The Nation Newspaper

Category: Barometer

  • Wike, Buratai and FCT land controversy

    Wike, Buratai and FCT land controversy

    Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister and former Rivers State governor, Nyesom Wike, stirred up a hornets’ nest again last Tuesday in Abuja when he exchanged acrimonious words with a naval lieutenant standing sentry at a piece of land reportedly owned by former Naval chief Awwal Zubairu Gambo. Like the first batch of FCT officials sent to inspect the land but was barred, Mr Wike himself was also barred from gaining access to the property. The unseemly exchange between Mr Wike and the lieutenant, AM Yerima, has since become the butt of jokes on the internet and various social media platforms. The legal and ethical issues surrounding the bitter exchange are well known. But the consensus is that while the lieutenant and the presumed landowner might be wrong, and probably abridged due process in acquiring the land and keeping possession against the law, the minister himself had a duty to rein in his temper and speak civilly to the officer, and indeed not just to the military officer but to any landowner in line with the law governing land rights. It is, therefore, no use beating this dead horse.

    The problem, however, are the optics emanating from the Abuja land controversy. Former Chief of Army Staff Tukur Buratai, a retired lieutenant-general never once acclaimed for a cerebral take on civil-military issues, posted a short piece on social media demanding an apology from Mr Wike for insulting a soldier in uniform. To him, nothing else mattered, not even the casual ‘on the other hand’ of asking a question about the sense of deploying a naval lieutenant to guard a landed property belonging to a retired military officer. Believing that Mr Wike’s temperamental approach trumped every other thing and constituted a threat to national security, he wrote: “Mr Wike’s public disparagement of a uniformed officer of the Nigerian Armed Forces transcends mere misconduct; it represents a palpable threat to national security and institutional integrity. A minister’s verbal assault on a military officer in uniform is an act of profound indiscipline that strikes at the core of our nation’s command and control structure. It deliberately undermines the chain of command, disrespects the authority of the Commander-in-Chief, and grievously wounds the morale of every individual who serves under the Nigerian flag. Such actions erode the very foundation of discipline upon which our national security apparatus stands.”

    What bothered the former army chief was, however, not national security, for it is not clear how he managed to conflate the bad-tempered exchange between the minister and a naval officer as a danger to national security. What actually riles him is that he believes a soldier in uniform is superior to every other person, even if that soldier is acting unlawfully. He has conjured a myth in his mind about the superiority of the soldier in uniform and he feels injured by any civilian challenging it. The former army chief, and others like him who have spoken in similar vein, have managed to create a class structure that puts the soldier ahead of every other person. Had Gen. Buratai limited his comment to pointing out the rules and regulations, even laws, he believed Mr Wike violated, his contribution would have been considered informative, seasoned and dispassionate. But he exceeded himself, as he often does.

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

    Retired and serving military officers who have commented on the matter have tried to make the exchange between the FCT minister and naval officer strictly one of a civilian minister speaking disrespectfully to a serving officer. But it goes far beyond that. Firstly, the exchange was just a symptom of all that has gone wrong with Nigeria, not the disease, nor the main issue. The exchange harks back to the unmanageable and increasingly painful history of civil-military relations in Nigeria, one whose roots are traceable to the colonial period. The colonialists, not to talk of more than 30 years of military rule, enthroned a culture that elevateed the soldier above everyone else, bastardised institutions, weakened laws, and turned the constitution into an ephemeral object. But it is a culture of often unearned privileges that is both difficult to embrace and sustain, not to talk of root out; a culture that explained but could not justify the brutality of military governments and their contemptuous disregard for the rule of law. Unlike Defence minister of state, Bello Matawalle, who came down unthinkingly in favour of the officer, Defence minister Mohammed Badaru caveated his support for the officer by suggesting that “Any officer on lawful duty will be protected highly. He is doing his job, and doing it greatly well.” The Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Olufemi Oluyede, reportedly admonished civil authorities to respect military officers on duty. But what duty, and what lawful order? Guarding a landed property? Was that a security establishment, or was the land a component of national security? The controversy may have in fact inadvertently unearthed decades of privileges enjoyed by retired military officers, which generals like Buratai are anxious to protect. The purported owner of the property, a retired naval chief, was undoubtedly aware of the controversy swirling around the property; that may be the reason he got the armed sentries deployed in that location.

    Secondly, Nigeria’s security agencies have become hopelessly inefficient in the deployment of service personnel. The police deploy thousands of their men in sentry duties and protection of very important persons, but continue to insist they need more men. The system has repeatedly obliged them without auditing the men they already have or asking how they are deployed. Of course, the police personnel will never be enough; it is a bottomless pit. In the same fashion, too many military personnel are either posted to police duties all over the country or deployed in guard duties for the generals, sometimes in shocking numbers. In the midst of war in at least four regions of the country, the military could afford to post a number of its men led by a special forces naval lieutenant to protect a piece of land against the rules and regulations of the FCT land administration, and against the law. How this atrocious anomaly does not unnerve the military, and how officers who have sided with the young and intrepid lieutenant in the controversy do not appear to care what other countries think of how Nigeria deploys its service personnel, is beyond comprehension. It is clear that senior military officers have cheapened their men, cheapened the service, and have little understanding of how a people’s army should be constituted. It is truly disturbing that some senior military officers are unbothered by the humiliation and paradox of a naval officer guarding a plot of land owned by a retired officer.

    In May 2024, soldiers shut down Banex Plaza, a shopping complex located at Wuse 2 in Abuja, over a dispute with traders alleged to have sold a defective phone to a soldier. The soldiers complained that in the process of sorting out the misunderstanding they were manhandled by some traders and hoodlums. The plaza was not opened until the police acting in concert with the Department of State Service (DSS) inspired a peace deal that eventually led to the apprehension of two persons. The apprehended men were not handed over to the police but to the military in violation of the laws of the land. What was remarkable about the Banex Plaza illegality was the justification provided by a former Chief of Defence Staff, Gen. Lucky Irabor. Insisting that it was unacceptable to attack a soldier, he said: “This applies to any uniformed person for as long as he is an agent of the state. An attack on him is an attack on the state, so any Nigerian of goodwill must condemn such an act. For me, I join to support the closure of Banex Plaza for as long as it takes to have anyone responsible for that dastardly act brought to justice. This is because if we fail to do so, we will be calling for anarchy. The only men who are sacrificing their lives to ensure our collective good are members of the armed forces, the police, and other security agencies.”

    This is specious reasoning at its worst. It shows how pervasive the appalling idea of subordinating the constitution to the military has become among military men and some civilians. Perhaps they should be made to reflect on the story of countries which have become failed states because the law and constitution were held in contempt by the powerful.

    It did not occur to the former CDS that no one, no matter how highly placed or armed, should ever resort to self-help. Not only was the plaza shut down for a week without a court order or even the involvement of the police legally and constitutionally empowered to handle such matters, the shop at the centre of the fracas was kept shut until two men were apprehended. It is, therefore, not surprising that naval personnel barricaded a landed property in flagrant violation of the law, and all some retired generals could point at was Mr Wike’s incivility. What of the law itself? And what of the propriety of spurning the procurement of the right documentation for the property? And what of the global image of Nigeria? Gen. Irabor has of course weighed in again on the Abuja land controversy dispute by justifying his unhelpful view of the imperious manner the military responds to civil matters. Clearly, Nigeria does not appear to have the ambition of building a world-class military, but a military of privileges, rank and false heroism.

    Mr Wike is not loved by a record number of Nigerians despite his performance and record as a governor and minister. He is sometimes acerbic and unorthodox, his methods often rankling very badly. But he was more right on the land issue than the naval officer. This matter will, from all indications, blow over because it is really just so much silly sound and fury signifying nothing. But Mr Wike must now be aware that even if an official is right, the redress must be carried out in such a way that it does not compromise the integrity of his case. More importantly, the FCT minister must have suspected that he is hated more for his support for President Bola Tinubu than for his short fuse. They see him as the man at the centre of weakening the opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and the man whose political manoeuvres significantly impacted the 2023 presidential poll. In addition, his efforts to sanitise the Abuja master plan is unlikely to win him friends in a country and capital city where impunity has become second nature, and where military men and security agents all pull rank on anyone not in uniform. He, therefore, has a duty to think twice, in spite of himself, before he talks and acts, knowing full well that whatever he does will be used against him, the president and the All Progressives Congress (APC). This curious animosity will get worse as the APC continues to outmanoeuvre the opposition and try to make the 2027 polls a foregone conclusion.

  • China’s Xi Jinping, Trump and Taiwan

    China’s Xi Jinping, Trump and Taiwan

    Two Thursdays ago, United States President Donald Trump met briefly with China’s President Xi Jinping in South Korea to discuss and diffuse US-China trade tensions. It was not clear what else they discussed other than trade issues. But speaking on a US television programme, “60 Minutes” on CBS last Sunday, he offered a perspective on the contentious China-Taiwan relations. Despite not discussing the long-standing disagreement between the two Asian countries, in which China still lays claim to Taiwan and was disposed to swallowing it by force, Mr Trump said he was sure China would not attack Taiwan during his presidency. To him, that assurance, which he claimed Mr Xi gave him, was sufficient. It must be noted that the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act obligates the US to provide Taiwan with the resources to defend itself in the event of an attack by China.

    Sometime in the future it will be clear whether indeed Mr Xi gave such assurances, or whether in fact the matter was discussed at all. If the issue was not discussed, as Mr Trump claimed on television, how then were the assurances given? Assuming the assurances were really given, it is striking how the US president said it was issued. Hear him: “He has openly said, and his people have openly said at meetings, ‘We would never do anything while President Trump is president,’ because they know the consequences.” His response to the CBS question undoubtedly underscores his megalomaniacal posturing. The issue may not have been discussed, but Mr Trump was satisfied that at different fora, Mr Xi and other Chinese officials gave commitment to holding back because they feared the mercurial US president.

    Narcissistic leaders are often so self-absorbed that they fail to realise how they sound, or what their responses connote. As far as Mr Trump is concerned, it was okay for him and his ego that if China would attack Taiwan, it should at least not happen during his presidency. He showed no commitment whatever to reviewing the 1979 Taiwan Relations Act or of lending his vaunted gargantuan weight to secure a long-term accommodation with China on the sore topic of Taiwan’s sovereignty. There is a biblical parallel for this extreme and destructive self-centredness. In Isaiah 39, the Prophet Isaiah visited King Hezekiah of Judah on God’s order, and the following dialogue ensued, including the context:

    39 At that time [a]Merodach-Baladan the son of Baladan, king of Babylon, sent letters and a present to Hezekiah, for he heard that he had been sick and had recovered. 2 And Hezekiah was pleased with them, and showed them the house of his treasures—the silver and gold, the spices and precious ointment, and all his armory—all that was found among his treasures. There was nothing in his house or in all his dominion that Hezekiah did not show them.

    3 Then Isaiah the prophet went to King Hezekiah, and said to him, “What did these men say, and from where did they come to you?”

    So Hezekiah said, “They came to me from a far country, from Babylon.”

    4 And he said, “What have they seen in your house?”

    So Hezekiah answered, “They have seen all that is in my house; there is nothing among my treasures that I have not shown them.”

    Read Also: Trump, not Nigeria, is of particular concern to the world

    5 Then Isaiah said to Hezekiah, “Hear the word of the LORD of hosts: 6 ‘Behold, the days are coming when all that is in your house, and what your fathers have accumulated until this day, shall be carried to Babylon; nothing shall be left,’ says the LORD. 7 ‘And they shall take away some of your sons who will descend from you, whom you will beget; and they shall be eunuchs in the palace of the king of Babylon.’ ”

    8 So Hezekiah said to Isaiah, “The word of the LORD which you have spoken is good!” For he said, “At least there will be peace and truth in my days.”

    It has been conjectured that King Hezekiah felt there was nothing he could do to reverse God’s divine will, or that he simply lacked leadership perspective, or that he was too wearied by the illness he suffered to fight another spiritual battle, particularly for the next generation. Whatever was on his mind, it seemed abundantly evident that he simply lacked the character of a great leader. The next generations always mattered to a great leader, whether of a country or of a business, or even of a political party. Mr Trump is a mirror copy of King Hezekiah. For anyone who doubts the abysmal level the US president has sunk, including those who suggest that his actions and policies simply reflect the dynamics of the American society, his statement on what might happen to Taiwan after he was gone is a reminder and a confirmation of who he is at bottom. Mr Trump is unreflective, instinctive, self-centred, and simply incapable of complex reasoning. Unlike King Hezekiah (716-687 BC) who would die 100 years before the foretold exile in 586 BC, it won’t be long before dire consequences come rushing at Mr Trump. They are inescapable.

    And who would not notice how seemingly deferential Mr Trump was to President Xi at the South Korean meeting? His boasting and muscle flexing came only after the meeting, on a US television programme. He could talk down on small Greenland, threatening to annex it, bomb boats in Venezuelan waters in defiance of international law, and cocked a snook at Canada which he coveted on behalf of the US. But to the iconoclastic and defiant North Korea armed with nuclear weapons, Cuba, China and Russia, he would never dare. It’s the nature of brutes and bullies – traits exemplified by Mr Trump’s narrow-mindedness on Taiwan – to know their limits. But on this subject, Nigeria is befuddled.

  • PDP’s relentless decay

    PDP’s relentless decay

    Every time an analyst thought it could not get worse for the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), the ill-fated party dredged up more shocking details about its structural atrophy. The party began to decay when former vice president Atiku Abubakar cajoled it into gifting him the nomination for the 2023 presidential election. Then it began to fracture awkwardly into about three or four parts when it refused to restructure its zoning arrangement post-nomination. After the inevitable electoral loss, the party became so dispirited that it forgot how to dress its wounds to trigger the healing process. The party hierarchy never regained stability after that epochal falling-out.

    Read Also: PDP crisis: Wike group dissolves Wabara-led BoT

    Fast forward to today. Believing that once it managed to conduct an elective convention, the healing balm would materialise, it tried to force itself into an arrangement that would conduce to that healing by producing a consensus chairmanship candidate. Instead, through the litigation of a faction, it was slammed with a Federal High Court, Abuja, judgement that forbade the convention. An appeal might do some good here, right? Yes, in a rational party. But the main faction simply countered with a court order, not a judgement, from Oyo State where the convention was billed to hold on November 15-16. It didn’t make legal sense, but the discomfited party was at this point past caring what anyone thought.

    The PDP and a few other opposition parties have now worked themselves up to a point where they argue that the ruling and ‘omnipotent’ All Progressives Congress (APC) is behind their ordeal. And they believe their own lies. The last opportunity to revivify their party is, however, closing. It is now feared that as they decay, they may lack the men and ideas to redeem themselves or reclaim their once dominant position in the polity. 

  • The Ese Oruru message

    The Ese Oruru message

    She was 13 years old when she was abducted and abused in 2015. Her abductor, Yunusa Dahiru, alias Yellow, was twice her age, at 26. Until the police reportedly rescued her about six months later in February 2016, after a series of shocking collusion and connivance by state and traditional authorities, not to talk of the initial impotence of the police themselves, Ese Oruru, a Deltan living in Bayelsa State with her parents, seemed lost to the fog of early marriage and misguided religious fervour. No one has adequately explained why a clear case of abduction involving a minor, forced marriage, and abuse could take all of six months to resolve. Happily, and even ecstatically as it would turn out more than 10 years later, Miss Oruru at last graduated last month with a 2:1 in Education Technology from the University of Ilorin, while Mr Dahiru is serving a 26-year jail term. All is well that ends well, isn’t it?

    Not exactly. The Miss Oruru story, which her family has tried to shield from public curiosity given the trauma they endured in those heady months in 2015, goes far beyond the valour of the Orurus and the victim’s extraordinary resilience. The story is a scary pointer to what might have been had she not been extricated from servitude in Kano to which Mr Dahiru transported her into the embrace of traditional and political institutions that at first feigned helplessness and waffled over what age constituted consent and accountability. Having now graduated at 23, Miss Oruru has her future ahead of her, especially with a solid educational foundation. How many like her get a second chance? Her dreams and trajectory as a pre-teen might have been skewed a little by her experience, but they were obviously not truncated. She was abducted on August 12, 2015, and her family members were in Kano two days later seeking her freedom. Though they acted fast enough, a retrogressive cultural rampart stood in the way, inexplicably delaying freedom for another six months. It is not unlikely that thousands of similar abductees fail to secure extraction due to weak law enforcement institutions and overbearing traditional and cultural authorities.

    READ ALSO: Obi Cubana blames solo-ownership culture for African business failures

    What makes Miss Oruru exceptional is that her recovery was marked by phenomenal progress and stellar academic performance. It is, therefore, legitimate to ask how many million geniuses are lost to unhealthy and retrogressive cultural and religious practices in Nigeria. For instance, of the estimated 12 to 20 million out-of-school children in Nigeria, nearly 80 percent of whom are sucked into the Almajiri system wreaking havoc in the Northeast and Northwest, how many geniuses will never be discovered? But even outside the out-of-school bracket, there are millions who because of poverty or early marriage never get the chance to prove their genius or contribute substantially to Nigeria’s development. That tantalising possibility will always haunt the country and render it a global spectacle, especially given the fact that it harbours the largest population of out-of-school children in the world.

    Most states in Nigeria may have already domesticated the Child Rights Act enacted in 2003, but the devil is in the detail. For instance, the age of consent varies among states; so, too, some of the rights under the law, whether it pertains to the right to survival, a name, family life, privacy, dignity, recreation, cultural activities, healthcare, or education. Rather than domesticate the Child Rights Act, Kano State, more than 10 years later, enacted a Child Protection Law in 2023. Though applauded by UNICEF, it remains to be seen to what extent the law will qualitatively improve the lives of children in the state and protect them from the ravages of controversial cultural and religious practices. Zamfara is another state out of a few unenthusiastic about the Child Rights Act. In 2022, one year before Kano, it, however, enacted a social protection law, which contains a provision for child welfare that is clearly not enough.

    For Kano, Zamfara, and the few states uncertain about just what rights to grant their children, they are clearly halting between the past and the future. They must come out of their long-term dithering if they are to unleash the ‘devastating’ potentials of their youths. As Miss Oruru has proved by her determination and accomplishment at the university despite a hiatus at a crucial stage in her life, brilliance or any kind of profundity is not the exclusive preserve of any ethnic or religious group. There is of course a limit to how far the federal government can compel any state to change its developmental course; so the states themselves, particularly those still trapped in an unenviable past, must find the vision and political will to drag their people into the future if they are not to remain a national liability. Progress and development are obviously not opposed or inversely related to any religion or culture, as many countries even in religiously conservative countries in the Middle East have amply demonstrated.

  • For PDP, it does not just rain…

    For PDP, it does not just rain…

    Even while it was yet to douse the agitations of the Nyesom Wike camp, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has managed to attract another round of controversy and agitation barely two weeks into its elective national convention in Ibadan on November 15.  A chairmanship aspirant, former Jigawa State governor and former Foreign Affairs minister, Sule Lamido, has alleged that he was being squeezed out of the race for the top party job. The party, he claimed, had made its chairmanship nomination and expression of interest forms unavailable. He could head for the courts, he warned. At the bottom of the forms crisis is the claim by the opposition party that party elders had adopted a consensus candidate, former Special Duties minister Kabiru Tanimu Turaki.

    Nonsense, growled Mr Lamido; no meeting was held anywhere to adopt anyone. He alleged that the imposition would not stand. The party has, however, remained adamant. Mr Turaki never defected to any party in the past, unlike Mr Lamido who they alleged fraternised with the coalition platform, the African Democratic Congress (ADC). It is not certain whether Mr Lamido will stick to his guns, or what reliefs he would be asking for, or whether he can get a court to look at his complaints favourably. However, this latest controversy comes on the heel of the long-running dispute the party has had with former Rivers governor and Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister, Mr Wike, who alleges a number of infractions against the PDP, including forgery of official communications with the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC). His camp is opposed to the conduct of the convention until all disputes are resolved.

    READ ALSO: Femi Kuti reveals secret of longevity in music industry

    For the PDP, it does not just rain, it pours. They are heading into the convention divided and heavily depleted. They control just eight states and fewer national lawmakers than when they started out in 2023. They have not managed to plug the leaks but have continued to blame others for their woes. Overall, they believe that if the convention is successful and Mr Turaki is affirmed, they could achieve a semblance of order and tranquility with which to showcase their revival and rejuvenation. In short, they hope they can build something on nothing. November 15 is just round the corner. If they pull this rabbit out of their tall hats, they might begin to hope for a miracle in the next polls. If not, the defections and depletions will continue apace, and their hope, not to say their very life, might be doomed. 

  • Aregbesola on God’s grace

    Aregbesola on God’s grace

    Still fully immersed in an ethical stench of his own making, and sometimes speaking as if the concept of God is alien to him, former Osun State governor and one-time Interior minister, Rauf Aregbesola, has now begun to speak knowingly and affectionately of God. In an interaction with reporters in Ilorin two Saturdays ago after commissioning the secretariat of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), his new party, he denounced the ruling party but conversely anchored the strength of his new party on God’s munificence. Hear him: “If APC is confident of its strength, it won’t be so hyped and charged as to be hounding and hunting the opposition all over the place. How can we interpret what APC is doing all over Nigeria to us? They are harassing and intimidating every one of our members, not just our leaders, but nationwide, be it in Lagos, Kebbi, or Kaduna. If indeed they are confident of the strength they are showcasing, one would expect that they will be so calm; but the reverse is the case; so what does that tell you? They themselves know that they are not popular and the party that will harvest their unpopularity is ADC. Regardless of the grandstanding, by the grace of God, ADC will take over the mantle of leadership in Nigeria and in most of the states.”

    Read Also: Police arrest IBBU student over alleged cybercrimes against Bago

    What is missing in his statement is not his misplaced confidence in a supposed ADC victory in the coming polls, but his unusual and unexpected foray into the domain of God. He speaks about God’s grace as the ultimate factor responsible for victory or defeat. That grace, he also presumes, is available to sinners and the dispossessed. But for a man so self-righteous, so implacable, and so adamantly discourteous, surely he should need some penance to attract that grace. Yes, grace is readily available, even to an embittered party and its malignant leaders; but how can they receive grace when they have continued to spurn it?

  • Needless vacillation over pardons

    Needless vacillation over pardons

    A little over two weeks ago, President Bola Tinubu had, after consulting with the Council of State, granted clemency to some 175 persons convicted for various offences. The pardons immediately attracted huge controversy and ridicule. Shocked, Justice minister and Attorney-General of the Federation Lateef Fagbemi disclosed that the clemency committee chaired by him was not conclusive and its recommendations were subject to review. Days after, as part of his placatory effort, he announced a multi-agency review committee to take another look at the exercise. Some of the pardons, reports suggested, had been opposed by some of the agencies now included in the review exercise. It was also alleged that the list of pardons had been compromised somewhere along the line. These are, however, untenable excuses.

    If the clemency list had been as thorough as the committee charged with drawing it up had said, they would repose confidence in their work, and would not wilt so embarrassingly in the face of opposition coming from the anti-crime, anti-drug, and anti-graft agencies. By admitting the need for a review, the clemency committee inadvertently indicates it was derelict in carrying out its assignment. In addition, by immediately reversing itself, especially much after consulting with the Council of State in line with the constitution, the administration shows how deeply allergic to criticisms and blowbacks it has become. The clemency hiccup was, however, not the first reversal in the past few years, and may in all probability not be the last. The problem then is not just that a committee, such as the Fagbemi-led clemency committee, had encountered a policy or bureaucratic mishap, or that the administration has become needlessly allergic to public opinion which is sometimes fickle and misplaced; it speaks both to the sometimes tardy operations in the administration’s clearing house and a lack of steely resolve when it really matters.

    The argument that the anti-graft, anti-drug, and anti-crime agencies kicked against some of the pardons is both childish and indefensible. The aim of the prerogative of mercy is not for the president, or a governor as the case may be, to be finicky about the crimes committed by a law breaker but to demonstrate that no matter how serious the crime is, it can be pardoned if the right conditions are met. Furthermore, to suggest that a pardon for a serious crime necessarily vitiates anti-crime efforts is baffling and illogical. It does not. That a drug courier is pardoned does certainly not mean that the efforts of the Nigerian Drug Law Enforcement Agency (NDLEA) are undermined. The controversy over the pardons is a reflection of how deeply judgemental and unforgiving the Nigerian soul has become. They prefer that only petty criminals should be pardoned. This is dispiriting. Murderers can indeed be pardoned, especially when families of their victims accent, among other things, to their pardon. So, too, drug offenders. Otherwise, the whole exercise would become tokenistic and even nugatory.

    The constitutional provision on prerogative of mercy does sensibly not indicate what crimes should qualify for clemency. This does not, however, mean that the administration should not constitute a multi-agency panel to help ensure that the right or best thing is done. But as far as the law stands, the administration has been guided. Chapter 6, Section 175 of the 1999 Constitution provides thus:

    (1) The President may –

    (a) grant any person concerned with or convicted of any offence created by an Act of the National Assembly a pardon, either free or subject to lawful conditions;

    (b) grant to any person a respite, either for an indefinite or for a specified period, of the execution of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence;

    (c) substitute a less severe form of punishment for any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence; or

    Read Also: Police arrest IBBU student over alleged cybercrimes against Bago

    (d) remit the whole or any part of any punishment imposed on that person for such an offence or of any penalty or forfeiture otherwise due to the State on account of such an offence.

     (2) The powers of the President under subsection (1) of this section shall be exercised by him after consultation with the Council of State.

    (3) The President, acting in accordance with the advice of the Council of State, may exercise his powers under subsection (1) of this section in relation to persons concerned with offences against the army, naval or air-force law or convicted or sentenced by a court-martial.

    As many analysts have pointed out in recent weeks after the clemency story broke, pardons anywhere are by nature controversial. The October 9 pardons are no less controversial. The Council of State has given its accent to a list it believed the government had drawn up in line with constitutional provisions. In fact, by releasing the list to the public, many families have had their hopes raised. To rejig the list and remove some of the beneficiaries of the pardon is to play ducks and drakes with the feelings of many affected families. It is unfortunate. Should the list be significantly tampered with, it will not underscore the seriousness of the crimes committed by the offenders or the remorse they have shown, or even the appropriateness of their pardons. It will be an indication of how calloused the Nigerian soul has become. It is possible that the list was politicised, or that a few low-level officials allegedly smuggled a few names into it, though this is hard to fathom; but the vacillations do not indicate the resoluteness of the administration nor the supposed great image of the Nigerian.

  • Uncertainties envelope opposition coalition

    Uncertainties envelope opposition coalition

    The defection of Enugu State governor Peter Mbah does not just reflect his personal desire to join the ruling party and win more federal concessions for his state, it is also probably an indication that he and many like him have given up on his former party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), and any thought that an opposition coalition can wrest power from the All Progressives Congress (APC) in 2027. While angry commentators and some party chieftains accuse defectors of sabotage and selfishness, the defectors see their migrations as realistic appraisals of the shifting dynamics of contemporary Nigerian politics. If they do not adapt quickly, the defectors ruminate, they could fade into irrelevance prematurely. They recognise the worrisome internal dynamics of the main opposition party far more comprehensively than armchair critics who still bandy superficial analysis of the PDP’s prospects or make moralistic evaluation of what defection presupposes.

    In one fell swoop, Mr Mbah got rid of the uncertainties clogging his movement and stymying his politics. To him, the PDP was too weakened by internal rancour that it had become difficult to calculate options. The PDP candidate in the 2023 presidential election had also jettisoned the party and moved on to spearhead a new coalition of aggrieved parties. Labour Party’s Peter Obi, a presidential candidate in the last elections, had also leapt into the void by trying to straddle the Labour Party (LP) and the coalition platform, the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Until he lands, neither his supporters nor he can tell whether he has landed well or not. But he was also at a time a member of the PDP. Other than the interim leaders of the ADC led by former senate president David Mark and former Osun governor Rauf Aregbesola, few other party chieftains are sure who really is an ADC member.

    READ ALSO; MC Mbakara, wife open up on daughter’s nine-year cerebral palsy struggle

    Despite the initial razzmatazz of coming together for a public presentation of the ADC and letting the public know that their souls are knitted with the adopted party, presumptive party chieftains have engaged in protracted formalisation of their membership of the party. Former vice president Atiku Abubakar announced through his spokesmen that the process of registering with the ADC was ongoing. It takes less than 24 hours to register with any party, but Alhaji Atiku is taking months. It takes just a moment to register with the coalition platform, but Mr Obi has engaged in sophistry and unabashedly declared he was still an LP member while his soul drew to the ADC. Their dithering is unlikely to be because of their lack of certainty in winning the presidential ticket nomination. Alhaji Atiku knows no one can upstage him in a party he has invested his personality and money on a significant scale. Conversely, Mr Obi knows he cannot win the ADC ticket under any circumstance.

    So, why are they still pussyfooting? In the next few months, the parties will hold their primaries. And possibly before the end of 2026, going by the speculations about the scope of the legislative amendment being proposed to the Electoral Act, the elections might conceivably be held next year, and not 2027 as previously determined. Given the tightness of the electoral schedule ahead, party leaders and aspirants to various offices ought to demonstrate urgency and perspicacity in their political calculations. Instead, both Alhaji Atiku and Mr Obi have been formulaic and lethargic. Their seemingly detached approach is, however, unlikely to be a result of their excessive caution in watching which way the cat jumps. Their lethargy is in fact a function of two factors intrinsic to their politics. One, both men worry over what other banana peels are strewn across their paths, hobbled it seems by the unpredictability of their self-willed colleagues within a fractious party.

    Two, having never founded any party before but had thrived reaping where they did not sow, the two gentlemen a lack of capacity in running anything but trading concerns and one-man businesses where their word is law. Asking them to engage in perspective thinking and modeling will be asking them to deconstruct a black hole or expound the latest advances in particle physics. Alhaji Atiku is adept at picking holes in other leaders’ policies and scorning their achievements, while Mr Obi is brilliant at sermonising and drawing distinctions between black and white, not other colour spectrums. Both gentlemen have imposed their inadequacies and uncertainties on the coalition force. But they know that after 2027 or 2026, they would no longer be in currency, especially given the superficiality of their ideas and the insubstantiality of their persons. So, it is now or never, with no room for mistakes. But their best political years are behind them, whether they recognise it or not.

    The ADC itself, or whatever is left of it, having morphed so badly that it has become unrecognisable even as a special purpose vehicle for political journeymen, is in a quandary. Party chieftains await the decisions of their notables. Until those putative leaders make up their minds, the party will remain in the doldrums. Fiery chieftains like former Kaduna governor Nasir el-Rufai will loath such inertia; but there is little he can do, having burnt his fingers in other issues and decisions because of shortage of funds and lack of sound judgement. Other chieftains like Rotimi Amaechi will continue to nurse his bilious rage, but there is little else he can do until both Alhaji Atiku and Mr Obi make up their minds. Other less calculating chieftains like Gen. Mark and the obstreperous Mr Aregbesola will squirm beneath the surface until someone puts them out of their misery. The ADC will hope that the former vice president and the former Anambra governor will never return to the PDP, for from such devastation, should it happen, no politician, no matter how gifted and principled, has ever recovered.

  • The genocidal claims against Nigeria

    The genocidal claims against Nigeria

    Old habits die hard. Under Donald Trump, the United States has indicated isolationism as its foreign policy core. But it is now embroiled in the Middle East, and the president is loving every bit of it. It finds Asia a tough nut to crack, so it will forebear in the short run. It cannot best Europe in moralising, or in Whiteness, so he will stay aloof or try to force them to blink first. Overall, the US president, despite mouthing isolationism, wants to become president of the world. This may partly explain the hoopla about designating Nigeria as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) over claims of genocide based on the recommendation of the United States Commission on international Religious Freedom (USCIRF).

    READ ALSO: Military debunks report of alleged coup to overthrow Tinubu

    Apart from misusing the term, which could cause Nigeria to be designated as a CPC, thereby attracting economic sanctions, the USCIRF has consistently recommended Nigeria to be designated a CPC since 2018. In any case, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Egypt, Pakistan, all of them Mr. Trump’s new friends, in addition to dozens of other countries, have been on the list for years. So, why the hysteria when in fact what is taking place in some parts of Nigeria is terrorism mixed with ethnic cleansing over grazing and mining lands? The Nigerian parliament is working to engage the US Congress over the issue, but this whole furore is one more reason for those who specialise in washing Nigeria’s dirty linens in foreign lands to be circumspect. If sanctions are imposed, and they prove debilitating, it will affect everyone, Christians and Muslims alike, not to say every ethnic group.

  • Tinubu puzzles Amina Mohammed

    Tinubu puzzles Amina Mohammed

    Speaking at an award dinner at the Nigeria House in New York to celebrate Nigeria’s 65th anniversary, Amina Mohammed, deputy secretary-general of the United Nations (UN), said she was puzzled by President Bola Tinubu’s disciplined reticence on the socio-economic conditions his administration inherited. She knows how fashionable it is for a new president to expiate his difficulties by blaming his predecessor’s abominable policies and track record. She added: “But he (Tinubu) also told us that he wasn’t going to complain about what he (inherited). I have not heard him complain. People around him complain about what he inherited, but he doesn’t.” The global diplomat seemed fascinated. So, too, do many Nigerians, including those who like or hate the president. 

    Read Also: Our unity, not factionalism, will secure victory for Tinubu in 2027 – APC group

    Though he is no religious puritan, President Tinubu, by his attitude, teaches faith leaders the exemplary art of not complaining or murmuring. In 2015, weeks after basking in his contributions to the Muhammadu Buhari electoral success, he was sidelined and treated shabbily by his party and leaders. Shocked, he nevertheless kept silent. Shortly before the 2019 reelection campaign, when the ruling party realised it had been unable to groom former governor Tinubu’s replacement in the Southwest, they went back to him for help. Again he offered that crucial help but studiously refused to mock his traducers or complain. In fact he was even mysteriously silent. And when his party, the All Progressives Congress (APC), enacted a welter of policies to ostracise and emasculate him, and even erected huge boulders across his path to derail his 2023 presidential ambition, he refused to abuse the then president or any party leader.

    And after he won, he has been nothing but gracious to his undeserving predecessor, a fact now attested to by Mrs Mohammed. Rudyard Kipling put it succinctly: “If you can keep your head when all about you// Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;// If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,// But make allowance for their doubting too;// If you can wait and not be tired by waiting,// Or, being lied about, don’t deal in lies,// Or, being hated, don’t give way to hating,//…If you can fill the unforgiving minute// With sixty seconds’ worth of distance run—// Yours is the Earth and everything that’s in it,// And—which is more—you’ll be a Man, my son!//” President Tinubu embodies this timeless lesson.