LAST Monday’s so-called peace meeting called by some members of the Ekiti State Traditional Council of Chiefs to settle the rift in the House of Assembly is a puzzle. The obas’ chief aim was to broker peace, not to advance the cause of fair play or adherence to the rule of law and justice. Who put them up to it? How did they view the election and impeachment, after six days, of Gboyega Aribisogan? And how did they interpret the election days later of Olubunmi Adelugba as the new Speaker? The reports of the obas’ peace meeting and deal made no specific mention of the whys, nor gave any substantial hint as to what principles led the obas to curiously take sides and risk their reputations. Perhaps on an auspicious tomorrow, the country would be availed the reasons the obas risked their all to settle a legislative disagreement that touches the core of the ‘honour’ – beyond sloganeering of course – Ekiti claims to stand for.

The facts of the Assembly dispute case are so clear that they admit no ambiguity. Hon. Aribisogan was elected Speaker on November 15 by a vote of 15 to 10 against the insistence of party leaders. The displeased and spurned leaders in retaliation instigated a revolt against the new Speaker almost immediately and got many of the lawmakers to switch sides. Consequently, Hon. (Mrs) Adelugba was elected by 17 to nothing on November 21 after seven members were controversially suspended from the assembly. Mr Aribisogan is now in court to defend his reputation and enforce his rights.

The obas’ intervention did not come out of the blue. Two consecutive days after Hon. Adelugba was reportedly elected Speaker in the wee hours of November 21, leading Ekiti lawyers and elders published two trenchant rebukes of the usurpation that took place at the assembly, usurpation that reeked so much of fascist display of partisan power by a supposedly progressive ruling party in the state. The governor, Biodun Oyebanji, was reduced to a spectator in the affair. Signed by seven eminent Ekiti legal minds, the statement advocated a return to status quo and for the state’s politicians to respect the rule of law and exercise caution in order not to destroy the reputation of the state, a reputation that was just mending after decades of irresponsible politicking. The obas’ meeting was, therefore, probably a response to the principled stand of the senior lawyers. But if the lawyers anchored their intervention on certain incontrovertible legal and moral principles, on what grounds did the obas anchor their intervention?

It is not entirely obvious that the obas can find reasonable and incontrovertible grounds to concoct the resolutions they agreed upon on November 28. They asked Hon. Aribisogan to withdraw his case from court in order to be readmitted to the Assembly. He met their superficial counsel with the legal principle that anyone impeached from office would be barred from standing for election for 10 years. And since he did not aim to vacate the political scene for one year, let alone 10, he would challenge the illegality. The obas claimed 22 lawmakers now back Hon. Adelugba, but they said nothing about the absence of character, not to say the coercion, that informed the recantation of the legislators who initially backed Hon. Aribisogan. They also noted the long-standing disaffection of some of the lawmakers and enjoined the party to ‘do the needful’ in redressing the wrongs done them, but they offered no plausible argument regarding whether the party, assuming it was indeed the party and not an individual as the dethroned Speaker alleged, had the right to cajole the assembly into humiliatingly reversing itself in a matter of days.

More importantly, in intervening in the dispute, the obas spoke loftily about the need for Hon. Aribisogan to recognise that his political future would be underscored by how much he conciliates today. Alas, the obas spoke of an iconoclastic future they do not seem to think would also indict them for their unprincipled stand in the Assembly dispute. It is not known yet how Hon. Aribisogan would take the prejudiced counsel of the obas, for he promised to relay their resolutions to his lawyers, but the Ekiti chiefs should be more worried about how they have lent their crowns to the base conduct of politicians quite at variance with the unassailable and irreproachable lessons of Yoruba history. Perhaps they should borrow a leaf from the principles of Oba Adesoji Aderemi, the Ooni of Ife whose mould is strikingly and sorely lacking among most Southwest chiefs and politicians today. No oba should lend his crown as endorsement to the crass and unprincipled politicking of many of the Southwest’s contemporary politicians. It was the strength of character shown by Chief Obafemi Awolowo and Oba Aderemi that secured their places in Yoruba pantheon. Remarkably, at least so far, it is Hon. Aribisogan, not the supplicatory obas, who has displayed the character of someone with an eye on history. Whether he wins in court or not, he will guarantee his political future by refusing to decay beneath the pressures of the state’s powerful political gods and acquiescent obas.

Indeed, it will take copious and highly inventive demolition of the grand principles on which Nigerian law is built to give judgement against Hon. Aribisogan. His lawyers are armed with evidence of the case and are pleading it in court. They believe they will make an impression on the judges. In any case, as Hon. Aribisogan himself said in an interview last week, were he to remain the only one holding out against the injustice perpetrated in the Ekiti State House of Assembly, he would gladly remain alone. He will need that indomitable spirit, for he is already nearly alone. Let him live or die by that sword. Whatever he does, it would be anathema for him to surrender. Last week, a columnist accused Ekiti of being filled with people who easily surrender to injustice. Some of the lawmakers and obas have proved that writer right.

CJN Ariwoola sails into a storm

AFTER the media gave the impression that Nigeria’s number one jurist, Olukayode Ariwoola, was improperly hosted to a dinner by Rivers State governor Nyesom Wike, hardly anyone was willing to give the Chief Justice the benefit of the doubt. What was he doing nestling with the controversial and combative Mr Wike? they sneered. Lost in the furore that arose from the CJN’s remarks during the state banquet in his honour was the uncontroverted fact that the Justice was in Port Harcourt for the commissioning of the Justice Mary Odili Judicial Institute.

What compounded the problem for the CJN was his inexpert attempt to humour his audience, which included his gregarious host and eminent personalities from across the country. The justice, it became painfully obvious, had been so sunk in anonymity for far too long to make a resounding impression the first time he would let his hair down so to speak. He is being controversially pilloried for entirely dubious reasons. He did not rhapsodise the now famous G5 governors who give the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar sleepless nights, though he suggested that they should not be feared, nor did he valorise his host beyond figuratively noting his hold over the wife of Oyo State governor Seyi Makinde and remarking his inestimable contributions to and love for the judiciary. The jurist, it turns out, is from Oyo State.

How his awkward sense of humour and figure of speech became ensnared in sensational news reporting may be partly due to his struggle with finding the right, neutral words to appreciate his host and the governor’s ‘marital’ link with Mr Makinde. Fortunately for him, it is not the kind of controversy that endures for very long. It will soon fade away from public discourse as gently as it waltzed in. Having burnt his fingers so badly, it is also unlikely that the CJN will do anything in future but speak outside a script. He will henceforth be punctilious in functions, and he will be officious to the point of being boring. Yes, he will do anything next time but crack jokes or glamorise anything. Better to be dismissed as boring than be classed as partisanly subversive.

By Adekunle Ade-Adeleye

Whether he acknowledges it or not, Rivers State Governor Nyesom Wike is fast transforming from an iconoclast, the dragon slayer of the Peoples Democratic Party bigwigs, to a flamboyant political entertainer and originator of the first and only Nigerian political Logistics Command. His reputation for iconoclasm is not in doubt; by now he is well known for his unyielding feud with PDP presidential candidate Atiku Abubakar, a former vice president. He has also done little to mask his fight with his former mentor and ex-Rivers governor Rotimi Amaechi. As far as entertainment goes, no one, not even his worst enemy, will doubt his unlimited ability to practice his dexterity on any captive political audience. He mesmerises, captivates, and animates his audience, whom he keeps transfixed every time he addresses a crowd.

But lately, he has unveiled another part of himself, a part that deals with providing logistics for his friends and even political opponents, in place of endorsement. No one is sure yet how this other part will fare among his huge repository. However, that part is now out in the open courtesy of his projects commissioning exercises, and everyone must summon the patience and temperament to deal with it. Along the line, he had conceived the bright idea to invite important personalities from across the country and across political spectrum to commission his stupendous projects. It is not clear why his invitees rush to his side, but they gleefully honour his invitations and revel in commissioning the projects. Among the invitees were, in the past two weeks, presidential candidates who seek to outwit Mr Wike’s presidential candidate, Alhaji Atiku.

So far, two of them have honoured his invitation: the hopeful dreamer Peter Obi of the Labour Party (LP), and Rabiu Kwankwaso of the New Nigerian Peoples Party (NNPP). No one can fathom how the minds of the two candidates work, whether they really think they stand a chance or not; but despite knowing full well that their host is feuding with the PDP presidential candidate, they seemed eager and determined to visit Rivers and powwow with the legendary iconoclast at his lair. There, they have received an unusual promise of some kind of logistics support in their presidential bids. What that logistics support means is not fully spelt out. Would it go beyond police escorts and vehicular support? It is not clear. All that is clear is that Mr Wike is baiting Alhaji Atiku.

Here is how the Rivers governor justified his offer two Thursdays ago and last Monday to opponents of his party’s presidential candidate: “As I told Peter Obi when he came, I am also telling you that if you are coming for campaign here, I will give you logistics support for you to campaign. He is a former governor; the only difference between us is that he is former and I am present. He is a former minister and I am a former minister. When you were a governor, you performed excellently well and everybody knows in this country. I am not afraid to say I will give you all the logistics support. I will do it because protocol demands that I should do it. These are people who meant well for this country. You are not preaching based on ethnicity, you are not preaching based on religion. You are selling yourself to Nigerians. It is not to say don’t vote for Yoruba man, don’t vote for Ibo man, what we need is a leader that will bring Nigeria together.”

When Mr Wike first made the offer to the dreamy Mr Obi two Thursdays ago, the recipient was tantalised by the offer, interpreted it expansively, and perhaps supposed it to mean more than it really was: a unique, coded and irreplicable offer that could in some arcane way turn the table in favour of the LP. Mr Obi went on that high for a few days, perhaps a week or more, until that same offer was flung at Mr Kwankwaso. It is beginning to look like there is nothing really coded about the offer after all, and worse, that the eccentric and boisterous Mr Wike would as soon give the same offer to anyone that catches his political and gladiatorial fancy. The Rivers governor is at war. He will do and give anything to upset his PDP enemies.

Whatever it is worth, Mr Wike is well on the way to constituting a Logistics Command, one worthy of the name militarily, politically and spiritually. He already has thousands of aides tasked with delivering votes in all the nooks and crannies of the state. It will cost him little to saddle a few more men to man his Logistics Command. The Command will have all the men and materiel requisite to its operations, one worthy of his huge and opulent taste. A while ago he complained that the barbarians he tasked with organising the reception he gave the visiting G5 governors proved less adept. Now that he has begun to transform into a kind of medieval potentate, a colourful and endearing one at that, he can be trusted to constitute a Logistics Command that would best the military, especially seeing that the Nigerian military had seemed to lose flair.

Yet, despite the overwhelming morass enveloping the country, God must be praised for gifting the nation flamboyant and patriotic men like Mr Wike to help relieve the tedium killing everybody. More power to his elbow. But in his sober moment, when he is not inflated by the accolades of captive audiences, Mr Wike must begin to ruminate on the fear he elicits from friends and foes alike who seat on the edges of their seats praying and hoping he would not lacerate them with his sardonic wit and those shaming eternal putdowns that neither man nor demon could live down.

Buhari and Emefiele have their new naira

Weeks ago, like a bolt from the blue, the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) governor Godwin Emefiele announced to a startled country that he was going to redesign the Nigerian currency, the naira. He complemented the announcement with a very tight timeline. It was a controversial plan, one obviously not discussed at the Federal Executive Council (FEC). Whether the implications of the plan had been well considered or not, no one was also sure. For a brief moment, the Finance minister, Zainab Ahmed, expressed her doubts, but the CBN governor doubled down. It was his remit, he said, to do whatever he pleased with the naira, or in general the monetary side of the economy. Without saying it, he insinuated that Mrs Ahmed should concern herself with the fiscal side. Yes, nodded President Muhammadu Buhari to the CBN plan. End of story.

Soon, after misgivings had been expressed by many policy analysts, Mr Emefiele began investing the redesigned notes with magical properties such as curbing inflation, firming the naira, growing the economy, stanching corruption, and discouraging the speculative lunacy of currency dealers, among other powers. Weeks later, the new notes were unveiled. It turned out there was really no redesign, just new colours, a realisation that has unleashed the comical inventiveness of Nigerians. Not to be outsmarted, Mr Emefiele again rose to the side of his design, arguing that new security features had been embedded in the new notes to bar counterfeiting. Really? Then the president added that the policy was not politically motivated, even though it would sanitise political spending. Perhaps. The pro-design crowd also added that deposits and withdrawals would henceforth be monitored in order to catch money launderers and, who can tell, maybe, too, tax evaders.

The taste of the pudding is in the eating. The weeks and months ahead will determine whether the magical properties insinuated into the tepid colouration of the naira notes will yield the kind of dividends the president and the CBN governor hope. Years ago, at his assumption of office, President Buhari and the CBN also thought dealing with dollar remittances, instead of designing production policies to drive the economy, would do something good for the naira. The silly policy backfired badly. The president had also hoped he could firm the naira to the dollar, but the economy succumbed to speculative overdrive. The government will hope this time that lightning would not strike the same place twice. But without a lightning arrestor, it would be unclear how many would not be singed.

After three undistinguished campaign rallies the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate, Atiku Abubakar, has slowly begun to face the uncomfortable reality that his ambition may miscarry very badly if nothing is done to unite his party behind him. Since he won the ticket to fly the flag of his party in the 2023 presidential contest, he has vacillated on the subject of getting his party chairman Iyorchia Ayu to relinquish his position to a southerner. Weeks ago, however, he twice indicated he might after all be open to reconciliation with the five aggrieved governors of Rivers (Mr Wike), Abia (Okezie Ikpeazu), Enugu (Ifeanyi Ugwuanyi), Benue (Samuel Ortom, who is the titular leader), and Oyo (Seyi Makinde). But no one really knows how his mind works, or whether he really understands the precariousness of his position. His seeming readiness – don’t count on it, though – to dialogue with the famous five has, however, coincided with the reticence and inconspicuousness of Dr Ayu, prompting apprehension in the All Progressives Congress (APC) camp that the dissension in the PDP might end soon. That hope may in fact be forlorn.

Weeks after weeks, Alhaji Atiku had tried to placate the five governors, including sending emissaries to plead with them to accept Dr Ayu as their chairman until after the presidential election. The five governors have remained adamant. If the top hierarchy of the party could not be representative now, the five reasoned, there was no proof that anything would change should the party lose the presidential poll. Alhaji Atiku and Dr Ayu gave their words. The five governors thought those words meant nothing in the face of existing and unameliorated injustice. They fear, and indeed everything suggests, that the party would lose the poll simply by ceding the presidential ticket to the North after eight years of the northern Muhammadu Buhari presidency. The five, together with other stakeholders in the party, had fought to engender inclusiveness and rotation in the presidential race, but Alhaji Atiku, with a few irredentists in the party, had stolen the southern governors’ thunder. That theft, the famous five argue, is both intentional and contemptuous of the South.

But back to the campaigns. Party hierarchs were dissatisfied with the tone and tenor of the three or so major PDP presidential campaign rallies held so far. The hiatus that has followed, with no immediate follow-up rallies, may have been a subtle acknowledgement that the party has simply not got the campaign off to a brilliant and deafening start. The dispiritedness is followed by a noticeable shortage of campaign funds. The party boasts of 11 governors, five of whom are at daggers drawn with the candidate. Of the remaining six, it is probably only Delta State, which produced the running mate, that is fairly financially loaded, assuming state funds can be creatively and disingenuously funneled into financing the campaign. The standard-bearer himself, some unverified sources suggest, is reluctant to open his private treasury for a race he is increasingly unsure he could win. But sooner or later, Alhaji Atiku and his strategists will have to break the stalemate, if they can decipher what that stalemate looks and feels like.

Last week, it was all but sure that the PDP candidate had moved on, at least by his own admission, and the aggrieved five had all but sought out alternative berths. However, reports have begun to fly about that a lot of pressure was being brought to bear upon Alhaji Atiku to compromise. The party, it was said, had empowered Taraba State governor Darius Ishaku and other loyalists of Mr Wike to broker peace. It is not clear how they would succeed where other high-powered peacemakers had failed. But the candidate also made a flying visit to former military head of state Ibrahim Babangida probably to co-opt him into the peace search. Gen Babangida is of course always flattered by the attention, in the same way former president Olusegun Obasanjo’s ego had been massaged by other presidential aspirants. Neither possesses anything properly describable as electoral value, not Gen Babangida, and not ex-president Obasanjo. But their constant hectoring of active politicians has seemed to imbue them with a gravitas that may not easily lend itself to political quantification. It is that gravitas, that indescribable political capital, that the active politicians and candidates desperately seek.

No one is sure a peace deal could or would be struck between Alhaji Atiku and the aggrieved governors. The animosities are too deep, too complex and too ossified to be smothered by any saccharine deal. On the surface, the antagonists mouth a preference for rapprochement because the ‘civil war’ in the party has presented them unpalatable conundrums. The governors need the party to prosecute their state and governorship campaigns, and the presidential standard-bearer also needs the states to join in funding the party at the national level to achieve any degree of success. The antagonists’ ambitions and goals would be thwarted should the internecine war persist. And they would also come to grief in the short and long run should failure in 2023 jeopardise their very existence.

If a peace deal is to be struck, that is if it is not already too late, it would require the aggrieved five governors trusting the vacillating Alhaji Atiku against their better judgements. They have seen him at close quarters, and have taken the measure of his politics. They know him to be unstable in his ways, promising one thing today and reneging the very next day, if not the very next hour. They have been frozen into stupor by his glacial indifference to the strategic things that matter in both the party and the campaigns, and have also been inundated by his broken promises. To trust him now would expose them to unimaginable political harm, especially should he win. If he could not be compelled to honour his word when he had yet to wear the crown, why would he honour it after the crown had hypothetically settled around his ears?

Nevertheless, the combatants have now seriously begun to mouth reconciliation. Should any form of reconciliation be achieved, and some sort of tentative unity of forces be strung, it would be nearly clear that the aggrieved governors would pull their financial punches, unsure what to make of their Janus-faced presidential candidate. It may please Alhaji Atiku to run with the hare and hunt with the hound, but sooner rather than later, his true self would be unveiled, and what his antagonists will see might be terribly off-putting.

Nigeria’s multidimensional poor

Last Thursday, the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) disclosed that some 133 million Nigerians experience multidimensional poverty. That is a whopping 63 percent of the country. Worrisomely too, 86m of them live in the North, while 47m live in the South, 72 percent in rural areas, and 42 percent in urban areas, and about 68 percent of whom are children. Damning statistics. Analysed state by state, the sad picture is both revealing and troubling.

The NBS gives an indication of the index used in calculating multidimensional poverty. It references food insecurity, nutrition, access to healthcare, school attendance, sanitation, water, cooking fuel, unemployment, underemployment, among other indices. So, why not simply say 133m Nigerians are living in poverty or are poor? Undoubtedly, insecurity has been one of the main drivers of poverty in Nigeria. President Muhammadu Buhari, whose representative unveiled the report, promised last week that he would leave Nigeria safer at his exit from office. He will of course be expected to do a comparative presentation between what he met and what he would leave after office.

More relevantly, regardless of what the situation was before 2015, questions will be asked why insecurity and poverty were left unattended, so to speak, for about seven years before concerted efforts began to stanch the flow of blood. Now, embarrassingly for the APC, the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has begun to make an issue out of the NBS report. The APC, the opposition gloats, is bequeathing poverty and insecurity to Nigerians. In the face of a damning NBS report, it would be interesting to see how the usually creative APC would respond.

What set last Tuesday’s meeting between All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate and the Organised Private Sector (OPS) was not just the substance and coherence of the plans he laid before the business community, but the political orchestration that went into conceiving the meeting and pulling it off. The meeting was attended by a host of governors and deputy governors as well as former governors, top political leaders and business moguls. It was a remarkable meeting between politics and business. It was also an acknowledgement of the fact that the business community, as Britain’s business community showed in the deposition of former British Prime Minister Liz Truss, is highly influential in determining who becomes leader and whether that leader succeeds or fails.

Judging from the feedback from the meeting, the APC candidate appeared to have made a persuasive case for his leadership. It was thoughtful and proactive of the APC leaders to have gone to the meeting with a high-powered delegation. Such a delegation had its intrinsic quality and value, and it sends meaning and significance far in excess of the numerical power of the APC delegation. Then there is the sensible optics of constituting the team from the country’s geopolitical zones, a composition that was undoubtedly not lost on the business community whose variegated business interests run across the length and breadth of the country. The attendance was also remarkable, and interest in the discussions was focused and riveting. By and large, the outing was a good one for both the OPS and the APC. This is how politics should be done, not only rallies and soapbox theatrics.

The campaigns were flagged off in late September, and the parties really began to flex muscles only in October. It is thus only about a month since the 2023 campaigns really began. Three of the leading parties have released their manifestos, to wit, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) without fanfare but with overweening graphics, the APC colourfully, and the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) almost mutedly. The Labour Party (LP) is just transcending its initial faux pas of demeaning the significance of a manifesto, and has finally promised to unveil one soon, insisting that the one leaked to the media last week was still being reviewed. Apart from unveiling manifestos, the parties have tried their hands at organising rallies, with the LP being the first to set great store by the public shows, not to say give the impression that elections could be won by rallies, especially sizable rallies. After the APC made a humongous show of organising its own rallies, and the PDP thundered through three states with their own, the message seems to have been conveyed to the political parties themselves as well as the rest of the country that rallies are after all not as significant as first imagined.

This is probably why the APC has seamlessly reverted to its initial campaign design of scientifically coursing through the country and conferencing with interest groups to convey persuasive messages of hope and renewal. They have identified major interest groups and vote herders, and have begun systematically to meet with them with high-powered delegations – not solitary and grumbling delegations – to deliver impressive messages that cannot be gainsaid, messages filled with hope and interspersed with can-do spirit. This is in addition to making huge efforts to lock up the votes in political districts and geopolitical zones, and commissioning canvassers to carry the flag to every nook and cranny. The other leading parties will try to mimic this style, but they appear, so far, to lack the oomph and conviction, not to say the resources to execute what they long to imitate.

After the APC and PDP responded with rallies of their own, the LP has been left panting. It has suddenly lost the zeal to do rallies, perhaps because it can really never match the crowd of the two leading parties, or because organising rallies cost a pretty penny. As far as the soapbox goes, the LP decided to take off from Nasarawa State. Their campaign rally became like an athlete who put his worst foot forward. Either in response to that showing or the exigencies of costs, the LP has appeared to become flatfooted. They should have put their best foot forward, assuming but not conceding that rallies even indicate strength and signpost victory. The NNPP, led by a solid politician and ideologue, never really got off the starting bloc, despite its voluminous manifesto. They too have been left panting, quite unable to respond with roadshows or campaign rallies. They will learn a thing or two from LP and will try to put their best foot forward. But their best effort will undoubtedly seem contrived. Nigerians know the NNPP does not have the money or the administrative strength, and can in fact muster very little of anything. But they won’t roll over and play dead. They will flex a muscle or two in the weeks ahead.

By far the most puzzling of the four leading contenders for the 2023 throne is the PDP, which for reasons probably connected with its internal dynamics has been unable to pull its weight so far. It has the potential to dazzle and bewitch the electorate, and may even manage to conjure the requisite resources to make huge statements. But, so far, it has been left breathless, if not transfixed. Three campaign rallies have barely made the country to budge in their direction. And they have neither made a solid statement with their manifesto nor organised convincing roadshows, nor yet shown by example and panache that they understand the scientific method of herding votes. After their defeat in 2015 and 2019, the last of which was probably their best chance of retaking the presidency, they have lost steam and have been unable to regain composure. Except they are able to pull a rabbit out of their hat – and there are no magicians among them – it is unlikely that their best days are not behind them.

Herdsmen give mystifying conditionalities

At their expanded executive committee meeting last Monday, the Miyetti Allah Kautal Hore  Fulani socio-cultural association, mostly known as Miyetti Allah, listed some conditions to be met before peace could be restored in troubled communities where farmers and herders have been at daggers drawn. Among the conditions is the immediate designation, publication in gazette and development of all 415 grazing reserves across the states of the federation. They gave their parameters for that development. They also want a Ministry of Nomadic Affairs, and the cessation of profiling of Fulani pastoralists. They then warned that self-help could be imminent if what they identified as the Taraba massacre was not investigated and culprits identified and brought to justice. The association made a number of other demands.

The problem is not that Miyetti Allah has demands, whether reasonable or otherwise. As an association they are entitled to seek ways and conditions to advance the business of their group. The problem, however, is the threat of self-help and their demand for an end to continuous profiling. There had been instances in the past when they had threatened self-help and carried it out, a fact that has now made the farmers-herders crisis in Benue intractable. Their demand for the development of grazing reserves, though unclear in its scope, is at least an improvement on their long-running demand for the re-establishment of grazing routes, a demand the federal government had inexplicably attempted to enforce years back. It is also curious that the law enforcement agencies have not responded vigorously to their threat to embrace self-help over the Taraba conflict.

At least, by shifting ground, particularly in asking for the development of grazing reserves instead of doubling down on grazing routes, it seems eventually that Miyetti Allah has started to recognise that the world has moved on in animal husbandry and dairy farming. They must now find the wisdom of making recourse to the practice of lobbying the legislature and state and federal governments in order to advance and protect the interests of their members. If they resent being profiled, then they must reform their methods and objectives. Exhibiting a sense of entitlement, which they had done over the years, was both retrogressive and counterproductive. It was never going to work in an increasingly complex and changing world.

TWO Octobers ago, thousands of protesters thronged the Lekki Tollgate in Lagos State and seized it as a symbol of their struggle against oppressive and venal policing and law enforcement. Unfortunately the struggle quickly metamorphosed into something more sinister and nefarious. The protests convulsed other parts of the state as well as many states in the country, but they were less impactful and significant as a social movement in the North. The regional dichotomy encouraged the Muhammadu Buhari presidency to suggest that the protests were designed to subvert his administration in order to bring it to disrepute. His suggestions exaggerated the impact and popularity of the protest, not to talk of its objectives, but the truth soon came out that the North experienced a slightly different but nevertheless still significant kind of policing.

Last Monday, the Lagos Lekki corridor experienced a watered-down version of the protests of two years ago. A more diminished crowd of nostalgic protesters again thronged the Lekki Tollgate to remind Nigerians that the protest had not yet experienced a closure. It was not altogether clear what they meant, for as it happened two years ago when the protest was hijacked by people with ulterior motives, last week’s reenactment again insinuated the variegated political undertones of the EndSARS protest. Two main planks of the hijacked protest and the anniversary are discernible. Firstly, the protest in 2020 became perfused with concocted and utterly unproven stories of massacre and dead bodies. But a little over one year of panel inquiry dominated and inspired by civil society and human rights activists negated the story of a massacre, distressingly suggesting that when the protest was hijacked it was perhaps for a thinly veiled political agenda.

Secondly, and closely leashed to the first plank, is the undiluted animosity of the EndSARS crowd to the regnant Lagos political establishment. When the protest broke out, it quickly became political. Barely two years down the line, it is even more remorselessly and undisguisedly political. The Lekki corridor, probably angered by the tolling of the Lekki Expressway, the only major tollgate in Lagos, has quietly begun to acquire the reputation of a rebellious and anarchical enclave. The corridor resents what its denizens say are the oppression and high-handedness of the law enforcement agencies of the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), the Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA), and the Police Force. The three agencies, say Lekkians, have stereotyped the corridor as an anarchical enclave of cultists, yahoo-yahoo boys, alias scammers and 419-ners, and all manner of drug lords and criminal masterminds laundering money through dubious fronts.

It is not clear whether the corridor harbours more drug lords and scammers per capita than the rest of Lagos or even Nigeria, but the daily raids by law enforcement agencies and their alleged high-handedness give the unwholesome impression that the corridor had become an irredeemable enclave. Recent raids have unearthed a number of high-profile drug lords and scammers to the embarrassment of law-abiding residents along the corridor. The stereotype will become reinforced, and protests by residents along that corridor may repeatedly be conflated with the angst of lawless drug czars and scammers resistant to security agents and desperate to create a community of people not answerable to the law.

But what is even more damning is the attempt by desperate individuals and politicians wishing to embed their objectives within the otherwise noble ideal of campaigning for law enforcement reforms. Before the protests, the law enforcement agencies, particularly the police, had become unmanageable, corrupt and unaccountable. Extortion, cruel use of torture and rights abuse were the order of the day. Two years down the road after the very turbulent protest, the reforms have still not come, and the law enforcement agencies have hardly budged beyond a notch or two. The 2020 protest was, therefore, justifiable, and the anniversary last Monday even more so, at least theoretically. But one of the reasons for the poor results from the protest is the simple fact that the protest was hijacked and politicised. It was conceived as an action to compel the federal government to reform its law enforcement agencies, but it quickly became an action against one man, a politician.

Sadly, the distortion of the EndSARS protest and objective persists, not only among the ordinary Lekkians, but alarmingly and disappointingly among clerics. In 2020, the clerics lent their weight to the protest, despite the obvious hijack of the incipient social movement, and despite the bastardisation of its objective. More worrisomely, and even openly, the protest is now being comingled with the course and objectives of the Labour Party. For instance, last week, the Human Rights Writers Association of Nigeria (HURIWA) national coordinator, Emmanuel Onwubiko, who subconsciously functions as an LP advocate, advised Nigerians youths not to vote for the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential candidate, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, for allegedly inspiring the killings at the tollgate. Forget the fact that the killings were not proved and had become apocryphal, but there is nothing anywhere to suggest that the police and the army accused of masterminding the killings were answerable to Asiwaju Tinubu. But many activists and Rights groups toe the infamous line of Mr Onwubiko. They tell themselves a lie, repeat the lie constantly in the fashion of the Nazi Party propagandist leader, Joseph Goebbels, and have begun to believe their own lies.

Just as in the beginning of the EndSARS protest in 2020, when the protest was hijacked by politicians, HURIWA and others, including, surprisingly the National Association of Seadogs (NAS), have become openly partisan and particularly pro-Peter Obi. All gloves are off; campaigners can no longer disguise their objectives. In fact, examined closely, the public will discover some other disturbing and divisive undercurrents in the Lekki Tollgate controversy. These will be exposed in due time. But for now, it is time the government began to take to task those using dubious accounts of events to incite the public. The constitution guarantees freedom of speech; it does not guarantee freedom to concoct stories and incite. If the campaigners allege, then they must be made to prove.

Atiku’s London photo ops

AFTER APC presidential candidate Bola Ahmed Tinubu, PDP presidential candidate ex-vice president Atiku Abubakar is the most vilified. His political snafu last week calling on northerners to vote only him was followed by a snap trip to London. A report alleged that he did not just travel to London for the heck of it but because he collapsed from unstated cause(s). Asiwaju had been through all that, and had had to ‘give proof of life’ repeatedly. After every false report was rebutted, it was imagined that the APC candidate’s traducers would feel a sense of remorse for carrying libelous news about him. No, not a chance. Instead, the attackers had self-righteously doubled down and even felt justified in formulating subsequent attacks.

Alhaji Atiku has also had to produce ‘proof of life’ by organising photo ops in London and Paris, complete with the rambunctious Dino Melaye at a diner, and in another instance with a small coterie of foreign reporters. There is nothing wrong with copycatting, of course. If the PDP would exhume Sen Melaye, why, the APC can also match that unearthly method by recalling its own sarcophagi, of whom Femi Fani-Kayode, a former minister, appears to be the archetype and matching counterpoise. Sen Melaye is riding extremely high in reckoning in the PDP. Mr Fani-Kayode will be wondering when he would also be elevated to the stars from his current amorphous standing as a two-bit spokesman. But why is it that Alhaji Atiku, despite his best efforts, has not been able to shake off that glacial and foreboding look from his face?

There will be more foreign photo ops in the weeks ahead, and especially as the campaigns hot up. If Rivers State governor Nyesom Wike could junket abroad with his co-rebels in the PDP just to powwow, an exercise that could be done with as much effectiveness and panache within Nigerian borders, who would tell Alhaji Atiku not to produce foreign proofs of life. After all, the only candidate among the top three not producing any proof of life is Labour Party’s Peter Obi. Running perhaps a distant third, eclectic and often mundane, he seems content to be challenged to provide proof of idea and ideology because he has none.

On October 5, armed men of undetermined origin invaded the Obajana Cement Plant (OCP) owned since 2002 by Dangote Industries Limited (DIL), injured some staff members, damaged a part of the plant, and forced the company’s closure. The invasion was attributed to agents of the Kogi State government which had been in dispute with the owners over the company’s shareholding structure. In disputing the ownership of the cement company with the Dangote group, the state government had not been forthcoming regarding the number of shares Kogi State held. No one thought the invasion was spontaneous, it was probably orchestrated; and no one believes that ordinary indigenes of the state, without being prompted, took up battle to force the hands of Dangote Industries simply because indigenes owned shares in the company.

Of the three groups, which include the invaders, the state government, and Dangote Ltd, only DIL has clarified the current state of the cement company’s share structure. As implausible as it sounds, DIL insists it had owned 100 percent of the company since 2002, though the cement company had been incorporated since 1992. When it took over the company upon the invitation of the state government, Obajana Cement existed only on paper with no land cleared for building the plant or equipment purchased. It was a virgin company, insists DIL. Furthermore, said the Dangote group, it allocated five percent of the equity to the state government should they want it and pay for it. The state did not redeem the interest, DIL clarifies.

The Kogi State government’s side of the story has been shrouded in impenetrable mystery. It neither came forward to disclose its interest in the company nor has it displayed documents indicating how the company was founded. But it insists that OCP should come clean and table before the questioning public all it knows about the founding of Obajana Cement, all the while insinuating that DIL was less than wholesome in its dealings. The state also accused DIL of asset-grabbing. Compounding the matter was the fact that a few days after, a part of the Kogi State House of Assembly, which had taken the front seat in contesting the ownership of OCP, went up in flames. DIL of course declaimed involvement, while the state government promised only to get to the root of the fire incident. But the whole affair was an eerie reminder of the burning of the Reichstag building, home of the German parliament, in February 1933 four weeks after Adolf Hitler was sworn in as Chancellor of Germany. But perhaps comparisons are odious.

The federal government through the National Security Council has waded into the controversy, though it lacks the reputation for impartiality or adeptness in negotiations, as the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU) conundrum dismayingly showed. The presidency has shown partiality to the Kogi State government, particularly its governor, Yahaya Bello, who professes to be the errand boy of the president and would give his life for him. That perhaps explains why Mr Bello has seemed to get away with murder in some of his dealings in the state as he routinely violated the rights of indigenes and other Nigerian citizens, and flagrantly undermined the battle against COVID-19 through the deployment and advocacy of preposterous epidemiological regimens. Mr Bello is accused of resorting to self-help in the search for a solution to the OCP controversy; could the presidency call him to order if he is indicted? It finally did so, last week, ordering the reopening of the firm, and with Kogi State finally and sensibly promising to litigate the disagreement.

Read Also: Obajana: Kogi drags Dangote to court as FG orders plant’s reopening

On the other hand, Aliko Dangote, reputed to be the richest man in Africa has tentacles spreading all over Nigeria, in and out of government. Even if Kogi State can prove wrongdoing against DIL, it is not altogether clear that the federal government can sharply reprimand the top businessman. OCP has become a big business in Kogi, one of the biggest, and a nationwide business player. It employs directly and indirectly thousands of workers. It could of course not remain closed for too long. If the federal government couldn’t broker peace, the courts should. Indeed, in the first instance, Kogi was expected to head for the courts to get relief for its grievances. But Mr Bello is not the litigious type, nor does he have patience or preference for the rule of law. Perhaps he fears that, like himself, Mr Dangote also has tentacles that permeate every area of national life, including the judiciary, and it would be futile to cross swords in a civilised fashion with a man they insinuate is a ruthless businessman.

But there is also a third perspective about the dispute over the cement company’s ownership structure. DIL has produced evidence of how it came about 100 percent ownership of the company. If the company is right, it does not necessarily follow that such ownership structure is moral, especially given the fact that the company was wholly incorporated by the state government. It is, therefore, possible that at the transference of ownership, some form of collusion might have been enacted. Or in the desperation to get the company up and running, incompetent state officials might have willingly and foolishly ceded everything to DIL. This reminds Nigerians of the tragedy that befell the Ajaokuta Steel Company and the out-of-court settlement Nigeria clumsily reached Global Steel Holdings, an Indian company originally asking Nigeria for $5.3bn for breach of contract. The settlement cost Nigeria about $496m though the Indians would have had to pay Nigeria penalties had Nigerian officials waited only a few weeks more before terminating the contract.

While in the Ajaokuta Steel debacle collusion and incompetence were indicated, it is not clear what happened in 2002 between DIL and Kogi State. Perhaps the same Nigerian disease afflicted the negotiators and suffused the transaction. In any case, regardless of the intensity of the controversy or who might be wrong or right, or even the implausibility of the transaction, it is humiliating that a state government could so blatantly and criminally engage in self-help, and instead of the law enforcement agencies investigating and bringing the invaders to book, the presidency has tried to mediate the misunderstanding.

Controversial national honours

Some 450 Nigerians and foreigners were conferred national honours last Tuesday out of about 5,000 nominees. It seemed the pruning was well done, and indeed quite a significant number of honorees deserved their awards. It will be the last the Muhammadu Buhari administration will be organising before his second and final term ends. But neither his honours’ list nor those of his predecessors since the beginning of the Fourth Republic have escaped censure or controversy. The problem, clearly, is not because the list is sometimes fairly long, especially seeing that the categories are many anyway, but because of the also striking presence of many political functionaries – some of them governors, others legislators, heads of agencies or security and law enforcement bodies, or even political aides.

Many Nigerians are nonplussed. Apart from being an elected or appointed public official, what else qualified some of these political leaders for national honours? It is impossible for the government to defend some of the curious names on the list. But they won’t even bother. In the past, some of the awardees had failed to justify the honours, and indeed even undermined the good done them by the state, because they never actually had the reputation that matched the honours. Every time national honours were conferred, including the most recent, there had always been sharp criticisms. Interestingly, except on rare cases, the previous administrations were never bothered about the public’s reservations. The depressing story of undeserved honours will, therefore, continue ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Two reasons account for the curious names on the lists. Either the government lacks the character required to be rigorous in selections or it lacks the elementary discipline to abide faithfully with the yardsticks necessary for unimpeachable selections.

In the ongoing dispute between the federal government and the Academic Staff Union of Universities (ASUU), it is shocking and disturbing that the legislature, which should in normal circumstances not be involved in negotiating trade disputes, has been more responsible, diligent and empathetic. On the other hand, Labour and Employment minister Chris Ngige, a medical practitioner, has been hysterical, intransigent, cocky and capricious in dealing with the ASUU stalemate. ASUU leaders have long insisted that the minister had become a clog, but the country has not been sure whether to believe them. Now, the truth is gradually coming out. What is, however, baffling is why, given the enormous political and social costs of the dispute, the Presidency has allowed the obtruding Dr Ngige to dominate, complicate and stultify negotiations.

The dispute harked back to the 2009 agreement, which was in turn a product of past, complicated and unfulfilled agreements. Indeed, no matter what agreement is fashioned out from the present dispute, it will still be honoured in the breach for the simple reason that the government does not have a solid idea what to do with the country’s educational system nor the appetite to transit to execution even if it knew what to do. The payment platform, ingloriously tagged IPPIS, has been a major plank of the dispute, so, too, the wage and university funding structures. For a serious administration, the dispute should not have lasted for a week or two, had the government been deeply passionate about educating its youths and leading the country to industrialisation and technological breakthrough. But the dispute has lasted about eight months, and still counting, all this in an election year that has now prompted insinuations the administration wants to lose the election for the ruling party.

But Dr Ngige has been the wet blanket in the negotiations, constituting an absolutely cynical and imperious roadblock. Just when it seemed an agreement was within reach months ago, the minister produced the no-work, no-pay rabbit out of the hat. It was a timeworn tool which no past administration had successfully deployed. But the Labour minister hoped to be the one to break the mould. Then, again, weeks ago, when all sides to the dispute had begun to feel somewhat upbeat about the negotiations between the government and the teachers’ union, Dr Ngige’s ministry headed to the National Industrial Court to compel ASUU to return to work. The public was unable to reconcile the new twist with the optimism that had attended the negotiations before the court adventure. And barely two weeks ago, the minister began singing a new tune mocking and hectoring the union to first obey court orders without any tangible concessions made to the teachers. It was difficult to understand. Here was a government that had serially undermined negotiations and broken accords at will lecturing the victims of its own cruelty and perfidy on the subjects of legal and judicial rectitude.

But worse was to come from Dr Ngige’s Labour ministry. Perhaps egged on by the sly and persistent Congress of Nigeria University Academics (CONUA), which took its rebellious roots from the Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, and at precisely the moment when it seemed the helpful House of Representatives led by its Speaker, Femi Gbajabiamila, had cobbled together a tentative agreement with the teachers’ union, Dr Ngige chose to break the dominance of ASUU by registering splinter unions, insisting that both unions had applied for registration since 2018. The ministry went ahead to register CONUA and the Nigeria Association of Medical and Dental Lecturers in Academics (NAMDA), thus making it a total of three unions in the same sector. Immediately, the government ordered the two unions to reopen the universities. It is not clear whether the ministry audited the number of teachers aligned with the two new unions or not, let alone determine whether the two unions had the power to get university teachers back to work. It is also not clear whether in the event the two unions could do the impossible the federal government would pay the backlog of salaries denied ASUU.

ASUU has headed to the courts to delegitimize CONUA and NAMDA. Given the unpredictability of Nigerian courts, sometimes in the face of glaring legal and jurisprudential certainties, no one knows whether ASUU will win the case to wipe the grin off the face of Dr Ngige’s new unions or not. But whether the union wins or not, the status quo in the universities is unlikely to be altered fundamentally. Both CONUA and NAMDA are unlikely to get the teachers back to work, regardless of the temptation to pay salary arrears. What is likely to happen is that if the courts fail to reverse the registration of the two unions, they will hang on and perhaps, over time, attract some ASUU members into their fold. They can’t do much now, but will probably celebrate, for as long as possible, the fact that FG/ASUU dispute had presented them the window to get registered.

But herein is the enormous damage being done by Dr Ngige. Instead of finding the right and most sensible formula by which the universities can be funded and run, away from decades of stasis and retrogression, he has opted for the least line of resistance – balkanisation of the unions. The demands of ASUU are genuine and not exaggerated, only that the government claims to be unable to afford them. Sadly, while Dr Ngige takes the front seat and has considerable botched negotiations, the Education ministry, under which direct purview ASUU matters lie, has been more like an onlooker. Hon Gbajabiamila has indicated that an agreement had been reached with the union and that the presidency would probably sign off on it. If that is so, it would bring the crisis to an end. But if the Muhammadu Buhari administration does not sign off on it, the dispute will ossify, regardless of the registration of CONUA and NAMDA, and perhaps too despite the Court of Appeal inexplicably insisting that ASUU must first return to the classrooms before the court would consider the dispute. Worse, the strike, not to talk of the frustration it has occasioned among youths, may impact the elections in ways the ruling party would find most unpalatable.

Buhari’s last Independence Day address

President Muhammadu Buhari was clearly upbeat when he read his Independence Day speech, his last as president, two Saturdays ago. He reminded Nigerians that his administration predicated its success on improving the economy, tackling corruption, and fighting insecurity, in addition to raising 100 million Nigerians out of poverty. In the address, he gave himself a pass mark. Whatever yardsticks he used cannot but be controversial in view of the conflicting reports about the successes or otherwise of his administration’s programmes. All global indices relating to poverty in Nigeria show increasing immiserisation. Insecurity had first got worse before it began to get better, indicating that whatever success is recorded in this fight must first have to be benchmarked against the crisis in the Northwest. And as for corruption, the jury is still out on whether arresting and prosecuting corrupt people, instead of emplacing policy initiatives to deter the crime, is actually a scientific and effective way of fighting the cancer.

The address may be upbeat, and President Buhari has undoubtedly done some great things, but whatever he had to say inadvertently suggested that he might already be feeling haunted by how posterity would judge his administration, particularly regarding whether he was a great leader and unifier, a patriot and nationalist, or not. It will take a few years before the verdict of history comes. However, regardless of that verdict, one thing cannot be taken away from him: that he respected the country’s constitutional term limits, a matter in which many African governments, including at least one of his predecessors, have been quite remiss. Should he deliver a great election and transition, both of which are clearly and indisputably not in his hands, he would depart with accolades as the country heaves a sigh of relief.     PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari was clearly upbeat when he read his Independence Day speech, his last as president, two Saturdays ago. He reminded Nigerians that his administration predicated its success on improving the economy, tackling corruption, and fighting insecurity, in addition to raising 100 million Nigerians out of poverty. In the address, he gave himself a pass mark. Whatever yardsticks he used cannot but be controversial in view of the conflicting reports about the successes or otherwise of his administration’s programmes. All global indices relating to poverty in Nigeria show increasing immiserisation. Insecurity had first got worse before it began to get better, indicating that whatever success is recorded in this fight must first have to be benchmarked against the crisis in the Northwest. And as for corruption, the jury is still out on whether arresting and prosecuting corrupt people, instead of emplacing policy initiatives to deter the crime, is actually a scientific and effective way of fighting the cancer.

The address may be upbeat, and President Buhari has undoubtedly done some great things, but whatever he had to say inadvertently suggested that he might already be feeling haunted by how posterity would judge his administration, particularly regarding whether he was a great leader and unifier, a patriot and nationalist, or not. It will take a few years before the verdict of history comes. However, regardless of that verdict, one thing cannot be taken away from him: that he respected the country’s constitutional term limits, a matter in which many African governments, including at least one of his predecessors, have been quite remiss. Should he deliver a great election and transition, both of which are clearly and indisputably not in his hands, he would depart with accolades as the country heaves a sigh of relief.     PRESIDENT Muhammadu Buhari was clearly upbeat when he read his Independence Day speech, his last as president, two Saturdays ago. He reminded Nigerians that his administration predicated its success on improving the economy, tackling corruption, and fighting insecurity, in addition to raising 100 million Nigerians out of poverty. In the address, he gave himself a pass mark. Whatever yardsticks he used cannot but be controversial in view of the conflicting reports about the successes or otherwise of his administration’s programmes. All global indices relating to poverty in Nigeria show increasing immiserisation. Insecurity had first got worse before it began to get better, indicating that whatever success is recorded in this fight must first have to be benchmarked against the crisis in the Northwest. And as for corruption, the jury is still out on whether arresting and prosecuting corrupt people, instead of emplacing policy initiatives to deter the crime, is actually a scientific and effective way of fighting the cancer.

The address may be upbeat, and President Buhari has undoubtedly done some great things, but whatever he had to say inadvertently suggested that he might already be feeling haunted by how posterity would judge his administration, particularly regarding whether he was a great leader and unifier, a patriot and nationalist, or not. It will take a few years before the verdict of history comes. However, regardless of that verdict, one thing cannot be taken away from him: that he respected the country’s constitutional term limits, a matter in which many African governments, including at least one of his predecessors, have been quite remiss. Should he deliver a great election and transition, both of which are clearly and indisputably not in his hands, he would depart with accolades as the country heaves a sigh of relief.

Prophet Isa El-Buba is the president of EL-Buba Outreach Ministries, Int. (EBOMI), with headquarters in Jos, Plateau state, Nigeria. He is one of the many Christian leaders in recent years that have become politically active. A recent video clip of his ministration showed him swearing at and cursing those who dissented from his political views. He insisted on his political convictions and justified his political activism on the premise that the discrimination against Christians in Nigeria had become excessive. In the viral clip, he singled out the All Progressives Congress (APC) for mention, denouncing the party for presenting a Muslim-Muslim ticket for the next presidential poll. Apart from heartily and gloomily cursing Christians who planned to vote for the APC ticket, he swore that he would actively participate in electioneering. It was not surprising, therefore, to see him embracing Peter Obi’s Labour Party. He had made good his threat.

Right before the eyes of this generation, the Medieval spirit of The Crusades (1096- 1295) has berthed in Nigeria. Not only did the prophet curse, he also walked his talk by showing up mid-September at Mr Obi’s rally/fitness walk held at the Rwang Pam Township Stadium in Jos, the Plateau State Capital. Addressing the rally, Prophet El-Buba said, “I want to appeal to Nigerians not to vote for corrupt politicians who have looted our treasury. Vote for people who have the interest of the common man at heart.” It was, of course, indefensible that the prophet showed up at a partisan political rally, but if he had limited his admonition to advocating for electoral and behavioural purity, his partisanship would have been overlooked. But true to his label as a radical Christian cleric, a fierce appellation he earned before he converted to Christianity, he bellowed: “That is why we have decided to throw our weight behind Peter Obi, the Labour Party presidential candidate because we have seen what he has done as Governor of Anambra State and his antecedents show he is someone that can bring us out of the woods.”

It is not clear which is giving birth to which. Just what did Mr Obi do as a two-term governor that merits the prophet’s praise? As governor, Mr Obi elevated what he now describes as honesty, but more accurately parsimoniousness, as an administrative and policy feat. His eight years in office not only failed test, his administration was marked by nitpicking, insularity and paranoid attention to minutiae.  If the prophet sees anything remarkable in Mr Obi’s administration, neither he nor even the former governor himself has been able to effectively communicate it. His social media campaigns have of course been scintillating, and youths in many parts of the country have rallied behind his banner. But beyond that, the rest is empty void. Prophet El-Buba obviously wishes Mr Obi to be remarkable, and it is that wish that has given birth to his conclusion that the governor shone when he governed Anambra State.

Then the prophet gave the clincher: “We came here to pray for a better Nigeria,” he intoned in his characteristic preachy language, “and also sensitise the citizenry about the upcoming elections.” He is not telling the truth. They didn’t go to the stadium to pray for Nigeria but to conduct a political rally, and also partly demonstrate fitness as their banners announced. Nigeria is indisputably in dire straits, but it beggars belief for a preacher of no mean standing to conflate a political rally with old time revival gathering. There are enough scriptural reasons to warn preachers who occupy the office of Christ’s ambassadors off politics, but Prophet El-Buba is probably too angry with what he sees in the country to hold his peace any longer. He must have also convinced himself that he had his congregation all locked up in Labour Party, with no room for dissent of any kind, and should any dissent crop up, it must be on pain of his horrendous curses.

Sadly, top Christian leaders in Nigeria are themselves engaged in one form of political endorsement or another. They did it under ex-president Goodluck Jonathan, including cursing dissenters, and are now doing it again, having not learnt any lesson from overreaching themselves in direct opposition to Christian exegesis. There is, therefore, no one to warn Prophet El-Buba against his excesses and iniquitous insistence that his congregation be herded into his political column willy-nilly. There is no one to gently admonish him that his Christ would not curse anyone because of political dissent, having given His life a ransom for them. There is no one to tell the prophet that if God gave His only begotten son to die for the wicked, it would be sheer folly for anyone to curse those for whom Christ made such profound sacrifice. Alas, there is no one to tell the Jos-based prophet that by aligning with a political party, and cursing those who would not agree with him politically, he had made Christ’s death of no effect, and that worse, he had become so familiar with Christ to the point of dragging Him along to rallies.

The Evangelicals burnt their fingers during the last United States presidential election. The Nigerian Pentecostals, who champion the current crusading and partisan fervour, are replicating the same error and misstep committed by their brethren in the US. In becoming fully politicised and making political support a doctrinal issue, the church seems to be abjuring the great and profound virtues and principles of their faith that made it possible to bring down empires and subdue kingdoms. Prophet El-Buba belongs to a group of radical and opinionated clerics who fight for the political kingdom rather than the souls of men. If it has become so easy to curse those whom Christ came to redeem and bless, simply because of political dissent, and regardless of how God loves everyone, including dissenters, Christ, the personification of love and blessing, is being compelled by the modern Nigerian preacher to take the back seat.

Putin as uncanny reminder of Hitler

Russia’s President Vladimir Putin committed two major shocking leadership blunders in the past few weeks that have triggered uncanny comparisons between him and Germany’s World War II mastermind, Adolf Hitler. Firstly, Mr Putin has threatened mass destruction, using nuclear weapons, against Ukraine because of embarrassing setbacks in battles along the extended frontline between Russia and Ukraine. Threatening mass destruction, and swearing it was not a bluff, speaks to his readiness, if not ghoulishness, to use the apocalyptic weapons, even if he eventually balks at using them. To not flinch at causing so much pain for doubtful, ephemeral and questionable goals indicates complete callousness. Hitler did not flinch at causing mass deaths, as the holocaust showed, and he had no remorse whatsoever. Mr Putin is cut from the same cloth, notwithstanding his genuine apprehensions about NATO expansionism and national security threats.

Secondly, Mr Putin has annexed four conquered Russian-speaking Ukrainian regions. This is a misplaced and shortsighted imitation of Hitler’s execrable policy of Lebensraum (or living space). How the Russian leader, with all his years as president, has not acquired the wisdom to know that such forceful takeovers do not last is hard to explain. He should ask himself the stories of Sudetenland in Czechoslovakia (now Czech Republic) which Hitler’s Germany annexed based on the 1938 Munich Agreement, and Alsace-Lorraine (now Alsace-Moselle) in France which Germany also annexed in 1871 after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Why he thinks his annexation of Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in Ukraine would last, assuming he won the war, is incomprehensible. Hitler used the annexation of Sudetenland as pretext to launch a world war that consumed between 40m to 50m people (some estimates put the figure at over 70m), or nearly three percent of the world’s estimated population of some 2.3bn people at the time. Mr Putin has spoken carelessly and recklessly of provoking a world war simply to save face. He does not seem to bother about the millions who could be consumed in the war. He will not last.