He is a fearsome, fierce and unsparing political pugilist. The eminent Afenifere chieftain, veteran politician and enduring Awoist, Chief Ayo Adebanjo, is not one gladiator who will pull his punches or take political hostages. The octogenarian and unrepentant Yoruba nationalist still unleashes verbal fusillades against real or perceived foes with ferocious relish unhindered by his advanced years. You may disagree with his politics. You may rigorously interrogate the age and utility of his ideas as well as the efficacy of his political tactics and strategies in a rapidly changing Nigeria. But you cannot but admire his sheer doggedness and tenacity in the pursuit of whatever cause he believes in. Pa Adebanjo like many of those who belong to his ideological persuasion has never hidden his disdain for the politics and persona of President Muhammadu Buhari and, by extension, the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) that dislodged the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) from power at the centre in the historic 2015 elections.

While dismissing Buhari as a dictator and regionally biased sectional leader in an interview published in last Sunday’s edition of The Punch, Pa Adebanjo was no less scathing in his criticism of a national leader of the APC, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, for his preeminent role in helping to actualize Buhari’s presidential aspiration. As far as the chief is concerned, “The problem that Yoruba and Nigerians have today was caused by Tinubu. If Tinubu had not gone into an alliance with Buhari, would we be in this position? Tinubu is the cause of Yoruba’s suffering now. He is the cause of Nigerians’ suffering now. He helped a dictator to come to power in the person of Buhari, knowing that he is a born dictator; an unrepentant conservative and irredeemable religious jingoist”. These are strong words indeed and quite sweeping generalizations too.

Implied in Pa Adebanjo’s critique is the suggestion that Nigerians in general and Yorubas particularly are worse off today than they were before the advent of the Buhari administration. Indeed, the chief asserts categorically that the people of the South West today regret having voted for Buhari in 2015. It is doubtful if any scientific and credible opinion poll in the South West will confirm such a position. Yes, there is some degree of disenchantment that the performance of the APC at the centre has not matched the high expectations aroused by the party during the campaign. But I do not think that this means in any way that a significant proportion of the populace wish today that Dr. Goodluck Jonathan and the PDP had continued in office beyond 2015 no matter the shortcomings so far of the Buhari administration. The politically sophisticated and discerning people of the South West are most certainly aware that the harsh economic conditions of the country today would most likely be far worse had the scale of looting of the public till witnessed under Jonathan persisted till now.

The central challenge confronting the architects of the broad coalition of political forces that made Buhari’s emergence as president possible was to effect a change of regime at the centre. Under Jonathan, the country faced a veritable national emergency. The colossal scale of the PDP administration’s incompetence and incomparable graft had become all too glaring. At stake was the very survival of the country. As the revelations after the forced exit of the PDP federal government confirmed, for instance, the monumental level of corruption of the military high command right under Dr. Jonathan’s nose, manifesting in the corrupt diversion of arms procurement funds, was a key factor in the escalation and sustenance of the Boko Haram insurgency.

The truth is that restructuring was not an issue of fundamental significance in the 2015 election. Buhari’s key selling points were his asceticism, perceived frugality, personal discipline and anti-corruption credentials. And the three issues canvassed by the APC in the party’s campaigns were enhancing national security, combating corruption and salvaging the economy. APC was formed as an election winning machine to edge the PDP from power at the centre after 16 years. The goal was splendidly and brilliantly achieved. It was a feat that marked a significant step forward in the political development of Nigeria.

No incumbent party can henceforth ever again afford the luxury of complacency or take the people for granted. Now that it has achieved power, the APC is faced with the task of forging a greater ideological cohesiveness and philosophical coherence within its ranks. This is particularly so as the PDP, following the triumph of the Senator Ahmed Markafi-led faction at the Supreme Court shows signs of gradually rediscovering, reinventing and rejuvenating itself. Of course, that would be good for the country’s relentlessly deepening democratic process.

The Buhari administration is not perfect. No human government can be. Yet, it has really difficult to deny successes in stemming corruption. At least the wild haemorrhage of the treasury that had previously been the norm with negative developmental consequences has been largely stanched. The anti-corruption agencies have regained considerable vigour and vibrancy. Governance is characterized by greater seriousness even though the overall sense of direction and coordination could be more effective. The Boko Haram malignancy has been effectively demobilized and the administration’s economic policies, despite early tentativeness and seeming indecisiveness, are gradually taking shape.  I shudder to think that the highly respected Chief Adebanjo would even for a minute countenance the continuation of Jonathan in office as a preferable option to Buhari.

Pa Adebanjo frowns at Buhari’s dictatorial antecedents. Yet, the once upon a time military dictator over three decades ago did not emerge in power in 2015 through the barrel of the gun. He was voted for by a majority of the electorate in free, fair and credible polls. Unlike a military or civilian dictator, Buhari does not have the latitude to continue in office indefinitely. He must submit himself to the will of the electorate on the platform of his party if wishes to continue in power for another term. Nigeria’s electoral system has developed beyond the kind of sheer banditry masquerading as polls witnessed in 2003 and 2007. With the incremental cleansing over time of the voters register, institutional strengthening of the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) and electronic automation of voting processes, elections can no more be foregone conclusions to be conducted in accordance with the whims and caprices of incumbents. The issue of Buhari as a dictator simply does not arise in Nigeria’s current political context.

Does the South West have anything to regret for largely voting for Buhari in 2015 as Pa Adebanjo insinuates? I don’t see why this should be so. I am not aware of anything that the South West was enjoying in preceding PDP administrations that the Buhari administration has deprived the region of. If the grouse with Buhari is his undeniable reticence on the issue of restructuring, he is not worse in this respect than a Dr. Goodluck Jonathan who recklessly lavished humongous amounts of public resources on the 2014 National Conference but consigned the report to some obscure shelves in Aso Rock for about a year before his tenure elapsed. How is Buhari to blame if he is utterly disdainful of the outcome of the conference and allows its recommendations to continue to rest in peace as Jonathan did?

This column does not see the appointment of public office holders from a region as an achievement that the particular area of the country will necessarily benefit from. Such a widely held view that appointments to public office will attract development to the places where the appointees originate from is utterly illusory. It is fuelled by the perception and utilization of public office as a means of primitive accumulation for the benefit of a microscopic minority purportedly ‘eating’ on behalf of their people. Even then, by the score of critical public offices held, the South West cannot claim to be worse off today under the APC than before Buhari’s emergence.

In addition to the vice presidency, South West indigenes hold such critical portfolios as Finance, Mines and Steel Development, Telecommunications and the mega Works, Power and Housing ministries. The critical thing certainly is not the ethnic origin of those who occupy those offices but their undeniable competence and accomplishment no matter what their politics may be. It is my respectful view that experienced and distinguished elder statesmen like Pa Adebanjo, whatever their political orientation, should seek to interface productively with these individuals from the South West who are currently playing critical roles in the Buhari administration for the benefit of the region and the country.

• This article was first published October 21, 2017

In his newly minted epochal autobiography, pithily titled ‘My Participations’ notable progressive politician and statesman, Chief Bisi Akande, gives a vivid account of his indelible contributions to Nigeria’s political evolution over the last five decades. His has been a near permanent presence on the country’s often treacherous political terrain for the best part of the country’s post-independence history. The title ‘My Participations’ is instructive and indicative of the Greek political thinker, Aristotle’s description of man as essentially a political animal. Man’s definition as human stems principally from his being a member of a human community. His alienation from and indifference to the activities of that community, particularly in contributing his quota to promoting and upholding the public good, would detract significantly from his human essence. In this memoir, Chief Akande comes across as a political animal par excellence.

It is only natural that the author’s account of his life journey begins with his first participation in politics at the national level as a member of the Constituent Assembly, which in 1978 had drawn up the 1979 Constitution, which was the legal foundation on which the democratic politics of the Second Republic was predicated. At the Constituent Assembly, Chief Akande quickly showed what stern stuff he was made up of and the strength and intensity he could muster to abide by his convictions, conscience and cherished principles against all odds. What shines radiantly throughout this book is Chief Akande’s ardent love for and resolute commitment to the progressive brand of politics popularized by the legendary Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

Although he notes that his father and mother were from prominent, well-to-do families in Ila, they were unable to breakthrough to attain success and wealth and thus died poor and in relative youth. With the help, understanding, love and support of his grandparents on both sides, Chief Akande was able to pursue his education acquiring various certificates that enabled him to embark on a teaching career and thus with his Elementary School Certificate, he began teaching as a pupil teacher in 1955, “thus becoming part of the Free Education Programme that was to transform the West and the entirety of Yoruba land”.

How does one explain Chief Akande’s consistent and relentless courage in facing issues and responding to challenges at all times? Does this tendency lie somewhere in his genes? I think it is possible to answer this question in the affirmative. According to chief Akande’s narrative in tracing his family lineage, he was the first grandson of Pa Sangopidan, his paternal grandfather. Pa Sangopidan believed that Chief Akande was the reincarnation of his own father, Ladimeji, one of the great military commanders of the Yoruba wars from Ila.

Even though he was not to become a warrior fighting in battles with weapons of war, Chief Akande has, nevertheless been a warrior in Nigerian politics utilizing his courage, character and conscience in ceaselessly defending the truth and fighting the cause of Justice.

Having acquired further relevant professional qualifications, Chief Akande made a transition from teaching to the oil industry when he secured employment at the multinational oil corporation, British Petroleum. Over the next 14 years at BP, he was sent on several courses that enhanced his knowledge in diverse fields of finance and accounting, computer operations as well as organizational management.

Even when he was eventually appointed first as Secretary to the State Government (SSG) and then Deputy Governor in the Bola Ige administration, Chief Akande never hesitated to offer to quit office rather than compromise his principles. On one such occasion as Chief Akande relates in this memoir, he wasted no time in turning in his letter of resignation. Of course , the governor turned down the resignation.

Following the collapse of the Second republic in December, Chief Bola Ige and Chief Bisi Akande were found guilty on a two-count charge of conspiracy and unlawful enrichment of their political party, the Unity Party of Nigeria (UPN) after what amounted to nothing but a secret trial. They were sentenced each to 21 years of imprisonment on each count to run concurrently. However, they were exonerated by a subsequent military administration and released.

After his ordeal with the traumatic impact particularly on his family, they remonstrated with him to quit politics and he promised never to accept elective or appointive office in future.

Despite his promise to his family, Chief Akande had become much more valued and appreciated for his life of service to the pro-democracy movement and progressive causes that it was invariably impossible for him to simply step aside and take a ringside position on the arena of politics. At a meeting of Afenifere in Ijebu Igbo to determine the governorship candidates of the AD for the 1999 elections, all those who had governorship aspirations in the South West were requested to leave the venue and await the decisions of the meeting. While other aspirants promptly left the hall, Chief Akande remained firmly on his seat. According to him, “Uncle Bola Ige glared at me angrily. Bisi, go out! Why are you sitting down when governorship aspirants are asked to go out? Do you want to cause problems for us in Osun? Go out! Go out now!” Reluctantly, Chief Akande went out and in the course of time, much against his will, became the elected governor of Osun State in 1999. But then, Chief Akande was an unusual governor. He ran one of the most frugal, ascetic and prudent, yet productive administrations in the history of state governments in Nigeria.

Chief Akande’s disdain for opulent material acquisition as well as determination to run an administration that was transparent, accountable and rendered qualitative sevice to the people was at the root of his government’s skirmishes with the legislature, the trade unions, some eminent traditional rulers and even his Deputy, Chief Iyiola Omisore.

When he resumed office as governor of Osun State in 1999, the indebtedness on recurrent expenditure alone, which his administration inherited from the military included: Arrears of gratuity due to retired civil servants and secondary school teachers (N20.080 million); arrears of gratuity due to retired primary school teachers (N122.8 million); arrears of pension of civil servants and secondary school teachers (N20.703 million); arrears of pension of primary school teachers (N42.120 million); arrears of 1988 leave bonus (N31 million); arrears of the implementation of the new minimum wage of N3000 per month for the months of January and February, 1999, (N185 million) and unpaid salary arrears for the months of April and May, 1999, at monthly sum of N206 million (N412 million). When external debts were added, the state’s indebtedness was over N2 billion. Yet, despite incessant Labour unrest and without taking any internal or external loan throughout his tenure, Chief Akande had entirely paid off the arrears of salaries, gratuities and pensions while also bequeathing to his successor in 2003, over 900 carefully documented projects started and completed by his administration in diverse sectors.

In this rich and intriguing memoir, we watch with bated breath at ringside as critical instances in history unfold before us courtesy of Chief Akande. We are given insights into the behind-the-scene intrigues and politicking within the Uncle Bola Ige administration in Oyo State in the Second Republic. We are taken through the turbulent campaigns for the 1983 elections in Oyo state including the bloodshed and violence particularly in the Ife-Modakeke axis. The author reveals to us the various turf wars within the UPN in that era as well as the bitter rivalries that were later to considerably hobble both the AD as a party and Afenifere as a viable and vigorous socio-cultural organization.

The author gives us refreshing perspectives on the gruesome murder of Chief Bola Ige as well as then President Olusegun Obasanjo’s duplicitous relationship with the AD governors and the Afenifere leadership resulting in the crushing defeat of the AD in all South West states with the exception of Lagos in the 2003 elections with Lagos as the only state standing.

Chief Akande gives us a vivid idea of the hard, relentless, back-breaking work, including ceaseless meetings and endless criss-crossing of the length and breadth of the country at all times of the day and night in the Herculean effort to midwife the formation of the All Progressives Congress (APC) as a formidable opposition party capable of edging the then entrenched ruling PDP out of power at the centre come 2015. We are given insights into the choice of General Muhammad’s Buhari as Presidential candidate and Professor Yemi Osinbajo as Vice Presidential Candidate of the nascent APC.

It speaks volume that the illustrious Professor Wole Soyinka penned the foreword to this book in his inimitable manner.

Although an accountant by profession and thus a man of figures, Chief Akande deploys words with dexterity and flair like an accomplished writer. The vigor and candor of his language and style mirror his utter lack of guile and pretense making the work all the more readable and enjoyable. The uncompromising boldness of his language and his often brutal frankness reflects his unflinching commitment to the truth no matter whose Ox is gored. But then he must be prepared for not a few explosive reactions and possibly legal jousts as this bomb of a book goes on sale.

Is the purported report of the Judicial Panel of Inquiry set up by the Lagos State government to look into last year’s #EndSars protests as well as the alleged Lekki Toll Gate massacre in the state, which has been in circulation in the media since the submission of the report to the state government on November 15, an authentic, legitimate and authoritatively reliable document? This is most certainly not the case. The panel, led by Justice Doris Okuwobi (retd), has submitted the authentic report to the state government in accordance with the law. Yet, hardly had the report been submitted to the government before, that very day, an unsigned copy of the document was circulating widely on social media.

Disturbingly, a member of the panel, Mr Ebun Adegboruwa (SAN), issued a statement immediately after the submission of the report warning, ominously, that he had a copy of the document and would not hesitate to publish same if it was distorted by the government in any way. This was needless. For, the same Mr Adegboruwa has let it be known that “I can confirm that no member of the panel lobbied to be appointed into the panel. As a matter of fact, in my own case, His Excellency, the governor of Lagos State, appealed to me to accept the appointment…The primary reason the governor gave to me then was that he wanted men and women of integrity, independent and not subject to manipulation, to be on the panel”. If so, why did Mr Adegboruwa rush to issue his pre-emptive statement before the release of the government’s White Paper, which was suggestive of his doubts as regards the sincerity and integrity of those who appointed him in the first place?

Of course, Adegboruwa’s uncompromising disposition particularly towards government over the years is well known. He has truly rendered useful and invaluable, courageous service to society many times in this regard. It was a mark of courage and commitment to unearthing the truth for the governor to have appointed a man of his caliber and pedigree to the panel.

Beyond the learned SAN, the Chairman of the panel is a widely regarded retired jurist, a veritable legal Amazon. There were representatives of youths, the #EndSars protesters, the police among others on the panel. Indeed, a member of the panel representing the youth, Mr Temitope Majekodunmi, admitted on the popular Arise Television Morning Show programme that at no time was there any attempt to exert pressure or undue influence on him or any other member of the panel, to the best of his knowledge.

Unfortunately but not surprisingly, most of those who have vociferously applauded the findings and recommendations of the panel have not bothered to read even the unauthorized copy in circulation, which reportedly runs into over 300 pages. They have all concurred with the findings of the panel that there was indeed a ‘massacre’ of protesters by the military at the Lekki Toll Gate on the night of October 20, 2020, without the benefit of a close study of the reasons adduced by the panel for reaching such a weighty decision, one which cannot be cavalierly made. The fact that many who pronounce on the veracity of the ‘Lekki massacre’ have not read the report was quite evident when a counsel to the Lagos State government on the panel, Mr. Abiodun Owonikoko (SAN), appeared on the Arise TV Morning Show on Thursday. Owonokoko copiously referred to various sections and pages of the report to buttress his submission that there are glaring inconsistencies and discrepancies in the document. He argued that there was a lack of coherence between the evidence as led before the panel and duly recorded in the report and its final findings and recommendations.

Although the Arise TV anchors disagreed vehemently with Mr Owonikoko’s submissions and insisted that there was indeed a ‘massacre’ at the Lekki Toll Gate, neither of them could make any concrete reference to the report or refute the arguments of the senior lawyer on the basis of facts in the report. It was obvious they had not read the document and were only going along with the crowd. Thus, they resorted to emotive outbursts against their guest. The clinical and inscrutable lawyer took it in his stride and stood his ground. His words, “I have read the report. Since you now confirm that it is supposed to be authentic, I have identified almost 40 discrepancies, very material discrepancies in that report, including awarding damages to people, who are claimed to have died, but who never died; who have even come out to say they did not die…Including awarding damages to somebody they claimed died, but who actually was a witness to testify as to his brother’s death not even at the Lekki Tollgate; does that not show you that there was no thorough job done?…In the report itself, you will find where the witness was there and they recorded his evidence, and the list they posted, they said he died and awarded him N15m; what kind of report is that? Any report that has that fundamental error will crash”.

I have only read various snippets, accounts and analyses by those who have read the document myself. Even then, some of the claims attributed to the panelists in the report appear astonishing particularly for supposedly profound legal minds. For instance, on the issue of the purported ‘massacre’ at Lekki, the panel is quoted as asserting in the report that “The atrocious maiming and killing of unarmed, helpless and unresisting protesters, while sitting on the floor and waving their Nigerian flags while singing the National Anthem can be equated to a ‘massacre’ in context”. Dissecting this submission, an English Language graduate and insightful commentator on public affairs, Mr Temitope Ajayi, noted online that, “It is obvious that the panel could not convince itself that there was a massacre. The word massacre has a straightforward meaning. It does not need any contextualization for anyone to understand…The language of report writing is factual because it is about recording what happened. It should never give room for ambiguities. The panel’s report is not a piece of literary work that” should be suffused in figurative expressions”.

Another analyst, Dr Abubakar Yekini, a lawyer who from his detailed submissions online had obviously read the full report, also pointed out glaring discrepancies in the document. For instance, he submits that “At page 288 paragraph (M), the Panel crucially held that “The evidence of the pathologist, Professor Obafunwa, that only 3 of the bodies that they conducted post mortem examination on were from Lekki and only one had gunshot injury and this was not debunked. We deem it credible as the contrary was not presented before the panel”. However, in a complete turnaround from the above finding at page 288 (M), the same panel went on to find that 9 more people died of gunshot wounds than what the pathologist who conducted autopsies on all bodies picked up during the EndSars protests said. This is despite the panel saying there was no contrary evidence to that of professor Obafunwa before it. So page 288 paragraphs O and P are contradictory to the finding at page 288 paragraph M”.

Again, Dr Yekini points out that “At page 288 (k), Panel claimed it relied on evidence of one of the protesters who was shot and taken for dead, but escaped and stated that 11 corpses were in a van where he had been put in and presumed dead. However, Olalekan Sanusi, the protester in question, was never stated to have testified before the panel. This crucial finding made by the Panel was based merely on video footage of Olalekan Sanusi played by another witness, Sarah Ibrahim, at page 165”. In another example, Dr Yekini states that “The Panel relied on testimony of protesters that the Army prevented ambulances from ferrying away injured protesters. This was an uncorroborated piece of evidence. No single picture or footage of any ambulance being turned away was said to have been tendered before the panel. This is at page 296 paragraph 15. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any ambulance personnel being invited to testify before the panel to this effect”. Or consider this: “At pages 296-297, the Panel set out a list of what it called casualties at the toll gate incident of 20/10/2020. This list contains 48 names. No explanation was offered for how the panel arrived at this list, neither was any evidence provided as to how they became casualties. And that is why for example it has come to light that one Nathaniel Solomon listed as No 46 on the list of casualties as deceased has been proven to be alive”.

These are only a few of scores of inconsistencies, discrepancies and contradictions identified in this report of a panel headed by a respected retired judge and with an accomplished Senior Advocate, among others, as members, from whom so much was and is expected. We can only hope for the sake of their reputations, the truth and posterity that the authentic report being studied by the Lagos State government for its much awaited White Paper is devoid of these inexplicable and inexcusable anomalies. For now, there is no indication we are anywhere near closure particularly on the purported ‘Lekki massacre’ as too many people are determined to believe what they will evidence or no evidence.

UNDERSTANDABLY, many leading lights of the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP)  are not only visibly relieved but exhibit a sense of triumphalism at the substantial success of the party’s last National Convention in Abuja. Following the party’s loss of power at the centre in 2015 after 16 years since 1999, the party’s image had been greatly tainted by perceived large scale corruption particularly under the Dr Goodluck Jonathan administration, the morale of its members ebbed significantly and the party sank into interminable crisis until the emergence of the prince Uche Secondus-led National Working Committee (NWC) at its 2017 National Convention in Port Harcourt. Under the placid and rather uninspiring leadership of Secondus, however, the PDP was unable to take effective advantage of the wide gap between the soaring and seductive promises of change in 2015 by the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and its actual performance in six years. Furthermore, the opposition party continued to lose key members including sitting governors defecting to the ruling party.

Apparently dissatisfied with his lack luster performance, and also because he was not obviously dancing to the tune of their dictates, those who influenced the emergence of Secondus as National Chairman, led by the tempestuous Rivers State governor, Mr. Nyesom Wike, moved against the embattled outgoing Chairman. The ultimate result was the effective abridgment of the NWC’s tenure and the holding of the just concluded convention at which all but two of the nearly 30 positions at stake were filled through consensus arrangements. The party’s publicists project the perceived success of the consensus mode of picking most of the new party executives as indicative of a new found harmony within the PDP and its readiness to take on the APC in 2023 especially as the latter continues to grapple with crises emanating from its ward, local government and state congresses in several states.

Is there any sound and justifiable basis for the optimism being expressed by many PDP leaders as regards the party’s capacity to dislodge the APC and return to power at the centre in 2023? It is difficult to answer the question in the affirmative. Should that even be their immediate and most pressing objective? I don’t think so. At the root of the organizational implosion that resulted in its loss of power in 2015 was an entrenched lack of internal democracy in the PDP and the virtual annexation of the party as no better than a parastatal under the control of the presidency starting with the President Olusegun Obasanjo administration and continuing under the Dr Goodluck Jonathan presidency. In both dispensations, the National Chairman and other members of the party’s executive were installed and removed at will at the pleasure of Aso Rock. The party was thus denuded of the necessary organizational vibrancy and vitality and was unable to function as a restraining and guiding influence on the government elected to power on its platform. The situation  was no different in the states where the governor was the supreme lord over the party in his domain. If this deficiency is not remedied, the PDP’s return to power will be of no enduring benefit either to the party or the nation.

Ironically, the PDP had its roots in the G-34 group of leading politicians and statesmen who had later risen to challenge the General Sani Abacha dictatorship and demand a restoration of democratic governance. Its founding ethos and temper was thus essentially democratic.  Incidentally, the new PDP National Chairman, former Senate President, Professor Iyorchia Ayu, was a member of the Dr Alex Ekwueme-led G-34. The success of the retreating military hierarchy in hijacking the PDP using it as its vehicle to foist one of its own, General Olusegun Obasanjo on the country as President  in 1999 was key to diverting the party from its originating democratic trajectory. In his congratulatory message to him, a former governor of Plateau State, Mr Fidelis Tapgun, noted that the ascendancy of Ayu as National Chairman signified the return of the party to the ideals of its founding fathers, which were predicated on fairness, respect for party members and a commitment to the democratic principle in running its affairs.

Tapgun lamented that “the democratic values which we all cherished  later degenerated and were replaced by godfatherism, imposition, high-handedness and all manner of undemocratic practices which is what obtains in the party today even presently”. He enthused that “with the emergence of the new National Chairman, who was one of the founding members of the PDP, I believe that he and his team will rescue the party and return Nigeria to its rightful place”. But does the emergence of the Ayu-led NWC necessarily signify a return to the PDP founding fathers’ ideals of intra-party democracy? I don’t think so. What has happened is that the hitherto dominant power bloc in the party led by its military wing has been replaced by a new hegemony of the PDP governors. But the governors are motivated not necessarily by a higher and more ennobling vision for the party or forging a coherent and elevating philosophy as well as ideology to guide it away from its catastrophic past into a new and more glorious future.

Rather, the governors are impelled by a desire to seize total control of the party structures and positioning themselves to contest for elective office on its platform. Having successfully taken control of the national executive, they are reportedly now plotting to ensure that one of them emerges as the presidential candidate for the 2023 elections. However, despite the financial muscle the positions they occupy give them, it is doubtful if any of the names being touted among them has the stature, clout or network to make any meaningful impact in a presidential election particularly if the APC gets its act right. Besides, none of them in the governance of their states has demonstrated a level of accomplishment and performance that suggests they can offer impactful, transformational leadership as President of Nigeria.

What is touted as a successful consensus formula at the convention through which Ayu and most of the other national officers emerged was, thus, nothing but a canonization of the will of the governors. Those who challenged the choice of the governors for the positions of Deputy National Chairman, North and South, respectively, were roundly trounced demonstrating the futility of any such effort. But then, this is where the emergence of Ayu as National Chairman may have been the most significant highlight of the convention. His pedigree as an accomplished and cerebral scholar is impeccable. As one of his former media aides, I can testify to his stubborn commitment to principles he believes in. As he rightly said in an Arise television interview before the convention, as Senate President in the aborted Third Republic, the highest elected public officer in that dispensation, he along with Senators Bola Tinubu and Jubril Martins Kuye among others, working with other party leaders, played key roles both in the victory of Chief MKO Abiola in the 1993 election as well as ensuring the failure of an embattled military President, Ibrahim Babangida, to get the National Assembly to legitimize the annulment of the election.

Infuriated by his maneuverings in favor of the de-annulment of the election and affirmation of Abiola’s victory, anti-June 12 senators impeached Ayu from office despite a fierce but futile resistance put up by pro-June 12 senators led by Tinubu; a move that further worsened the already dented credibility of IBB’s transition programme. As Minister of Education in the first phase of the Abacha regime, in which he served along with other pro-June 12 progressives, Ayu refused to cede control of the ministry to his powerful Minister of State, the late Alhaji Wada Nas, despite the latter being well known as a close confidante of Abacha. Given his antecedents, it is unlikely that Ayu will submit himself with docility to be anybody’s foot mat or walking stick. If the new emperors of the party find it impossible to get him to submit to their whims and caprices, will they seek to give Ayu the Secondus treatment? That will surely spark a new round of debilitating intra-party crises.

In his Arise television interview, Ayu had indicated that he would abide strictly by the provisions of the party constitution and democratic principles in running the affairs of the party along with his colleagues in the party leadership. On defections from the PDP to the ruling party, for instance, he was of the view that “Once we start promoting internal democracy in the party, those defections will stop. They can’t stop totally but they will be minimized and I believe that there are so many who left that will come back to PDP”. If Ayu succeeds in his stated mission of restoring internal democracy to the PDP, he would have helped in laying the foundation for repositioning and reclaiming the party as a great Nigerian institution both in its own best interest and that of Nigeria’s democratic development. However it goes, there are certainly interesting times ahead both for the PDP and its new Tiv helmsman from Gboko in Benue state.

ALTHOUGH the central thrust of his characteristically seminal 1975 essay, ‘Africa and Cultural Dependency: The Case of the African University’ is that decisively breaking the intellectual, academic and pedagogical dependency of African universities, including the decolonization of the language as well as content of instruction, is a necessary condition for Africa’s transcendence of underdevelopment, some of the late Professor Ali Mazrui’s assertions on the African university seem to me inapplicable to the situation of universities in Nigeria. For example, he is of the view that “An institution can itself be dependent without necessarily spreading dependency over the wider society. But the university in Africa itself is not only sick; it is also a source of wider infection and societal contagion”. It would appear to me that the corruption of the university idea in Nigeria and much of the ills that plague these institutions in the country are a function of their vulnerability to the problems posed by the culturally and ethnically plural composition of the polity but also the lack of vision and amoral disposition of Nigeria’s political and leadership elite.

Nothing reflects this negative influence of the larger society on Nigerian universities than the all consuming and often intemperate contestation for powerful positions in the university bureaucracy particularly the office of the Vice-Chancellor; a competition that is often difficult to distinguish from the cut throat contests for power characteristic of the larger polity.

The challenges of selecting vice-chancellors for public universities were, most recently, illustrated by the contentious and protracted processes that resulted in the picking of the new Vice-Chancellors of the University of Ibadan (UI) and the Lagos State University (LASU) respectively. In the former, no less than 16 contestants were reportedly interested in succeeding the former Vice-Chancellor, Professor Idowu Olayinka, whose five-year tenure ended on Monday, November 30, 2020. For nearly a year the process was stalled. There were allegations that Professor Olayinka was manipulating his succession plan to favor the emergence of an ‘annointed’ candidate of his choice. The former Governing Council led by Nde Joshua Waklel Mutka was also not believed by many of the aspirants and other stakeholders to be disinterested arbiters in the process.

So contentious and rancorous did the process become that no less than ten aspirants to the office declined to participate in a town hall meeting tagged ‘Community Forum’ with the theme ‘Next UI VC- Who is Next’ citing lack of confidence in the integrity of the nomination process, which they considered rigged. Beyond, stakeholders who had a participatory role in the selection process, a group of elders of Ibadan origin took a public stance that the next vice-chancellor of the institution must be an Ibadan indigene since no ‘son of the soil’ had ever occupied the office. This was of course a strange demand for an institution of Ibadan’s status with over 400 professors, most of them with outstanding experience and ability from different parts of the country. It did not occur to the Ibadan elders that the University of Ibadan as a global institution cannot be mistaken for a University of Ibadan indigenes. If the institution is to maintain and constantly improve on its international status, it must be seen to adhere to the best global standards in recruiting its staff, admitting its students and selecting its leadership at all levels particularly the vice-chancellor.

Choosing not to be indifferent to the various petitions that flooded his Ministry on the perceived flawed nomination process, the Minister of Education, Mallam Adamu Adamu, in November 2020, directed the Executive Secretary of the National Universities Commission (NUC), Abdulrasheed Abubakar, to call for a fresh selection process while also announcing the withdrawal of the ministry’s representatives from the governing council of the university.

Under the leadership of Chief John Odigie-Oyegun, an alumnus of UI,  who was appointed Chairman of a newly constituted governing council following the expiration of the tenure of the previous council, a new substantive Vice-Chancellor, Professor Kayode Adebowale, was appointed for UI on October 14, 2021. With the emergence of the new VC all the tension and rancor has, to all intents and purposes, died down and UI is settling down to its normal routine of activities. Incidentally, the pattern of LASU’s vice-chancellorship appointment crisis was not fundamentally different from that of UI.   Just like UI, the immediate past Vice-Chancellor of LASU, Professor Olanrewaju Fagboun (SAN) and the former Chairman of the institution’s governing council, Professor Adebayo Ninalowo, were accused by stakeholders of not being disinterested parties and of manipulating the process to achieve a pre-determined outcome. As a result of petitions on the alleged flawed character of the selection process, the Visitor to the school, Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu, rejected the recommendations of the governing council on two occasions. Similarly, just like UI, a clamorous group of Lagos indigenes was vehemently agitating that a Lagos indigene should be appointed to the position while seemingly discounting the more critical criteria of academic and administrative experience and merit for an academic institution with global status aspirations.

On the second occasion after rejecting the governing council’s decision, governor Sanwo-Olu set up a high-powered visitation panel to look into issues of appointments and other issues at the institution. The caliber of the panel’s members no doubt put the process of nominating a new vice-chancellor for LASU back on course. Its Chairman was the Pro-Chancellor of Ekiti State University, Professor Bamitale Omole while its other members were a former Vice-Chancellor of the University of Port Harcourt, Professor Joseph Ajienka; highly regarded political scientist and columnist, Professor  Ayo Olukotun; former Registrar of the University of Ibadan, Mr. Olujimi Olukoya; former Lagos State Solicitor-General and Permanent Secretary, Ministry of Justice, Mr. Lawal Pedro (SAN) and a senior official in the office of the Special Adviser, Lagos State Ministry of Education, Mrs Funmilola Olajide as Secretary.

The panel recommended the dissolution of the governing council, the reconstitution of a new one and the recommencement of the process of appointing a substantive vice-chancellor for the institution. Meanwhile, again just like UI, Professor Oyedamola Oke was elected by the Senate of LASU as Acting vice-chancellor during the transition process. At the conclusion of the fresh exercise, Professor Ibiyemi Olatunji-Bello emerged as the new Vice-Chancellor through a far less contentious and more credible process. Incidentally, both Professors Kayode Adebowale and Ibiyemi Olatunji-Bello are star scholars in their fields of expertise and have rich experience in different facets of university administration.

Professor Adebowale obtained his B.Sc in Chemistry from UI in 1984, his M.Sc in Industrial Chemistry in 1986 and his PhD in 1991. He commenced his academic career at the Federal University of Technology, Akure, in 1991 and was appointed as a Senior Lecturer at UI in 1999. He rose through the ranks and became a professor in 2006. He acquired post-doctoral experience in Germany and Italy. He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Chemistry (UK); African Academy of Science, (Kenya); and Alexander Von Humbolat (Germany). Before his appointment as Vice-Chancellor, he had served as Dean, Faculty of Science, UI (2009-2011); Director, Special Duties, Office of the Vice Chancellor (2015-2017); and two-term Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Administration, from 2018 till his current appointment. He attended the Senior Executive Course (SEC) 39 at the National Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS) in 2017.

On her part, Professor Ibiyemi Olatunji-Bello, bagged a B.Sc in Physiology from UI in 1985 and obtained an M.Sc in Physiology from the University of Lagos in 1987. She attended a six-month research training at the University of Texas  Health Science Center at San Antonio in the US in 1994 and followed with a PhD in Physiology from the University of Lagos in 1998. She obtained a Post Graduate Diploma in Education (PGDE) from LASU in 2018. She is a Fellow of the Physiological Society (UK); Fellow of the Physiological Society of Nigeria and the Environmental Toxicology and Pollution Mitigation. She rose through the ranks to become Associate Professor of   Physiology at the College of Medicine, University of Lagos, Idi-Araba between 1988 and 2007. She assumed office as the first Professor of Physiology at the Lagos State University  College of Medicine (LASUCOM) in October, 2017 and first substantive Head of Department of Physiology, LASUCOM. She had hitherto served as Deputy Vice-Chancellor (2008-2010); Deputy Vice Chancellor, Academic, (2011-2013); Acting Vuce-Chancellor (July – December, 2010, January-October, 2011). She was the Pioneer Director of the LASU Directorate of Advancement in 2016 and served on the LASU governing council from 2004 to 2008. In 2012, she attended course 34 of the National Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS ).

Some pertinent lessons can be learnt from the protracted selection process for the vice-chancellorship of the two institutions. First, the incumbent vice-chancellor must adopt a disinterested stance and adhere strictly to stipulated rules and regulations in the appointment of his successor. Second, the moral integrity and caliber of the leadership and membership of the governing council of universities is critical to the credibility and general acceptability of the selection process. Third, the generality of the membership of Senate must resist materialistic inducement or emotional considerations in participating in the selection process and adhere to the highest standards to ensure the emergence of the best candidates in the interest of their institutions. Fourth, insular clannish and ethnic considerations must be resolutely resisted in the appointment of the leadership of universities if they are to be globally competitive. Fifth, visitors to universities must be impartial and credible arbiters when the selection process is engulfed by crisis.

IS there not some peculiar way in which, not just the Political Science discipline, but also the academic political scientists as its practitioners in particular, are implicated and stand largely condemned by the grossly derelict and decrepit state of post-colonial Nigeria 61 years after what the late Professor Bade Onimode derisively described as the attainment of ‘flag’ or ‘nominal’ independence? For, no matter what our leaders may grandiloquently pronounce as her (perennial?) potential as the fabled ‘giant of Africa’, Nigeria, relative to her population and resource-endowment remains, in her abysmal failure, an embarrassment to Africa and the black race. But then, why single out Political Science and its scholarly devotees for especial indictment for the sorry state of a country which, one of its brightest minds, the late Professor Chinua Achebe, looking back in part nostalgia to its colonial past, bemoaned the disappearance of a country that once thrived at least to a relative degree of satisfaction before it’s much vaunted independence?

The answer is simple. The discipline’s classical masterminds, Plato and Aristotle, perceived and described, directly or indirectly, Political Science as the ‘Master Science’. Its disciplinary focus is the study of the art and science of the principles of organizing a well ordered state and deploying its compulsory and over awing power to ensure that all other ‘partial’ associations and groups within its jurisdiction – the professions, economic entities, the arts, culture, academia, sports, culture etc – exist and flourish.

In his immortal ‘Grammar of Politics’, one of my favorite political scientists, Professor Harold Laski, notes at least two senses in which politics, as the art and science of the organization and management of the state as well as deployment of power, constitutes the master, all encompassing and most critical vocation. First, in one aspect, to Laski, “it becomes an organization for enabling the mass of men to realize social good on the largest possible scale”. Secondly, Laski posits, the state “exists to enable men, at least potentially, to realize the best that is in themselves”. In other words, the justification for the state’s existence, its legitimate monopoly of the machinery of coercion and the willing submission of the society over which it superintends to its authority, is its ability to create and maintain the environmental conditions for the maximization of human potential individually and collectively. In neither of these senses has the Nigerian post-colonial state justified its existence and legitimacy either under dictatorial or, supposedly, democratic rule.

The late Professor Billy Dudley, in his Presidential Address at the 1974 Annual Conference of the Nigerian Political Science Association (NPSA), at the University of Nigeria, Nsukka, also alluded to the ultimate responsibility of the political organization of the state, impliedly on a democratic basis, as inevitable for the attainment and promotion of the common good of society. In his words, “To return once more to Aristotle, politics is also civic education, an education in the way by which a people, in the words of Oakshott, attend to the arrangement of the society. To deny a people of politics is thus to deny them a civic education. It is, in brief, to deny that man can be human and conversely, to assert that we are but a herd of animals to be shepherded and guarded”. Does the visionless, inept, venal and democratically denuded character of our politics, a function, largely, of the moral bankruptcy of our political elite across the board, not shorn us as a people of our defining human essence by forcing us to exist vulnerably in an anarchic and amoral society in which life has become the Hobbesian ‘solitary, nasty, brutish and short’ metaphor?

These were some of the central concerns of foremost political scientist and public sector reform advocate, Professor Tunji Olaopa, of the Nigerian Institute of Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), at a public lecture which he delivered at the Department of Political Science, University of Ibadan, on Thursday, June 25, 2015, titled ‘The Legitimacy of Political Science as a Discipline in Nigeria”. Professor Olaopa’s point of departure was a column by the noted political scientist, Professor Ayo Olukotun, in the Punch newspaper titled “Elections: where are our political scientists?”. It was an article in which Professor Olukotun “lamented not only the glaring invisibility of the Political Scientists in Nigeria on the national conversation about national development and progress, but also about the role of public intellectuals in national discourse”.  Professor Olaopa cited the near moribundity of the Nigerian Political Science Association (NPSA) and the virtual comatose state of its once illustrious journal, ‘Studies in Politics and Society’ to support Olukotun’s contention.

Incidentally, Professor Olaopa, easily the brightest and best mind of my political science class at the University of Ibadan both at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels, delivered his lecture in honour of Professors ‘Bayo Adekanye and John Ayoade, who had just been appointed as Emeritus Professors  by the Premier University. This piece is to commemorate the 80th birthday of one of these star scholars, Professor Adekanye, which is coming painfully and embarrassingly well after the date of the event on August 19, 2021. Even then, better late than never. The eminent political scientist, diligent researcher, meticulous analyst and rigorous methodologist has been deservedly widely celebrated by the political science and academic community in Nigeria and beyond on his attaining the 80-year landmark this side of eternity.

But again, why celebrate such an accomplished, prolific and prodigiously productive scholar with a piece that, impliedly, laments the seeming failures of contemporary political science in Nigeria? The reason is that I partly agree with the submission of Professor Olaopa that the discipline of political science, while it remains solid and robust across institutions, is not living up to the standard set by the generation of Professor Adekanye at least in terms of contributions to public discourse on finding enduring solutions to the country’s protracted political problems.

The distinguished professor has made indelible contributions particularly in his area of specialization, civil-military relations, conflict containment and resolution as well as peace remediation. I can still picture the young then Dr Adekanye as he taught us in an undergraduate course titled ‘Insurgency and Counter-Insurgency’ in the early 1980s. It was a course in which we studied, among others, the burgeoning anti-apartheid insurgency in South Africa, the insurgency in Algeria at the end of the Second World War and the Mau-Mau uprising in Kenya. Who knew at the time that Nigeria would herself have to contend with an insurgent uprising that has lasted for more than a decade? His collection of selected essays published in 2007 and titled ‘Linking Conflict Diagnosis, Conflict Prevention and Conflict Management in Contemporary Africa’ is an invaluable legacy to students and an invaluable resource for policy  makers in conflict-ridden and post-conflict challenged societies.

Earlier, in 1999, Professor Adekanye published   his seminal and prescient book, “The Retired Military as Emergent Power Factor in Nigeria”; a book in which he offered a scholarly and systematic analysis of the growing power and influence of retired military officers in contemporary Nigeria with specific focus on the second republic and the latter Babangida years. His central contention in this book was that the traditional concept of civil-military relations in Nigeria that portrays a rigid demarcation between the civil society and military realms has become outmoded with the retired military elite becoming a growing cohesive power bloc playing key roles in the economy and other commanding heights of civil society. Surely, the investigations and findings of this work have to be extended by further studies that encompass the last two decades of this dispensation.

…more good news from FUOYE

A circular issued on 29th March, 2021, by the National Universities Commission (NUC) on the programme of Doctor of Pharmacy (PHARM. D) in Nigerian universities has just come to the attention of this columnist. It is good news, once again, from the Federal University, Oye-Ekiti, which is one out of only 11 universities accredited in Nigeria to run the Pharm.D programme. FUOYE got its accreditation in this regard in 2019, during the tenure of the immediate past Vice Chancellor, Professor Kayode Soremekun; another indication of the path-breaking accomplishments of the institution in that dispensation (2016-2021). Stressing that the B.Pharm and Pharm.D are two distinct programmes awarded in the Nigerian University system, the NUC warned that the degrees are not interchangeable explaining that the Pharm.D was introduced “in a bid to expand the Pharmacy profession to incorporate pharmaceutical care and accommodate clinical demand within the Nigerian educational system”. There is not unlikely to be even more good tidings from FUOYE as the current VC, Professor A.S. Fasina, is said to be building assiduously on the foundation laid by his predecessor.