with at close quarters. He undoubtedly has the ability to deliver a compelling read in this regard, which will, nevertheless, most certainly elicit its own controversies, disagreements, debates and rebuttals.

    But what actuated this latest intervention by el-Rufai in a statement with regard to the Buhari book launch? It certainly was no high-minded concern for the accuracy of the narratives about the late President or the need to preserve the sanctity of his legacy. No, what was at play was obviously his persisting bitterness and fury against the Tinubu administration, which apparently committed the unpardonable sin of acceding to the security report that declared el-Rufai unfit for ministerial appointment, leading to his exclusion from the current Federal Executive Council.

    Thus, apart from making baseless insinuations about the venue of the book launch, which was the State House Conference Centre, Abuja, el-Rufai asserted that “More troubling was the presence of long-time critics of Buhari, some of whom now hold high office, delivering glowing, but clearly faked tributes. These are individuals who once blamed his administration for nearly every challenge facing Nigeria, but who now appear eager to revise history—perhaps to deflect responsibility for present failures.”

    President Bola Tinubu was one of those who paid fulsome tribute to his predecessor at the book launch, but this can certainly not be credibly described as ‘faked tributes’. Throughout Buhari’s eight years as President, Tinubu never once criticised his administration in public, even when many leaders and groups in the Southwest were vehement in their denunciation of the latter’s politics, policies and leadership style. During the campaigns for the 2023 presidential election, President Tinubu severally stated that he would continue with Buhari’s legacies, eliciting furious reactions from caustic critics of the former President.

    And since he stepped into Buhari’s shoes as President in May 2023, Tinubu has pursued his government’s reforms with singleness of resolve while studiously refusing to dissipate energy on distracting criticisms of his predecessor’s administration. He has publicly stated that the government is a continuum, and he had naturally inherited both assets and liabilities from the previous government.

    What exactly irks el-Rufai about President Tinubu paying glowing tribute to Buhari at the book launch or the event taking place at the State House Conference Centre? After all, was Buhari not a former President elected on the platform of the ruling APC? Obviously, el-Rufai ‘s calculation, along with many other no less bitter members of Buhari’s defunct Congress of Progressive Change (CPC), one of the legacy parties that merged to form the APC, was that they would inherit the consistent bank of the late President’s 12 million northern votes following his demise.

    It did not matter that they never displayed the asceticism, frugality, modesty and commitment to the northern talakawa that earned Buhari his unprecedented grassroots support in the region despite his meagre material means. They thus are irked by the emotional and unprecedentedly grand and glorious state burial that Tinubu accorded his predecessor to the obvious approbation and approval of Buhari’s teeming support base in the North. This is also their grouse with the President’s continuing to honour Buhari’s memory with his presence and generous appreciation of the latter at the book launch.

    Unsurprisingly, el-Rufai declares that “It was also unsettling to see individuals celebrating Buhari in death who had neither his trust nor his respect in life. President Buhari was a principled man who did not easily forget personal or political disrespect, and he made his preferences clear to those around him. Unfortunately for the former Kaduna State governor and his fellow travellers, Tinubu is the sitting President, and he enjoys the support of members of his predecessor’s family and a significant number of leading members of his larger political family.

    Nasir’s wrath and frustration will most likely grow more incendiary over the next few weeks and months especially as the African Democratic Congress (ADC) continues in its failure to gain momentum, the ruling APC systematically utilizes its incumbency to strengthen its political grip nationwide, the President’s economic reforms increasingly yield more fruits with positive impacts on living standards and the former Kaduna State governor’s influence and acceptance in the state he presided over for eight years persists in its downward trajectory.

    We can therefore expect increasingly combustible radio and television interviews as well as explosive social media outbursts by the diminutive mobile time bomb dangling delicately on the fragile fringes of treason.

    Last week, we examined a write-up purportedly written by one Mohammed Bello Doka titled ‘Is Tinubu waging a war against the Muslim North?’ shared by el-Rufai on his Facebook page. By disseminating the inciting and deliberately provocative article, el-Rufai openly identified with the extremist views of the writer. The piece sought to instigate the Muslim North against the Tinubu administration by falsely claiming that Muslim public officials were being purged because of their religion and replaced by Northern Christians. It tried to whip up hostility against Middle Belt Christians by far Northern Muslims.

    Mohammed Doka reiterated a false allegation repeated severally on national television by el-Rufai that the Tinubu administration was paying huge sums of money in negotiations with bandits, even after this claim had been vehemently denied by the security agencies, and el-Rufai has provided no proof of his allegation. Again, the piece claimed that the Tinubu administration is indifferent to the insecurity in the North and that the cost of one road in Lagos exceeds the security votes of all northern states combined. Again, no attempt was made to provide empirical validation for this wild assertion.

    Yet, the security agencies have made no efforts to invite both Mohammed Doka and el-Rufai to offer proof of such utterly false and potentially destabilising information being brazenly peddled, which will encourage their persistence on this reckless path with dangerous implications for national harmony, stability and unity.

    Other dangerous claims in the post shared by el-Rufai is that insecurity is being deliberately encouraged in the North to discourage significant turnout of voters in the region in 2027; that Northern Muslims occupying public office in the Tinubu administration are complicit in ‘betraying’ the North and Islam; and that Northern Muslims in the administration are being marginalized and intimidated and Christians favoured to placate President Donald Trump.

    By sharing this article, which is obviously the product of a deranged extremist religious mind, el-Rufai confirms the notorious reputation he acquired as governor of Kaduna State for eight years- that of a closet unhinged Ayatollah difficult to distinguish in temperament and outlook from forest bandits and terrorists. But why does it appear that the country’s security agencies see nothing and hear nothing and are so inexplicably paralysed to curb the reckless hubris of the el-Rufais of this world?

  • Our Ayatollah has gone mad again? (1)

    Our Ayatollah has gone mad again? (1)

    After what must have, for him, been a memorable spell on the stage of public prominence as Director-General of the Bureau of Public Enterprises (BPE) and later Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) in the President Olusegun Obasanjo administration, Malam Nasir el’Rufai went on to serve as governor of Kaduna State for eight years between 2015 and 2023. Those years would easily rank among the most troubled, violence-ridden, blood-suffused, intolerant and intemperate in the history of the State.

    Having been continually in the public eye as an occupant of various high offices for an unbroken period of no less than two decades, power has understandably become addictive for Nasir. Just out of public office for the two and a half years of the Tinubu administration, el’Rufai’s constitution is evidently still being wracked by tormenting withdrawal symptoms. He is bitter. He feels slighted. ‘Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned’, intoned the bard.

    Perhaps what irked the closet Ayatollah most was the manner of his seemingly ignominious exclusion from the present club of APC ministerial power elite. President Tinubu had nominated him for a ministerial appointment. He accepted. This was a Tinubu he had openly denigrated, insolently insulted and conspiratorially undermined. But he accepted to be a minister in his government. Power addiction.

    His name was forwarded to the Senate along with others for legislative confirmation. The Senators would most likely have given him the nod. But no, the security report said. Ayatollah was unfit for public office. And his bosom friend and fellow Fulani, Nuhu Ribadu, was NSA? He was dropped. The cut ran deep. The wound still bleeds. On television show circuits. In vitriolic outbursts on the Hausa Service of the BBC. In incendiary newspaper interviews. Then there were rumours of an alleged foiled coup attempt. Inexplicably, Ayatollah laid low for some time. Gradually he is regaining his mojo.

    This week, Nasir shared on his Facebook page an article by one Mohammed Bello Doka titled, ‘Is Tinubu waging a quiet war on the Muslim North – Or is it all a coincidence?’ It was an inflammatory piece deliberately designed to instigate the Muslim North against the Tinubu administration and draw a wedge between northern Christians and Muslims. Some language experts who have dissected the purported Bello Doka piece insist that the voice is that of Jacob but the hand, that of Esau.

    They insist that the caustic style and belligerent temper is that of Ayatollah. The fear of treasonable felony is surely the beginning of wisdom. Thus, Ayatollah ‘s pseudonymous retreat. Thank God, there are limits to reckless hubris, even for our fearless stormy petrel.

    Here, the opening of the piece shared by el’Rufai: “Two years after President Bola Tinubu rose to power on the back of a controversial Muslim-Muslim ticket, a growing unease is spreading across Northern Nigeria. The same region that absorbed political fire, international criticism, and domestic outrage to deliver victory in 2023 is now asking an uncomfortable question: has the pact been broken?”.

    The article continues, “One after another, key Muslim Northern figures exited strategic positions – party leadership, defence, security oversight – often replaced by Northern Christians, Middle Belt figures, or Southern allies”.

    First, no single region can solely produce the President of Nigeria. The constitution has been deliberately crafted in such a manner that the winner in a presidential election must have not just the highest number of votes but must score no less than 25% of the votes cast in each of at least no less than two-thirds of the 36 states and the FCT. He must have a pan- Nigeria spread of votes. True, the Muslim North played a critical role in President Tinubu’s 2023 electoral victory.

    But then Alhaji Atiku Abubakar ‘s Northern strategy also worked considerably. The Waziri Adamawa and PDP candidate won in the core Northern states of Kaduna, Katsina, Bauchi, Sokoto, Gombe, Adamawa, Yobe, Jigawa, Kebbi and Taraba states. However, Tinubu won in Borno, Jigawa and Zamfara States in the core North while also winning in Kogi, Niger and Kwara in the North Central. To the credit of the far North, even where Tinubu did not win, he came a close second and hauled a substantially higher number of votes in Kano, where Rabiu Kwankwanso won, than Atiku did. All these were critical factors in Tinubu’s electoral triumph and I am unaware that anyone in Tinubu’s camp denies this.

    But the obverse side of the coin is that until Tinubu teamed up with Buhari in 2015, the latter’s consistent haul of over 12 million votes did not give him victory in three successive elections in 2003, 2007 and 2011. It was the additional votes of the Southwest in 2015 that gave Buhari the pan- Nigeria support he needed to win a national victory and this was repeated in 2019.

    In the latter part of the piece under consideration, the writer claims that “Southern voices declare openly that Muslim Northern votes are no longer decisive. Some cheer Northern discontent as politically irrelevant. Others openly frame 2027 as a Southern consolidation project”. This is sheer mischievous propaganda to pitch the far North against Tinubu and the South. The writer mentions no known names making such assertions. He attributes no sources except the feral jungle known as social media. In any case, did el’Rufai not do a well publicized memo to President Buhari insisting that the contributions of Tinubu and the Southwest to his electoral victory was grossly exaggerated?

    The article shared by el’Rufai claims that President Tinubu is removing ‘key Muslim Northern figures’ from ‘strategic positions’ and replacing them with ‘Northern Christians, Middle Belt figures or Southern allies’. The insinuation here is that an anti-Northern Muslim agenda is at play. Nothing could be more dishonest and mischievous. He cites as an example the National Chairmanship of the APC where Alhaji Umar Ganduje has been replaced by Professor Nentawe Yilwatda from Plateau State.

    But was religion the issue here? The position of National Chairman had long been zoned to the North -Central. Thus, when Ganduje from the Northwest replaced Alhaji Abdullahi Adamu from Nasarawa State in the North Central in 2023, there were sustained protests from the latter zone that this perceived injustice be redressed. This has been done with the emergence of Yilwatda. Why does this irk Nasir?

    Again, reference is made to the replacement of former Defence Minister, Mohammed Badaru Abubakar, by General Christopher Musa, a Christian from Southern Kaduna in the Middle Belt. Is the issue here religion or competence and performance? If the buck stops at the table of the President and the blame for worsening insecurity ultimately rests on him, can he be blamed for appointing a Defence Minister he believes can achieve the desired results? Is Nasir questioning the competence of General Musa or is the problem with the highly regarded General’s faith?

    In any case, why do the likes of el’Rufai accept Northern Christians as part of the North for population count and electoral purposes but are bitterly resentful when they are given key public office appointments, which are then described as an affront on the Muslim North?

    Again, the Mohammed Dikko piece shared by el’Rufai gives the impression that the insecurity and violence in the North started in the last two years under Tinubu. According to the writer, “Villages are emptied. Farms abandoned. Schools shut. Entire communities negotiating their survival with armed groups. In some states, local governments barely function beyond state capitals. Yet critics increasingly point to what they describe as a lukewarm presidential posture towards Northern insecurity…A single road project in Lagos is measured in trillions of Naira. The combined security votes of all 19 Northern governors do not approach that figure”.

    This is brazen incitement predicated on falsehood that should ordinarily attract the attention of the security agencies both to the writer and the publicist because of the latter’s prominent position in society. In the first place, insecurity in the North can be traced to the extra-judicial killing of Mohammed Yusuf, the founder of Boko Haram, while in police custody in 2009 and has steadily worsened since under successive governments.

    Read Also: AFCON 2025: Nigerians faults CAF’s sharing formula  for Free-to-Air matches

    Under Tinubu, funding for the military has increased substantially and onslaughts against terrorists and bandits have been intensified especially through precision airstrikes. Scores of well known notorious bandits’ leaders and hundreds of their fighters have been eliminated and this onslaught continues.

    Again, several governors have publicly stated that under Tinubu, allocation to states from the Federation Account has more than tripled. State governors including those from the North thus have considerable much more to spend on security to reinforce the significantly increased budgetary allocation to defence at the centre. The statement that ‘A single road project in Lagos is measured in trillions of Naira’ is preposterous blackmail. Nasir should be challenged to name one such road or else apologize for sharing false information.

    The Lagos -Calabar Coastal Highway, for instance, is planned to physically connect the western and south -eastern regions of Nigeria and passes through through 9 states – Ogun, Ondo, Edo, Delta, Bayelsa, Rivers, Akwa Ibom States and ending in Calabar, Cross River State. The Sokoto-Badagry Super Highway extends from Sokoto through Kebbi, Niger and adjoining States and ultimately linking the Lagos -Calabar Coastal Road. Where does religion come in here except for those with a terroristic Ayatollah mindset like we know who?

    It is most laughable that Nasir can summon the temerity to share an article which states that “Equally troubling to many Northerners is the continued reliance on the same political middlemen to negotiate with bandits – negotiations that often end with cash payments, concessions and temporary…Who benefits? Does this approach pacify violence or institutionalize it?”. Luckily, we do not have to go too far for a response to Nasir. Let us resort to the ubiquitous internet which never sleeps or forgets.

    According to Wikipedia, “In December 2016, in an open interview the Kaduna State governor, Nasir Ahmed Musa el-Rufai, confessed to paying some Fulanis across the Sahel countries like Niger, Mali, Chad, Senegal and Cameroon, to stop killing Southern Kaduna indigenous due to grievances erupting from the killing of their cattles in the 2011 post election crisis in the state…In response to the above, the sitting senator representing Kaduna South Senatorial District, Danjuma Laah, said there was never a time in 2011 that Fulanis in those Sahel countries mentioned by the governor were killed with their cattle in the Southern Kaduna as the area is not a converging point for those countries and called el-Rufai ‘s claim a lie.

    “According to the Senator, “The Governor just invented this lie to make excuse for his imported murderous Fulani kindred to continue their extermination of our people and the occupation of our lands.”…In April 2021, el-Rufai made a turn-around and said anyone caught negotiating with bandits would be severely dealt with”.

  • The Nigerian state as ‘a country without country men’? (2)

    The Nigerian state as ‘a country without country men’? (2)

    By Segun Ayobolu (PIX)

    At the commencement of his inaugural lecture titled ‘The Nigerian State: A Country Without Countrymen’, Professor Babatunde Olusegun Agara of the Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma, Edo State, professed his guiding life credos of faith in God Almighty as a Christian, commitment to positive societal change beneficial to the masses and adherence to the Marxist tenets of revolutionary transformation in the realm of economics. His analysis of the different manifestations of disruptive violence in contemporary Nigeria combines the values, assumptions and outlook of radical political economy a la the late Claude Ake with a rigorous application of the theoretical framework and conceptual classifications of comparative politics and strategic studies.

    The most attractive, informative and useful feature of this inaugural lecture is his exhaustive interrogation of the identities, operational modalities, value-orientations and organisational structures, especially of the diverse non-state actors currently threatening the Nigerian state’s monopoly of the instruments and techniques of violence with negative consequences for the country’s territorial integrity, unity and political stability.

    He identifies what he describes as ‘the evil triad’ of insecurity, threats of secession and herders’ invasion’ as the prevailing most potent sources of danger to the security of lives and property in Nigeria. Surely, those who have taken up arms against the Nigerian State, snuffing out the lives of fellow citizens with impunity at will, do not see the victims of their violence as fellow countrymen or women. Understanding the nature, characteristics and motivations of the diverse individuals and groups involved in these largely asymmetric acts of violence is thus critical to finding enduring solutions to the protracted violence that has plagued the Nigerian State over the last decade and a half.

    This is partly why the content of this lecture should be of particular interest to Nigerian policy makers and those involved in various forms of conflict mitigation, conflict control, conflict containment and conflict management in Nigeria.

    Professor Agara’s interrogation of the phenomenon of insurgency encompasses features, manifestations and tendencies that include the entirety of Africa beyond Nigeria. One of the forms of insurgencies which he focuses his searchlight on is that of ‘States against citizens’. He avers that states can mount an insurgency against their citizens, including the enforcement of sanctions against those who violate their laws through extant legal processes or “through the clandestine use of illegal violence designed to intimidate and terrorise citizens with the intention of preventing them from opposing the government and disobeying or contravening the state’s laws”. The latter objective is achieved through psychologically and physically restricting and constricting laws, or more brazenly, the outright elimination of adversaries of incumbent governments in control of states’ apparatuses.

    Read Also: S’Court to FG: implement judgment on direct allocations to LGs

    The second kind of insurgency examined in the lecture is that of citizens against citizens. According to him, “A major manifestation of this type of insurgency is by vigilante violence and ethnic or tribal conflicts. Although over 80% of the insurgency experienced in the world today is located within Asia and Africa, its manifestation has always taken the form of ethnic conflict. The vigilante type emerged primarily because of the inability of the police to control crime, and these vigilante groups, at least in Nigeria, later metamorphosed into ethnic militias…this type of ethnic insurgency has been further complicated by religiously motivated violence, thereby making the divide between ethnic conflict and religious violence difficult to delineate”. He attributes the eruption of ethnic insurgency to such factors as group loyalty and identity, feelings of marginalisation and alienation, struggle for access to state power and the quest for resource control.

    Professor Agara also examines another form of insurgency, which is the expression of discontent by citizens against the policies of a state or its leadership, leading to “either organised or spontaneous uprising or riots having neither clear political goals nor organised leadership”. This type of insurgency, he points out, is aimed at overthrowing the government and occurs largely within a state, although it may have violent repercussions that transcend territorial boundaries. Next, the professor focuses on the assorted means that insurgents can opt for in seeking to achieve their objectives. These include guerrilla wars, revolution and terrorism.

    He explains that guerrilla wars are preferred by insurgents when they face stronger, better-equipped enemy forces against which a diffuse type of war is more effective. “Thus, as a strategy, guerrilla warfare avoids direct, decisive battles and instead, opts for a series of protracted but small skirmishes where the insurgents’ inferiority in terms of manpower, arms and equipment can be turned to an advantage by adopting flexible hit-and-run tactics and style of warfare…guerrilla warfare employs raids, ambushes and sabotage from remote and inaccessible bases in mountains, forests, jungles or territory of neighboring states”.

    Another feature of guerrilla warfare analysed by Professor Agara is that of many modern states, which, in addition to their regular armies, train troops called special forces to confront non-conventional combatants in irregular warfare. He submits that “As a result of the special training in sabotage, explosives and selective destruction of targets and because cruelty and brutality unmodified and unsanctioned by rules of war under which regular armies operate are the enduring characteristics of irregular warfare, these elites’ military groups actually qualify to be called terrorists-in-uniform”. On the concept of revolution, the lecturer analyses it both as a means of achieving the objectives of insurgency or as an end of achieving far-reaching social and political outcomes often by violent means. Unlike social reform, a revolution aims at smashing “the existing status quo and replacing it with a better one while at the same time resolving the issue of class antagonism and contradiction.”

    Perhaps because of our contemporary experiences in Nigeria, Professor Agara examines at greater length the phenomenon of terrorism. He identifies diverse forms of terrorism, including state terrorism, which refers to the use of terrorism by a state against its own population or state-sponsored terrorism, which is international terrorist activity sponsored by states through the provision of arms, training, safe haven or financial backing. Distinguishing between religious-motivated and politically-motivated terrorism, he notes that, although both employ the use of violence, the latter seeks to challenge the authority of the state without affecting the private rights of innocent parties, while the goals of the former are essentially “trans-temporal and the time limit of their struggle is eternity”.

    Professor Agara identifies other features of religious-motivated terrorism to include choosing the targets of violence not for military values or reasons but rather for their impact on public consciousness due to the degree of brutality or element of surprise or suddenness; portraying the perpetrators of religious-terrorism as pursuing the cause of a ‘god’ and their opponents as consequently evil; and the propagation of the divine nature of religious terrorism, which is perceived as a struggle between good and evil.

    Acts of terrorism, Professor Agara points out, are particularly deliberately geared to make the most damaging impact in order to draw the widest possible attention to the demands and exploits of the terrorists. He explains this thus: “Coupled with this is the fact that terrorist actions would be useless if not directed to attract attention, the attention of a specific in which a particular mode of fear is sought to be created. The violence of terrorism is not an end in itself. Rather, violence is employed precisely to create a sense of fear, terror and uncertainty in the people who are the audience of terrorism”.

    Another interesting aspect of this lecture is the professor’s exhaustive examination of the nexus between terrorism and organised crime. He argues that the transition towards a more closely knit, globalised economy has also facilitated “the emergence of a transnational form of organized criminality, which has increased the possibilities of terrorists becoming involved in illegal business”. Insurgents increasingly exploit the opportunities provided by improved communication, advances in information technologies as well as greater mobility of goods and services across countries, among others, to participate in purely criminal activities.

    At the level of operational modes of operation, the convergence between terrorist groups and organized crime cartels, according to Professor Agara, includes involvement in the trafficking or use of drugs; engaging in illegal trading activities through, for instance, the use of the black market to sell gold, diamonds and other precious minerals to fund their activities; the facilitation of their operations through forging documents such as traveling documents, passports and credit cards to ease their movements across different countries and kidnapping for ransom as the fastest and perhaps the surest way to acquire funds for criminals and jihadists”.

    Other areas of convergence in the mode of Operation between terrorist groups and criminal gangs, which the author illuminates, include the use of intimidation, aggression and threats to extort money from members of the public including the payment of money by victims in turn for protection by the criminal elements; creation of front or screen companies to launder and legitimize laundering of and movement of money or funds acquired through shadowy sources of organized crime or other illicit activities.

    Two forms of convergence by terrorist groups and criminal syndicates, pointed out by the Professor, include direct collaboration between criminal cartels and terrorist groups especially where both share similar religious ideology and beliefs or where such collaboration is a function of meeting a mutually beneficial economic activity or practical need.

    Comparing the areas of convergence as regards the organizational methods of terrorist groups in contrast with criminal cartels, Professor Agara notes that these include the primacy of the pursuit, first and foremost, of pecuniary and monetary interests to the detriment of overtly political goals; an essentially hierarchical organizational structure by both; an organizational structure premised on a cell-like formation with each cell consisting of not more than 10 members and each cell enabled to function independently of each other. Furthermore, Membership into organised criminal groups and terrorist organisations is never advertised or announced, nor are written applications invited, with applicants shortlisted for interview. By virtue of their exclusivity, the membership is also exclusive, not open, but significantly limited with strict qualification or criteria such as ethnic background, kinship, race, criminal record, religious affiliation (particularly in the case of religious terrorism like ISIS,al-Qaeda and Boko Haram).

    On recruitment of members, he notes that both members of terror groups and criminal gangs demand, in addition to basic qualifications in either criminal proclivities or extremist ideological bent, “potential members would also require to be sponsored by a high-ranking member of the group and must prove qualified by their willingness to perform any acts required of them, obey orders and keep secrets”. Ironically, although both terrors groups and criminal gangs are essentially lawless elements by definition, Professor Agara notes that the activities of members are guided by rules and regulations which they are expected to follow; both terrors groups and criminal cartels claim monopoly over particular territories over which they strive to maintain dominance; both types of groups do not hesitate as regards their willingness to exploit the use of illegal violence while both organized criminal gangs and terrorist organizations constitute an ongoing criminal conspiracy against the society but designed to persist through time and even after and beyond the lifetimes of the present members”.

    In the last three sections of the lecture, Professor Agara rigorously interrogates the phenomena of secession and herders’ invasion, which he had earlier cited as components of the ‘triad of evil’ currently afflicting the Nigerian State. And in conclusion, he examines the implications of the widespread violence for the efficacy of the Nigerian State in performing its obligations, particularly of maintaining the safety of the lives and property of citizens. He argues that failed states are characterised by an implosion of states’ structures, which results in the incapability of governmental authorities to perform their functions, including providing security, respecting the rule of law, exercising control, supplying education and health services and maintaining economic and structural infrastructures”. Does he then arrive at the conclusion that Nigeria is a failed state?

    Rather, he argues that the concept of State failure is a gradual unfolding of loss of state efficacy, which can be measured along a continuum, “as the state becomes progressively less capable of performing its functions and as a result becomes more and more ‘failed’. Complete state collapse is the ultimate, but rare result, while different stages of state failure can be encountered along the continuum”. Since he argues that the defining characteristic of state failure lies in the implosion of government institutions and the inability of any group to constitute the governing authority by effectively replacing the government in power, Professor Agara introduces a new category between failed and collapsed states to depict the Nigerian situation.

    Of the Nigerian case, he submits thus that “While this may not be categorical, the fact that the institutions of the state still function, and are periodically contested for, may be believed to be the fact and reality of a failed state where such institutions have crumbled and, in some cases, are no longer in existence. Hence, the need to introduce another concept- to describe such states – as fractured states. Nigeria may be described as a fractured state since the institutional pillars on which the state rests are still ‘operational’ and visibly contested for, even though it has not adequately provided the public with the necessary goods and services, including security of lives and property”. How do we stem the complete slide of the Nigerian State from a fractured polity to a failed one or a collapsed State? That is a critical question facing both the operators of the Nigerian State, as well as those with specialisation in the study of complex, plural, federal societies like Nigeria such as Professor Babatunde Agara.

  • What path to elite consensus?

    What path to elite consensus?

    So alarming and concerning did this column perceive President Donald Trump’s recent threat to invade Nigeria militarily to check what he described as ‘Christian genocide’ that, over the last three weeks, we have examined diverse dimensions of this warning and its implications. Our central contention has been that this undisguised threatened violation of Nigeria’s sovereignty constitutes not just a danger to the incumbent administration of President Bola Tinubu but an indictment of Nigeria’s ruling class as a whole. Those members of the political elite, who thus gloat over Trump’s categorisation of Nigeria as a ‘now failed’ State and feel surreptitious vindication by the American leader’s contemptuous disdain for Nigeria, are as much an object of his scorn and ridicule as those in power at the centre today on the platform of the All Progressives Congress (APC).

    It is instructive that over the last week in the United States, there have been incidents of fatal attacks on innocent citizens by trigger-happy gunmen, resulting in several deaths. One of such killings took place in the vicinity of the White House, leading to the death of at least one National Guard officer and another being injured. In another instance in California, four school children were said to have died in a mass shooting at a child’s birthday party, with several others suffering from various degrees of injuries. Such tragedies have become routine in America where deaths from senseless mass shootings have become endemic. But such failings do not justify the overgeneralized categorisation of that country as a ‘now failed’ State.

    In the same vein, Nigeria’s challenges with insecurity do not necessitate its being depicted in derogatory and pejorative terms. This is particularly so as the accusation of ‘Christian genocide’ in Nigeria completely misses the mark and successive Nigerian governments have not been indifferent or insensitive to the need to tackle the assorted acts of insurgency threatening the country’s territorial integrity and cohesion. It is instructive that various Nigerian groups and individuals in the diaspora actively peddled the propaganda of ‘Christian genocide’ in the country, which President Trump and other far-right Republican ideologues enthusiastically bought into. The harm which disaffected members of the political elite can inflict, directly or indirectly, on their own country reinforces the imperative of forging a viable and enduring elite consensus as a necessary condition for national stability, peace and progress.

    Incidentally, America today also suffers from the plague of a lack of elite consensus. The greatest military and economic power on earth today, despite evident signs of a gradual weakening, is described in the media, academia and other platforms of public discourse in that country as a badly divided society torn right through the middle between the liberals and the more conservative Republicans. Indeed, the degree of polarisation in America may be far deeper than the variant of elite fractiousness in Nigeria as is evident in the bitterness of recent electoral contestations in that country with President Trump instigating an insurrection at the Capitol, a symbol of American democracy, protesting his loss in the 2020 presidential election, which he described as a fraud.

    Read Also: Shettima reaffirms Tinubu administration’s commitment to traditional institutions

    However, America has the advantage of strong and resilient institutions capable of safeguarding democratic tenets, principles and values, particularly through Judicial intervention, as is the case during Trump’s ongoing second term, when he has stretched the constitutional limits of Presidential powers to their utmost bounds. So far, various courts at the lower levels have blocked the Trump administration’s policy idiosyncrasies and acts of executive over-reach even though he has generally had his way on appeal at the Supreme Court, where he succeeded in getting a majority of conservative judges appointed during his first term. Yet, this has not prompted anyone to label America as a ‘now failed’ State, nor have aspersions been hurled at judges who understandably base their Judicial decisions on facts before them, interpreted within the context of their worldviews and value-orientation.

    But the central point of this piece is the urgent imperative for the political elite in Nigeria to forge the necessary class consensus across political party, ethnic, regional and religious divides without which there cannot be any basis for stability, peace, progress and development. This does not mean that the various factions, factions and tendencies of the Nigerian elite should forget their differences and create an artificial and unnatural commonality. That would be the perfect recipe for a one-party State, which would be detrimental to the continuous nurturing and consolidation of a genuine democratic order, which is a necessary condition for economic development and national cohesion. Rather, forging an elite consensus involves members of the elite recognising their differences and identifying those areas where they must work in unison and accommodate each other, even while vigorously maintaining their differences as regards ideological orientation, policy articulation and philosophical disposition or worldview.

    One area of critical importance for cultivating viable elite consensus among the various factions and tendencies that constitute Nigeria’s ruling class is reaching a common agreement on the indispensability of a transparent, credible and efficient electoral process as a cardinal element of an inclusive democratic system. This implies that both elected officials and their ruling parties, as well as those in opposition, develop a common commitment to the sustenance of democracy. Those who lose elections will not clamour for military intervention or external invasion because of their disenchantment with electoral outcomes while those in power will not undermine or render the opposition ineffective. The elite in power and those in opposition are two sides of a coin that are both critical to the sustenance and continuous development of democracy.

    But then, those in opposition cannot expect the party in government to enforce cohesion within their ranks or help them to devise political strategies to strengthen their parties. That is a responsibility they must undertake on their own. Thus, the continued lamentations of leading opposition politicians on the plight of their parties such as the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Labour Party (LP) and the New Nigerian Peoples Party (NNPP), which they blame on deliberate destabilization by the ruling APC, is unnecessary and unproductive. There is absolutely no basis for former Vice-President, Atiku Abubakar, to have deserted the PDP with his supporters for the emergent All Democratic Congress (ADC), all in a quest for a platform on which to contest the next presidential election. In further bifurcating the PDP, which already has roots in all 774 Local Government Areas across the country as well as the 8,809 Registration Areas/Wards, Atiku has weakened the possibility of a stronger, more viable opposition arising to effectively challenge the APC at the 2027 polls.

    The ADC is still largely inchoate and is unlikely to become a political machine capable of effectively challenging for power at the centre come 2027. It will also be recalled that it was Atiku ‘s intransigent refusal to allow the PDP national championship to revert to the South after his emergence as presidential candidate of the party in 2023, in violation of its zoning principle, that provided for rotation of power between the North and the South, created the grounds for the fragmentation of the PDP, its loss in the 2024 election and it’s unfolding catastrophic implosion. Indeed, the concession of the presidential tickets of the defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) in alliance with the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP) and the PDP to the Southwest in 1999, to compensate the Yoruba for the annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election won by Chief MKO Abiola is the kind of elite consensus necessary to stabilize democratic governance to promote economic progress and political stability in Nigeria.

    In the case of Mr Peter Obi, he has proven to be utterly clueless in resolving the protracted crisis in which the LP has been immersed. Surprisingly, even his running mate in the 2023 presidential election, Mr Datti-Ahmed, appears to have deserted his erstwhile boss and aligned with a different faction of the LP. Part of the problem is that Obi, just like Atiku, is more interested in finding a platform to actualize his presidential ambition rather than helping to build a solid opposition front irrespective of whether or not he emerges as the presidential candidate. With this kind of individualistic approach by these key opposition leaders, it is unlikely that they can build a formidable front to meaningfully challenge the ruling party for power at the centre in 2027.

    Another area where there must be a consensus on the part of Nigeria’s political elite is the need to join hands across partisan divides to fight the deep-seated and long-standing endemic poverty and grossly unjust inequality that are at the root of Nigeria’s current chronic insecurity challenge. This will entail elite unanimity on fighting the industrial -scale corruption that pervades our national life such that humongous funds criminally diverted into private pockets can be made available to boost food production, provide affordable but qualitative healthcare, generate jobs for millions of our youth, improve access to qualitative education and properly as well a  equip and motivate our security agencies in the ongoing do-or-die struggle against diverse forms of terror against the Nigerian State.

  • Trump’s wake up call

    Trump’s wake up call

    By his enthusiastic endorsement and approval of the contemptuous and derogatory language with which President Donald Trump couched his recent threat to intervene militarily in Nigeria to check alleged ‘Christian genocide, ‘ Mr Peter Obi, presidential candidate of the Labour Party (LP) in the 2023 presidential election, obviously believes that the American leader’s tirade was targeted solely at the President Bola Tinubu administration. And the new factional National Chairman of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), Alhaji Kabiru Turaki, who recently unabashedly invited Trump to undertake a Messianic role of salvaging democracy in the country, which he perceived to be under threat, also sees the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) as the sole target of external umbrage at the challenges of insecurity in Nigeria.

    Unfortunately, this is a gross misreading of the import of President Trump’s threat to unilaterally violate the country’s sovereignty in an all-out onslaught against Islamic terrorists. Indeed, the reactions of Obi, Turaki and other opponents of the Tinubu administration to Trump’s warning reinforce once again one of the reasons for the latter’s undisguised loathing for the African political elite as a whole. Some attribute Trump’s attitude toward Africa generally to a racist, supremacist outlook. That may not be entirely true. In reality, countries earn respect rather than seek that it be conferred on them gratuitously. Given the abundant resources with which she is endowed, should the African continent be in the pathetic situation of abject underdevelopment, economic misery and political retardation in which she finds herself today? Can we blame outsiders who treat her with condescension and utter derision in the global community?

    Most African countries run what the late Chief Obafemi Awolowo described with characteristic brutal frankness as ‘street beggar economies’. Thus, despite being perhaps the most blessed portion of the globe in terms of mineral and natural resources as well as arable land and clement climate, the vast majority of the peoples of Africa are immersed in dehumanising poverty while their societies are plagued by debilitating and dysfunctional inequality that pits a microscopic, obscenely wealthy elite against the rest of the downtrodden populace. President Trump may have been misled by mischievous lobby groups with surreptitious agendas into mischaracterising the nature of violence and insecurity in Nigeria. But his warning is an indictment not just of the incumbent administration but of the political class as a whole.

    It is unlikely that the American leader will be impressed by a political elite which supinely accedes to the insulting denigration of their country by outsiders or one which solicits external political saviours to fix their country over six and a half decades after independence. The insurgency, which has laid large swathes of northern Nigeria in particular prostates and metastasised to encompass banditry, herders-farmers bloodletting, religious extremism, incessant communal savagery, among others, has lasted over a decade and a half. The assorted non-state actors pitched against the Nigerian State have, over this period, acquired greater proficiency, access to increasingly more sophisticated arms, enhanced operational flexibility and dexterity, while the efficacy of the undoubtedly valiant Nigerian armed forces is impeded by debilitating elite factionalism, a pervasive culture of corruption and structural defects of a polity that undermine and sabotage national security.

    Thus, political actors across factional partisan divides and political parties, who have been in power at one time or the other at different levels of government, are responsible for the current existential fragility of the Nigerian State, including the deteriorating insecurity that elicited Trump’s combustible response. It would thus be naivety of the extreme kind for elements of the opposition to gloat over the threat from Trump, thinking that it is only the ruling party and President Tinubu that are on the defensive. No, Trump’s action indicts the political class as a whole. It is a wake up call for the political class to get its act together and face more seriously the challenge and responsibility of running the affairs of a sovereign polity in an ever increasingly complex, fragile and unpredictable global order or disorder?

    In an emergent world in which the canons of international diplomacy and conventional standards of international behaviour are being turned upside down, particularly in the ‘Trumpian’ era, political elites face the real possibility of losing control of their territories to aggressive outsiders if they prove to be inept as well as lacking in vision and patriotic fervour. It is only a reasonably competent ruling elite committed to the continuous and steady development and progress of their polities that can actualise the latent potentials of countries, gain the fervent support of their people and earn desired respect in the global community.

    The language employed by Trump in his communication with Nigeria shows a mindset that will readily violate the sovereignty of another country, especially when the latter is perceived as weak and vulnerable. We can see the impunity with which the Trump administration has been launching attacks on vessels allegedly carrying drug peddling syndicates from Venezuela, killing scores of people in what international law experts describe as extrajudicial executions with scant regard for legal due process. Yet, we can see the deference with which Trump treats Vladimir Putin’s Russia or even Kim Jong Un’s North Korea. The state of a country’s military preparedness, especially the possession of nuclear capability, is clearly a key determinant of how nations are perceived and treated in global relations.

    But military strength is also largely dependent on economic viability, and where the degree of corruption, for instance, among a country’s political elite is of a magnitude that undermines military efficacy, the political elite as a whole – both the ruling elite and the opposition – are on the ruinous path of communal class suicide. When the opposition seeks to destabilise and bring down an elected administration through surreptitiously inviting military intervention, for instance, simply because it is dissatisfied with the outcome of elections, then it undermines the possibilities of its ever ascending to power in future through the ballot box. In the same vein, it is not in the long run interest of ruling parties to deliberately seek to sabotage, undermine and render the opposition impotent and ineffective. That was the path chosen by the PDP during the imperial Chief Olusegun Obasanjo presidency, and it is partly responsible for the dismal fate that has befallen the former ruling behemoth today.

    Right-wing ideologues of the Donald Trump mould are resurgent across the West today, and this tendency blames mass migration of people from the crisis and poverty-ridden parts of the world into their more prosperous countries as partly responsible for the deep-seated socio-economic contradictions of capitalism. Hence, the unprecedented aggression and fervour with which the Trump administration has been tackling what it perceives as the menace of immigration in the US. This is likely to be the pattern in several other advanced countries, including Britain and France, as far-right ideologies gain political ascendancy. As bad governance persists in Africa, particularly with the intransigence of sit-tight leaders for life and the resurgence of military coups, there will be increased clamour in the West for external interventions to promote a modicum of good governance on the continent and thus address at source the root of the mass exodus from Africa that has become a major problem in the advanced capitalist world.

    Read Also: JUST IN: Nigeria secures Category C IMO seat

    There are those who believe that, if there is no fundamental change of course by Africa’s ruling elite, we may be on the path of a full-blown recolonisation of the continent, and there is no guarantee that the majority of Africans will be opposed to any such tragic historic reversals on the continent. It will not be surprising if many of those who belong to the hard-headed realist school of power in the West believe that badly governed African countries, which are cesspits of poverty, violence and varying degrees of state failure, have become liabilities to the world. Their societies are plagued by mass hunger, disease, poverty and joblessness even when they are situated atop some of the most precious mineral and natural resources on earth. Those who belong to this school of thought may well believe that external intervention to provide good governance in Africa may be in the interest of the vast majority of Africans and even humanity as a whole. It is time for Africa to stop being a liability to the world.

    To decisively address the country’s security situation, President Tinubu has announced a raft of measures to improve the country’s security architecture, one of which is to accelerate the process of actualising state police. It is unfortunate that Trump’s threat of military intervention to combat religious terrorists and the inexplicable spike in attacks on schools and churches in some parts of the North have come at a time when the administration’s economic reforms have begun to yield concrete dividends. It will be naive and shortsighted for the opposition to welcome anything that will derail the reforms, destabilise the polity and threaten democracy. That will only play into the hands of anti-democratic elements, with the entire political class, not just the incumbent administration, being the ultimate losers.

    President Trump’s threat must thus be seen as a timely wake up call to the political class. It is time to forge a greater elite consensus around a new commitment to the tenets of democracy, the rule of law and a higher level of governance that promotes prosperity and progress. The menace of rampant corruption, waste and misuse of public resources that compound the problem of poverty, deepen inequality, undermine national security and have become an existential threat for the nation must be more fundamentally tackled across political parties and tendencies.

  • 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?

  • Issues in the Trump threat (2)

    Issues in the Trump threat (2)

    No less hypocritical and predicated on utter falsehood than the petition of the leader of the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to President Donald Trump, claiming to be the victim of Christian genocide in Nigeria and being illegally detained by the Nigerian authorities, was a protest letter submitted to the Embassy of the United States in Abuja, the European Union (EU) Mission and the Ministry of Justice by a faction of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). Acting under the aegis of the PDP Like-Mind Group, the protesting opposition party members appealed to the international community to help safeguard democracy in Nigeria and prevent the country from descending into a one-party state.

    According to a news report in The Independent Newspaper, “Led by Mr Moses Aliu, the protesters carried placards urging global partners and the Ministry of Justice to act swiftly to protect Nigeria’s democracy and uphold the independence of the judiciary. They accused the ruling party of orchestrating a drift towards a one-party regime through intimidation of opposition figures. The protesters said their demonstration aimed to draw attention to rising corruption, political persecution and what they described as the capture of key state institutions. The protest also called on the judiciary and law enforcement agencies to stand firm in defending democratic rights and the rule of law.”

    Coming shortly after the US President, Donald Trump, had threatened sanctions and possible military intervention in Nigeria to check what he described as ‘Christian genocide’, the factional PDP protest was a subtle support for external forcible intrusion in the country’s internal political structures and processes. The protracted factional crises that have hobbled the former self-proclaimed largest party in Africa, purportedly destined to rule for 60 years, are attributed to deliberate machinations of the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the President Bola Tinubu administration to annihilate opposition parties and impose a one-party dictatorship in Nigeria.

    Unfortunately, this kind of deliberately misleading rhetoric may give opportunity to foreign elements bent on destabilising Nigeria for ulterior motives and hidden agendas to intervene directly or indirectly in our internal affairs, citing support for such disruptive intrusions within the country. If the government of a country with perhaps the most extensive and sophisticated intelligence network on earth could be misled into perceiving Nigeria’s multi-dimensional crises encompassing political, ethnic, religious, economic, climatic and environmental factors as a unidirectional Islamic terrorism against Christians, it is not impossible that misrepresentations of the country’s challenges could lure outsiders into misguided adventurism in Nigeria.

    Now, what are the roots of the current crisis plaguing the PDP and which unfortunately continues to fester by the day? Can the internal ruptures and ripples within the former ruling party, which was in power at the centre for 16 years, be credibly and plausibly blamed on the Tinubu administration? The remote cause of the PDP imbroglio was the attempt under the presidency of General Olusegun Obasanjo (1999-2007) to destabilise and absorb opposition parties into the PDP and impose an essentially one-party-dominant system on the country. This was a period when elected office holders of the major opposition parties, the Alliance for Democracy (AD) and the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), routinely defected to the PDP in a bid to partake of ‘mainstream’ resource sharing at the centre.

    Read Also: Trump’s ineptitudes and panic in Nigeria

    The Chairman of the second largest opposition party in the country at the commencement of the fourth Republic in 1999, the All Nigeria Peoples Party (ANPP), the late Alhaji Mahmud Waziri, from Adamawa State, was subsequently appointed as Special Adviser to President Olusegun Obasanjo on inter-party relations. This was part of a process of systematic bleeding of the ANPP by the then-ruling PDP that rendered the former a shadow of itself before the 2003 elections. The defunct Alliance for Democracy (AD) was in control of the six states of the Southwest between 1999 and 2003. In the 2003 elections, the rampaging PDP Tsunami swept five of the Southwest states into the ruling party’s orbit with then-governor Bola Tinubu of Lagos State as the only one reelected on the platform of the AD in the region.

    Even as the leadership and members of the AD were in a virtual state of mourning after the party’s questionable routing by the PDP in 2003, its national chairman, Alhaji Ahmed Abdulkadir, congratulated the ruling party on its electoral victory and was later appointed as Special Adviser to the President on Manufacturing and Private Sector in the Obasanjo administration. In an article in this space on August 1, 2009, titled ‘PDP as Noah’s Ark’, this column commented on the intensifying gale of defections to the PDP at that time.

    As I put it in that piece, “As the rampaging elements of vengeful nature assail Nigerians on all sides, devaluing the quality of their lives, it is not surprising that more and more political office holders are dumping the political party platforms on which they rose to power and migrating to the safety of the Noah’s Ark that they perceive the PDP to be. Just as the biblical Ark protected Noah and his family from the fury of the flood that devastated sinful creation, the PDP is seen by the growing army of executive defectors as their eternal refuge and stronghold against political calamity. At least with the irascible Professor of travesty, Maurice Iwu, still inexplicably calling the shots at INEC, they can be guaranteed life tenures in the Ark of power irrespective of the will of the people.”

    The piece continued, “Following in the footsteps of Governors Isa Yuguda of Bauchi State and Mahmud Shinkafi of Sokoto State, who had earlier shamelessly dumped their original party platforms, the ANPP, for the PDP, Governor Ikedi Ohakim of Imo State is the latest governor to jettison moral principles and dive headlong into the contemporary PDP Noah’s Ark built on deceit and fraud. Governor Ohakim demonstrated a stunning lack of grace and civility in so callously ditching the PPA that offered him a platform to contest the 2007 elections; an opportunity he was denied with arrogant impunity in the PDP. Today, Ohakim has opted to stab the PPA in the back by going back to his vomit”.

    At the reception ceremony to welcome Ohakim to the PDP in Owerri, the late President Umaru Yar’Adua had declared exultantly, “Today is a great day for us in PDP. All the leadership of the party is here today to receive Governor Ohakim in our fold. You are welcome back to the PDP. Today is a day for prayers; today is a day to celebrate, and today is a day for songs”.

    After the 2007 general elections, the PDP was in control of 31 of the 36 states in the country. Before the polls, President Obasanjo had described the elections as a ‘do or die’ affair for the then ruling party. Yet, no one accused the PDP of trying to foist a one-party system on the country despite President Yar’Adua’s admission after his controversial electoral triumph that the election which ushered him to power was deeply flawed.

    After the 2003 elections, President Tinubu remained the only governor in the country on the platform of the AD. He was the butt of jokes by fellow governors and PDP leaders, especially that he would ultimately have no choice but to join the ruling party. Rather than being an attempt to convert Nigeria’s multi-party democracy into a one-party system, the pattern of opposition party leaders defecting to the ruling party, as currently happening, is an unfortunate, ingrained feature of Nigeria’s political culture, which has been prevalent ever before the emergence of the APC. To his credit, Tinubu did not join the bandwagon of defectors to the ruling party. Rather, he worked assiduously with other like-minded leaders to retrieve his party’s stolen electoral mandates through the judicial process and ultimately to form political parties that worked in coalition with other parties and forces to win political parties at the centre in 2015.

    What is dispiriting about the letter of the IPOB leader to President Trump or the PDP’s petition to the US and the European Union seeking external intervention in our internal political and Judicial processes for reasons that lack logical or empirical validity is that it portrays our political class as being incapable of solving domestic challenges and in the process strengthening our socio-political institutions. Again, it legitimises the attempt by external powers to dictate how we run our affairs, thus engendering a feeling of psychological inadequacy and inferiority among Nigerians. This also obscures the fact that those we seek to be our redemptive political Messiahs also have their own structural, behavioural and institutional challenges despite having a headstart of hundreds of years over us in the practice of democracy.

    Following the refusal of losers in the 2023 presidential elections to accept the outcome of the polls, for instance, the cerebral thinker and novelist, Chimamanda Adichie, wrote an open letter to former President Joe Biden not to recognise the outcome of the election. Actuated largely by ethnic considerations because of her support for Mr Peter Obi, an Igbo who came third in the polls, she conveniently forgot that Donald Trump had vehemently questioned the legitimacy of the election that produced Biden, claiming that it was brazenly rigged! It is the same mentality that informs calls by members of the political class who lose elections and their supporters for military intervention because they disagree with the outcome of polls and dislike the government in power. They forget that soldiers plan and execute coups essentially for their self-interest and will hardly stake their lives to hijack power unconstitutionally only to donate such power to a group of disgruntled opposition politicians. It is in the interest of mutinous soldiers to discredit the political class as a whole and democracy as a system of government.

    When Alhaji Atiku Abubakar emerged as PDP presidential candidate for the 2023 elections, key stakeholders within the party, including the Group of five governors led by Barrister Nyesom Wike, urged him to allow the Chairmanship of the party to shift to the South for regional and zonal balance. He was adamant and arrogant in his refusal, thus laying the foundation for the defeat of the PDP in that election. Atiku did not win in any of the PDP states controlled by the PDP G5 governors. The opposition is going into the 2027 elections even more divided than they were in 2023. With the economic reforms of the Tinubu administration gradually beginning to yield fruit with bright prospects of impacting lives positively in the near future, it is tempting for many of them to long for foreign military intervention or a military coup to torpedo the entire political process out of loathing for the Tinubu administration.

    If so, they will only shoot themselves in the foot. The only way to organise effectively to confront the APC in the next electoral cycle is for the opposition to get its act together, forge a more cohesive front and present the electorate with a credible alternative economic pathway, which they are yet to do up till now. As the notable journalist and lawyer, Seun Okinbaloye, of Channels Television (by no means a supporter of the Tinubu administration), so aptly put it, “This is the time for every Nigerian to come together and leave every kind of politics to stand together for Nigeria…An invasion of Nigeria is not in the favour of any Nigerian. If you look at Somalia, Egypt, Libya, and other nations invaded in the past by foreign forces, those countries are destabilised”.

  • AKOD on the march in Ikeja LGA

    AKOD on the march in Ikeja LGA

    Ever since the last local government council elections in Lagos State, there has been an obvious intensification of competition among the Chairmen and Councillors of Local Government Councils and Local Council Development Areas in the state to outperform each other and deliver concrete democratic gains to their people.

    In Ikeja Local Government, the Chairman is popularly known at the grassroots by the acronym, AKOD. This stands for his full name, comrade Akeem, Olalekan Dauda. I used to know him as an executive assistant to the then Commissioner of Youth and Sports Development and later Commissioner of Information and Strategy, Honourable (now Senator) Opeyemi Bamidele, at the Lagos State Secretariat, Alausa. He was quietly efficient, industrious, focused, humble and accessible – a great asset to his boss.

    After his assumption of office as Chairman of the very important local government, the feedback across his constituency is that he remains approachable, modest, as well as methodical and meticulous in the implementation of his I.K.E.J.A. Agenda, which encompasses Infrastructure, Knowledge, Empowerment, Justice, Enterprise and Advancement. Some of the highlights of his first 100 days in office include the ongoing construction of Shanu Street to improve infrastructure and accessibility, reconstruction of Aiyemojuba Street to enhance intra-community mobility, rehabilitation of Morenike Street to improve its drainage and enhance smoother mobility and the construction of a motorable bridge linking Onipetesi and Onilekere communities.

    Read Also: Germany to fast-track visa processing for Nigerians — Consul-General

    In addition to the renovation of Agidingbi Primary School to provide a conducive learning environment for pupils and teachers, the local government has also procured a landed property at Isale Awori for the construction of a new Primary Health Care Centre to improve health care at the grassroots. In the Back-to-School Programme organised by the local government council, primary school pupils and junior secondary school students in public schools benefited from learning materials, uniforms and essential school items. The local government participated actively in the Government-Private Sector Dialogue Series organised by the Federal Ministry of Finance to facilitate access of small and medium-scale businesses to finance and professional expertise.

    AKOD has also launched initiatives to boost revenue generation, promote sports among youths, partner with security agencies and encourage participatory governance through regular interactions with traditional rulers, community leaders, religious leaders, among other stakeholders. His hitting the ground running is no surprise, as AKOD knows Ikeja Local Government like the palm of his hand. From 2006 to 2014, he was a Ward Chairman of the ACN/APC in Ikeja LG; he served as a Returning Officer in multiple elections in the local government and rose to become Secretary to Ikeja Local Government in 2017. For Comrade Akeem Olalekan Dauda and Ikeja LG, the morning is an indication of the bright days ahead.

  • Issues in the Trump threat (1)

    Issues in the Trump threat (1)

    Two incidents demonstrate the mischief, opportunism, outright falsehood and simplistic self-sabotage often characteristic of the narratives on violence and insecurity in Nigeria, which led the mercurial President Donald Trump to threaten direct military action against Islamic terrorists in the country perpetrating what he described as genocide against Christians. First, is the letter by the leader of the proscribed Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), Mazi Nnamdi Kanu, to Trump, portraying himself as a ‘prisoner of conscience’ currently under illegal detention in Nigeria and a victim of the alleged persecution against Christians that the American President is furious about.

    Forcibly brought back into the country after he had jumped bail and fled abroad from where he incessantly launched incendiary radio broadcasts and social media posts inciting violence in Nigeria and advocating the balkanization of the country and the creation of the sovereign state of Biafra in the Southeast, acts which constitute crimes against the Nigerian State, Kanu has been on trial since 2020 for treason, incitement to murder and arson among other charges. Last week, the unrelenting publisher and veteran of social protests, Omoyele Sowore, organised a one-day protest against what he described as Kanu’s unduly prolonged trial, calling for the truncation of the Judicial process and the immediate release of the IPOB leader. The free Kanu protests, predictably, did not gain traction.

    It did not matter to Sowore that Kanu had explored every trick in the book to stall the trial. Kanu obviously does not want a trial. There are social media posts of him ordering his followers to kill, destroy property, attack security agencies and commit assorted atrocities. For years, the sit-at-home protests in the Southeast, which he instigated on Mondays, laid the economy of the region prostrate, disrupted the education of school children and led to the deaths of large numbers of people who were murdered for going about their legitimate business on Mondays. His direct incitements and directives from his base abroad played a key role in the violence perpetrated in Lagos during the #EndSARS protests in Lagos in 2020, leading to scores of deaths and the destruction of private and public property estimated at over N2 trillion in the country’s economic capital and commercial nerve centre.

    Yet, according to Nigerian law, Kanu remains innocent until proven guilty through Judicial due process. But he refuses to enter his defence, preferring to constitute himself into a court of law and pronouncing ex cathedra that he has no case to answer and should be released immediately. In his letter to Trump, Kanu claims he is being persecuted for his Christian faith. He calls on the American leader to probe the killings in the Southeast, which he insinuates is an example of genocide against Christians in Nigeria, even when it is militant Igbo separatists who have unleashed violence against fellow Igbos, whom they perceive as not aligning with their cause. Simon Ekpa, the self-styled Prime Minister of the Sovereign Republic of Biafra, is currently serving a six-year jail term in Finland, where he was tried and convicted for inciting destructive violence against Nigeria from that country.

    But Kanu’s letter to Trump is instructive. It illustrates the kind of deliberately misleading propaganda against the Nigerian State that prompted Trump to threaten unilateral military action in Nigeria against what he described as the inaction of the Nigerian government to check genocide against Christians in the country. An investigation by the Global Disinformation Unit of the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) revealed “how the International Society for Civil Liberties and Rule of Law (Intersociety) and allied Igbo ethnic advocacy groups propagated inflated figures and unverified narratives that have reverberated across international political and religious circles”. Staff of the BBC Global Disinformation Unit, including Olaronke Alo, Chiamaka Enendu and a journalist based in Nigeria, Ijeoma Ndukwe, investigated the origins and credibility of claims that over 125,000 Christians have been killed and 19,000 churches destroyed in Nigeria since 2009.

    According to the report, “When contacted by the BBC, Intersociety failed to provide itemised data or verifiable sources to substantiate its casualty claims.  Instead, the organisation accused the BBC of being politically compromised. The BBC’s findings suggest that Intersociety’s methodology lacks transparency and raises serious concerns about the intent behind its reporting. Despite the absence of credible evidence, these claims gained traction in U.S. political discourse, culminating in President Donald Trump labelling Nigeria “a country of particular concern” and threatening military action over what he described as a “Christian genocide”.

    Of course, Intersociety and any other interest groups have the right to project their worldview, shape narratives from their perspectives and lobby International public opinion to achieve their objectives. One positive of the Trump threat is that it should prompt the Nigerian authorities to also actively put the other side of the story across so that outsiders can have the necessary facts to undertake a more objective appraisal of the complexities of Nigeria’s social-cultural and religious plurality and the nuanced realities of the country’s security challenges.

    Again, effective information management and dissemination outside Nigeria is as critical as within the country in a globalised world. Thus, Trump’s threat is predicated on the assumption that the Tinubu government is either complicit in encouraging ‘Christian genocide’ or not doing anything concrete to rein in violence and insecurity. But as the Minister of Information and National Orientation, Alhaji Mohammed Idris, has pointed out, security agencies under the Tinubu administration have so far killed 13,500 terrorists, arrested about 17,000 suspected terrorists and freed 9,800 victims since 2023. Even the United States and the United Kingdom commended Nigeria’s security agencies for the arrest and ongoing prosecution of two notorious terrorism suspects, Mahmud Muhammad Usman and Abubakar Abba of the ANSARU terror group.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s security not negotiable — Tinubu

    Scores of notorious bandits’ leaders and hundreds of their foot soldiers across Northern Nigeria have been neutralised in intensified onslaughts against terrorists over the last two years. It would be another positive of the Trump threat if it prompts us to tell the story of these anti-terror successes more effectively, particularly to international audiences from now on. It is also important to continuously make the international community aware of the complex dynamics of violence and insecurity in Nigeria. President Trump has been misled into believing that what is happening in Nigeria is a targeted killing of Christians by Islamic terrorists on a genocidal scale. Yes, Christians have been most affected by the violence in highly populated Christian communities in Benue, Plateau, Taraba and Southern Kaduna.

    But in the same vein, Muslims have suffered higher casualties from religious terrorism in such dominant Muslim States as Borno, Katsina, Zamfara, Yobe and Niger States. The conflicts in parts of the North stem from antagonism between Fulani herdsmen and native Hausa communities. In the Southeast, what has been experienced is essentially Igbo-on-Igbo violence as “unknown gunmen” have engaged in the ruthless elimination of their kinsmen who either violate sit-at-home directives or are employed in Nigerian security agencies. But in the final analysis, the Nigerian State must urgently enhance and upgrade its capacity to protect the lives and property of Nigerians irrespective of their faith or ethnicity, as well as maintain the country’s territorial integrity.

    For instance, during the confirmation screening of Service Chiefs by the Senate, the Chief of Defence Staff, General Olufemi Oluyede, called for a comprehensive reform of the police to enable it to take care of internal security so as to free the military to focus on external defence. The much-delayed issue of State police must now assume greater urgency. This is not the sole responsibility of President Tinubu. It requires coordinated collaborative effort among state governors, State and national legislators and the presidency. The current over-centralised security architecture must be redesigned to reflect the country’s federal, plural character for greater efficiency and efficacy.

    Again, President Tinubu, a few months ago, announced plans to establish and inaugurate the Forest Rangers outfit to safeguard and secure the country’s vast forests. It has become imperative to quickly actualise this initiative, which could be a game-changer, as much of the atrocities committed by terrorists, bandits, and religious extremists revolve around the forests. President Tinubu’s response to Trump’s threat was mature, restrained and statesmanlike despite being firm in refuting allegations of Christian genocide. The appointment of envoys, especially in key countries, is clearly not an economic drain. It would foster the requisite diplomatic interaction at the highest levels that would prevent potentially catastrophic deterioration in relationships largely caused by avoidable gaps in communication.