The Nation Newspaper

Category: Barometer

  • Israel, Iran: the changing face of warfare

    Israel, Iran: the changing face of warfare

    Days after Israel launched its air war against Iran on June 13, both United States president Donald Trump and Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu disclosed that for now they had no intention of targeting the Iranian leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, despite knowing his whereabouts. Obviously, the two leaders view the Ayatollah as a legitimate target of war, but conceded that he would not be taken out. Their views on the matter of targeting the Ayatollah have, however, started to change, particularly on the Israeli side. Moments after Iran achieved a direct hit on the 1,000-bed Beersheba Soroka Medical Centre in the South of Israel, Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz asserted: “A man like [Khamenei] has always aimed at destroying Israel through his agents. This man, who is willing to attack us, must not stay alive. This matter, the matter of stopping this man, eliminating him, is part of the campaign, and we now understand his role because before, he was talking about the destruction of Israel.” During his visit to the damaged hospital, Mr Netanyahu confirmed that ‘all options are open’ on the subject of the Ayatollah’s assassination, declaring that ‘no one is immune’ and that his killing would not escalate but end the war.

    Here in Nigeria, former Foreign Affairs minister Bolaji Akinyemi argued on a television programme last week, saying: “It is against international law to threaten to assassinate a head of state. And incidentally, it is also against American law.” While the eminent professor may be partially right, it is not clear that in war any head of state is an illegitimate target. In any case, while assassinating a head of state by a powerful country may attract retaliation, it is unlikely it is also justiciable. Shortly after Israel launched its campaign against Iran, reports indicated that President Trump restrained Israel from assassinating the Ayatollah. Clearly, Israel had left that option on the table and had the Ayatollah in their crosshairs. That the assassination was not attempted when it was most feasible may actually be due to Mr Trump’s influence. From all indications, if the opportunity presents itself again, Israel may take it if the war becomes protracted or if more civilian targets are hit in Israel.

    READ ALSO: How we contracted infections using school toilets – Pupils

    In the opening stages of the Russo-Ukrainian war in February 2022, Russia targeted Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky in order to capture or kill him. Analysts suggest that there are no laws preventing the targeting or killing of an opposing head of state during war. For tactical, strategic and even political reasons, a vulnerable head of state may be spared, but otherwise he might be taken out in order to demoralise the country and weaken the resolve of that country’s military. Mr Trump’s reluctance to countenance the elimination of the Ayatollah may be an indication that the US had learnt lessons from its experience in Libya and Iraq where they connived at the killing of Muammer Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein respectively only to be confronted by post-war chaos. While Israel seems sure that a post-Ayatollah Iran could not be worse than the present situation, the US appears unsure the aftermath would be as easy as some think.

    Thousands of years ago, the world was more realistic and less fussy about the law of war. Captured or brutally killed heads of state were often displayed as war trophies, sometimes their eyes gouged out and all sorts of physical atrocities inflicted on them. The victorious kings and emperors were unconcerned about any post-war chaos in defeated countries or kingdoms, many of which were left desolate. In fact, sometimes, the victorious powers engaged in wholesale depopulation of defeated kingdoms, committing genocide which no one queried, and perpetrating massive abuse against women and children. On the surface, wars have got more circumscribed by laws and regulations. But wars have nevertheless not got neater. Indeed, they have become deadlier and genocidal. Clearly, Prof. Akinyemi’s remonstrance was directed against assassinations in peace time, some of which the US perpetrated in the past few decades. Even the law of war relating to war crimes can only be applied to minion states and kingdoms. Those laws do not deter powerful countries like the US, China, or Russia from erasing whole communities or assassinating enemy heads of state. Often, no one is dominant enough to enforce compliance against the powerful.

    Should Israel decide to assassinate Ayatollah Khomenei, he would be a legitimate war target. But they must then determine whether managing post-war Iran would fit into or fulfill their regional and political expectations. Decades ago, Israel had chances to take out the late Palestinian Liberation Organisation (PLO) leader, Yasser Arafat, but they spurned the idea because they were unsure his successor would not be even more fanatical. The US acknowledges that while nothing precludes the assassination of enemy heads of state, regardless of what their parliament say about assassinating foreign leaders, the aftermath, they have learnt, has often been more volatile and unpredictable. They recall their experience in Cuba, are mystified by the emergence in Syria of Ahmed al-Sharaa (nom de guerre: Abu Mohammed al-Julani) who allied with al-Qaeda during the country’s long civil war, and saw first-hand the complications that accompanied the regime change in Iraq that birthed ISIS.

    As galling as it is, global reality scorns the law of war or creatively interprets its provisions. For a long time to come, no matter how vociferously critics rail against leadership excesses, might will continue to be right. Israel knows that. So, too, do the US, China, Russia and some hermit kingdoms whose leaders have no incentive whatsoever to travel to countries where they might be arrested should the International Criminal Court (ICC) feel seized by the urge to do something.

  • Mrs Abacha as inventive historiographer

    Mrs Abacha as inventive historiographer

    Last week, widow of the late maximum ruler, Gen. Sani Abacha, threw Nigeria into uproar over her conviction that her husband saved Nigeria’s money abroad rather than stole it. In a report carefully crafted by this newspaper, the former head of state allegedly stole about $5bn, some $3.65bn of which had been repatriated, and about $508m of which was found in the late ruler’s family account abroad. It is hard for any family or accused person to extricate himself from these allegations, but Mrs Abacha will not take the ‘insult’ lying low. The country was ungrateful, she wailed. In any case, barely able to conceal her exasperation, she alleged that the so-called loot had been stolen again after repatriation.

    READ ALSO: How we survived herdsmen attack that claimed 200 lives in Benue community – Residents

    Many analysts scorned her interpretation of history, particularly with respect to her husband’s nearly five years military rule. Despite sanctions, the Nigerian economy was still strong, she sneered, also querying how a robust economy could amount to financial mismanagement or looting? She was never in government, and had no experience in administration other than her elementary introduction to organisation as first lady. She has had years to reflect on her husband’s dictatorship, but those years were obviously spent incubating private malice than engaging in rational appreciation of governance and financial management. If anyone thinks she can be persuaded to recast her husband as a leadership failure or thief, that optimist must have a rethink. It won’t happen. But who really ever heard a grieving wife expostulating with critics very mildly on her late husband, or tolerating those who deride her family?

  • Ndume’s assault on facts and history

    Ndume’s assault on facts and history

    Senator Ali Ndume (Borno South) has done all in his power to posture as a man of candour. Since winning election and representing Chibok/Damboa/Gwoza constituency in 2003 in the House of Representatives, he has not looked back, and has not been fettered by any electoral loss save the troubles his frankness and idealism have brought him. Brilliant (having graduated magna cum laude from the University of Toledo in Ohio United States), and fearless, (having fought many a political battle and suffered grave injuries), he has remained undaunted by opposition and by facts that sometimes unsettle his suppositions and conclusions. He must be doing many things right in his constituency to have won promotion to the senate in 2011 where he has remained ensconced despite his prejudices and fallibilities.

    On June 8, undeterred by the constant explosions of his myths and hyperboles, the gritty senator took on President Bola Tinubu on television by denouncing the endorsements the All Progressives Congress (APC) has received ahead of the 2027 presidential poll. To Sen. Ndume’s unhappiness, some 22 governors have so far endorsed the president for the poll. That’s nothing, fumed the senator, some 22 governors also endorsed ex-president Goodluck Jonathan for the 2015 poll and still lost the election. As he snorted: “It happened before, not once, not twice. It happened during Jonathan’s presidency. That does not mean anything. Politicians are decamping, but the people who are the voters are not decamping. I don’t have access to Mr President, but I hope that he would look back historically and see that the gathering of people to endorse you does not mean anything. Jonathan had 22 governors then endorsing him, like was done now. And what happened? Jonathan lost woefully. And even that time, what happened? A lot of money was spent – over N2 billion or whatever. Even the election was shifted, but we are not learning our lessons. I pity Mr President for this kind of thing.”

    Read Also: Ndume denies Boko Haram attacked ex-COAS Buratai

    It may very well turn out that the endorsements may be overstated, but Sen. Ndume took too much liberty with facts by exaggerating Dr Jonathan’s endorsements. The former president did not have more than 16 governors endorsing him for the 2015 poll, not 22. Yes, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) controlled 22 states at the time, but some five of them had aligned their goals and destinies with the newly formed All Progressives Congress (APC) shortly before the presidential election. Dr Jonathan’s camp was unfortunately depleted in 2015. However, this was not the first time the Borno senator would be engaging in flagrant distortions. In 2017, with his characteristic candour unsupported by any investigations whatsoever, he accused former senate president Bukola Saraki of getting enmeshed in a scandal involving the violation of Customs and Excise regulations, and Dino Melaye, another senator at the time, of brandishing a fake university certificate. He was to apologise days later, but not before he was suspended for six months for unjustifiably traducing his colleagues.

    Does Sen. Ndume learn from his many verbal and legislative mishaps? No. That would not be in his character. Not only does he make mistakes, many of them shocking and profound, he also doubles down on his errors and even sometimes tries to canonise them.

    He revelled in similar fallacies two Fridays ago when he gleefully spoke about Boko Haram attacks on former Chief of Army Staff Tukur Buratai. He had said: “We are in a dire security situation. Just two days ago, Buratai was attacked at the front operations base in Borno. His team responded gallantly, but the insurgents managed to destroy several military assets. The situation in Borno is deteriorating rapidly. Insurgents now move freely, torching and stealing military equipment. It is becoming a full-blown crisis. All six geopolitical zones are experiencing security challenges to varying degrees. All six geopolitical zones are experiencing security challenges to varying degrees. Even in the South-South, we are grappling with economic sabotage like oil theft. At this point, the South-West appears to be the only relatively safe region.” But as soon as flak started to fly, he backed down and said he was misquoted. He insisted he spoke about an attack on Buratai town, not on the former army chief himself. He was of course more likely to have spoken about an attack on the army chief, instead of the town itself. But if he insists there was no such attack on the person of the former army chief, so be it. However, what made the story worthy of headlines in nearly all newspapers, thereby according it more oomph than it deserved, was the senator’s characteristic hyperbole. Reassuringly, it was obvious the army chief was uninterested in joining issues with him, perhaps recognising that it was the senator’s habit to cry and see wolf where none existed. But trust the senator to promote more hysteria.

    If he is as thoughtful as his office requires, and a little more reluctant to attack the government of the day, he will be less inclined to talking up a storm anytime he speaks, and even more admiringly providing depth and answers to the puzzles he raises with gusto. He referenced the instability and chaos in Nigeria’s five geopolitical zones, singling out the sixth, the Southwest, for praise. But he offered no clue why the sixth is rather safer and more developed than the rest. Might it be their secularism, their liberalism, their great historical conurbation, or anything nuanced and subliminal? Or does he think it is merely coincidental? Is he aware that the country’s common malaise is also beginning to erode the Southwest’s values? Sen. Ndume should kindly let his interventions be less acerbic and hyperbolic, capable of shedding more light on current social and political challenges, and explicating deep economic matters upon which he has sometimes imprecated ignorantly?

  • Still on one-party bogeyman

    Still on one-party bogeyman

    Last week, a senior special assistant to the president on public affairs, Aliyu Audu, resigned his appointment because he claimed to detect a creeping imposition of one-party system designed to replace federal or multiparty system. He offered no real grounds for his conclusions other than his presumption that the ongoing defections to the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) smacked of budding dictatorship. Yet, he was an assistant on public affairs. No, he wasn’t miffed by the defections; he probably found himself, perhaps together with a few sulking others like him, becoming less relevant in the scheme of things. Idle and depressed by a lack of relevance, he simply flung the towel at his bosses.

    Read Also: Tinubu dismisses one-party state agenda, welcomes defectors to APC

    Too many politicians and commentators appear to believe, without substantiation, that the defections to the ruling party, which are unlikely to reach the 28 or 30 that defected to the PDP during the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency, might herald a one-party state. If a one-party state could not be achieved when the PDP attained overwhelming dominance of the polity, why does anyone think it could be achieved now when the APC has 22 governorship seats in its pocket? It is simply part of the rhetoric of the next presidential poll in 2027, for which a bogeyman had to be found quickly to defang the ruling party and create a groundswell of resentment against the government. Had the same shoe been on the other foot in alignment with the goals of the opposition, it would be celebrations all the way instead of the metaphoric burning of effigies.

  • Soyinka, Amaechi and APC presidential primary

    Soyinka, Amaechi and APC presidential primary

    Speaking at the 60th birthday celebration of former Rivers State governor and ex-Transportation minister, Rotimi Amaechi, Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka was expansively humorous. In praising Mr Amaechi’s manner of pursuing his presidential ambition, the laureate said the former minister’s intransigence reminded him of the stubborn refusal of President Bola Tinubu (as Lagos State governor) to yield to ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo’s political and financial pressures to abandon the creation of 37 extra local governments in Lagos. The laureate said he derived ‘rascally pleasure’ in seeing Mr Amaechi stubbornly refusing to drop out of the All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential primary in June 2022 when nearly every other aspirant was dropping out of the race. In a delicate, and perhaps eerie, extrapolation of that intransigence some three years ago, Mr Amaechi has sustained his adamancy and opposition to the same Bola Tinubu who defeated him in that race and went on to win the presidency the following year.

    The bigger story of the 2022 primary is not of course the intransigence of any of the aspirants, or the concessions of the curious handful. What defined the primary and swung the votes was the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) primary conducted barely a week earlier on May 29, 2022, over which former Rivers State governor Nyesom Wike has continued to have an axe to grind with PDP leaders and electors who jettisoned his aspiration in favour of former vice president Atiku Abubakar. Unknown to him, instead of confining themselves to their party’s rotational principles, they anticipated the victory of APC’s Bola Tinubu in the ruling party’s primary a week later and were anxious to secure the services of a champion who could fight for the crown and give a good account of himself. They imagined that Mr Wike, had he emerged the PDP candidate, would be eaten raw by Bola Tinubu. So they gambled on the APC outcome by preemptively securing for themselves a deep pocket champion.

    Meanwhile, APC leaders and electors who had spent weeks pussyfooting around Aso Villa and gallivanting between powerful interest groups around the country and APC governed states were greatly consternated by the PDP’s deft anticipation and calculations. Instead of leaving the primary to chance, in a sort of ‘may the best man win’, they borrowed logic from the PDP and resolved to secure a champion who could ‘outstrategise and outspend’ Alhaji Atiku. Mr Amaechi’s recalcitrance and Mr Wike’s fulminations meant nothing to the PDP and APC overlords. They faced a historic election, and they were sure that rather than engage in fancy footwork, they needed to put their best feet forward. And they did so, with brutal efficiency and ‘devil may care’ frankness. Had the PDP sustained their realpolitik to the campaigns, with Alhaji Atiku opting for the most savage and unfeeling methods to prosecute his election, probably his last, he would have found the ultimate weapon, financial or political, to placate the aggrieved Peter Obi, and unite the party behind him. In the end, he could not rejig the party’s formula for holding political offices, and then followed up by spitting on the political grave of the enraged Mr Wike.

    Read Also: No fight between Ooni and I, says Alaafin

    On the other side of the aisle, the more astute and unassuming candidate Tinubu, who had been humiliated and humbled for more than two years before his party’s primary and thus had no airs about him, did everything possible, political and financial, to mollify his APC opponents. Those who held out against his blandishments or mollification were then isolated and neutralised. The APC and PDP candidates thus went into the 2023 presidential election with contrasting styles, thereby losing or winning the poll even before the first ballot was cast. Despite the clumsy and hugely disruptive intrusion of the Labour Party’s Peter Obi, which turned the election into a three-horse race, it was all but clear who the voters and the dithering presidency thought was the frontrunner. Their inability to cut that frontrunner to size was not due to a lack of effort as it was due to a lack of tactical brilliance. Once he became the front runner and sensed it, and knowing that the country’s political dynamics favoured a southern candidate, he pushed his luck, said many a gaffe, but managed to prevent himself from propounding anything that would scare anybody. His refrain at every campaign stop was simple, almost inelegant, but decidedly poignant and provocative, embellishing the country’s political dictionary and arresting the people’s wandering and often jejune thoughts.

    And candidate Bola Tinubu won. Of all the footnotes of the 2023 presidential race, Mr Amaechi’s was the least significant. That of Mr Wike, which saw him carve a significant slice of the votes from Alhaji Atiku, was far more impactful, second only to the seismic electoral effect the unreflective Mr Obi brought upon the poll. Next time, in the face of Nigeria’s notoriously compromised pollsters whose predictions are always way off the mark, pundits should scrutinise the primaries to find clues as to the underlying dynamics capable of tilting the outcome of any general election. They will find, in the kitchen midden of the primaries, enough clues as to who will win, sometimes by a huge margin in the event of a two-horse race. They should never allow themselves to be distracted by the wailings and moaning of the Amaechis and Wikes, as crucial as they sometimes pretend to be.

  • Wike and his extraordinary media chats

    Wike and his extraordinary media chats

    When he was governor of Rivers State, Nyesom Wike held court extravagantly, complete with itinerant minstrels whose sense of timing and cues were impeccable. The former governor never allowed the state to have a dull day – it was a joyous concatenation of barbs, brickbats, folk songs, clerihews and anything that would make the former governor and his people exhale. To, therefore, expect he would suddenly become reticent and colourles, simply because he has become a former governor and is now an appointee of a president, will be asking too much of him. He will continue to hold court, and entertain and excoriate.

    His last Monday media chat delivered as much entertainment to his admirers as he ladled out pain upon his enemies. He was a bit restrained on the current Rivers governor, Siminalayi Fubara, but did not hold back on a number of other topics and personalities, including the remonstrating Bode George, National Vice Chairman of his party, the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), whom he derided as a debtor in the Federal Capital Territory (FCT).

    Read Also: No fight between Ooni and I, says Alaafin

    More provocatively, Mr Wike said, jumping to another issue, he would lead President Tinubu’s campaign in Rivers State, despite being a leading member of the PDP. The president is APC. He was emphatic: “You have seen me here. I said I would support Asiwaju. The way we won other elections, that is the way we will win. I am not a liability. I am an asset. Whether you agree or you don’t agree, I am an asset. Whether you want to die, you don’t want to die, I am an asset. You may not like me; your likeness has nothing to make me. I am an asset to making sure that Tinubu wins second term.” Apart from demonstrating loyalty to the president, which some of his fellow appointees might find a little too forward and exacting, who would not look forward to his next chat, especially considering that he never disappoints in delivering frankness and entertainment, no matter whose ox is gored?

  • Atiku, Obi in yo-yo politics

    Atiku, Obi in yo-yo politics

    It will take a few more weeks, perhaps months, for the frothing politics of former vice president Atiku Abubakar’s and former Anambra governor Peter Obi’s presidential aspiration politics to settle down. For now, the country must be contented watching with amusement the exploratory activities of the two aspiring contenders, the first a veteran contender, and the second a latter-day and opportunistic contender. Before the 2023 presidential poll was conducted, both gentlemen started out in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), having carried over their ambitions from their unsuccessful 2019 presidential contest. Vice president Atiku had in the 2019 poll run on the same ticket with Mr Obi, and performed quite creditably to give the eventual winner, All Progressives Congress (APC) candidate’s Muhammadu Buhari, a run for his money.

    But in the 2023 poll, Alhaji Atiku and Mr Obi parted ways, with the latter sensing that he could take the opportunistic wind of the Christian vote to soar to victory. The maths did not of course favour him, but he was Machiavellian and naïve enough to believe he could win. Still he performed surprisingly well to nearly equal the votes of his former PDP standard-bearer (6.10m to 6.98m in an election in which over 93m people registered and a little less than 27 percent voted compared with about 35 percent that voted in 2019 out of a little over 83m who registered). Nearly two years after the 2023 presidential poll was done and litigated, both politicians have belatedly and grudgingly acknowledged that the division in their camp led to their defeat. Since then they have indulged in the most unpredictable form of politics that sees them oscillating like a yo-yo, from one excitable high one day to a depressing low another day. They are no longer ambiguous about their loss, thank God, but they are even far more ambiguous about their future.

    READ ALSO: Ileya, four other popular festivals in Nigeria

    In the past few weeks, they have issued statements and granted interviews about how they planned to approach the 2027 presidential poll. Having reluctantly agreed that they would need a coalition of political parties to swing the next poll, they have nevertheless proceeded to flip flop on who should anchor the coalition, which political vehicle to use, and which two politicians should be on the presidential ticket. The only thing still firing Alhaji Atiku’s interest in presidential politics, nay politics at all, is his ambition to rule Nigeria. But sensing mounting opposition inside and outside his political party to his being on the ticket, he has quibbled about the subject and, in a few galling moments, feigned disinterest in becoming the standard-bearer. He has pretended that all that mattered is ‘saving Nigeria’ from ‘misrule’. At other times, he has also hinted very broadly that with Mr Obi joining him on the ticket, they would not only win the presidency, he would be quite willing to cede a putative second term to his running mate, the overrated former Anambra governor and Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate in the last presidential poll.

    While it is almost certain that Alhaji Atiku wants to run for the presidency for the last time, if he can get a platform, Mr Obi has dissembled even much more, insisting in one breath that he is not as fanatical about contesting for the position as he is in midwifing sound governance for Nigeria. And in another breath, he is promising to run for office because the country needs the services of people like him. He and Alhaji Atiku have conducted joint exploratory work on running on the same ticket. His party, the LP, is distressed, but so is the PDP on which the former vice president still holds high hopes. But in the interim, both gentlemen are also looking in the direction of a few errant parties posing naked on the fringes and seducing political wayfarers and ambitious aspirants to turn in and climb under their duvets. There was mention of one Social Democratic Party (SDP), but that one regained its senses and decided not to play whoredom. Then there is also mention of the African Democratic Congress (ADC), a single parent party seemingly averse to celibacy. But even here too there are stirrings of revolt by its kept men. Perhaps they will finally create a new party altogether.

    Clearly, many permutations will remain tentative in the weeks and months ahead, as both Alhaji Atiku and Mr Obi make up their minds regarding which party to use, being themselves incapable of loyalty to one spouse; or which ticket to cobble, especially considering that both men have suggested that this might be their last contest. If the lure of winning does not trump their principles forged from the push and pull over ageing and presidential contest, then they might conceivably go their separate ways by trying their luck on different platforms. But if what matters to them is winning, then they might sink their differences, abandon principles, and in stark embrace of realpolitik, join forces to try to take the presidency, whether Alhaji Atiku ends up betraying his one-term presidency pledge or not. Whatever they end up doing in the months to come, don’t count on making sense of what they say now or what positions and arguments they advocate in the interim.

  • The Wike-Makinde kerfuffle

    The Wike-Makinde kerfuffle

    Of all the troubles the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) has managed to get itself immersed, it is astonishing that it should allow a new front to be opened within the erstwhile group of merry rebel friends, the Group of Five (G-5), whose rebellion upended the opposition party in the last elections. Given FCT minister Nyesom Wike’s brittle ego, no one thought he would be able to sustain the unity and purpose of the G-5. But, even then, few thought the small group would implode so soon, and on an issue that has sundered their larger party and put their leaders at daggers drawn. When Oyo State governor Seyi Makinde is thrown into the volatile mix, especially at a time he has started to visualise himself as a future presidential candidate, it is all but certain that what the All Progressives Congress (APC) alleges are his unctuous political speeches and smiles would scatter the group.

    READ ALSO: Eight ways to easily spot a fake phone in Nigeria

    Mr Wike blames Mr Makinde for the current round of destabilisation in the party at a time former Kwara State governor and senate president Bukola Saraki was saddled with the task of repairing the party’s broken hedges. The FCT minister alleges that Mr Makinde and Enugu State governor Peter Mbah are behind the current round of crisis provoked by the struggle for power between Samuel Anyanwu and Ude Okoye over who should be the party’s national secretary. They had, according to the FCT minister, forged a gentleman’s agreement at the Abuja residence of Dr Saraki to let Mr Anyanwu retain his position until the reconciliation efforts were consummated. Angry and feeling betrayed, Mr Wike went for broke and decided to call off any truce or agreement. The distemper in the party reminds the judicious of what the Bible says about mending a new garment with old cloth, leading to a worse tear. Until the PDP returns to the basics, any remedy its bumbling leaders attempt would end up superficial and disastrous, as exampled by the Wike-Makinde kerfuffle.

  • Coscharis boss Maduka and character

    Coscharis boss Maduka and character

    In a viral video trending on TikTok, Coscharis Group founder Cosmas Maduka speaks about the five levels of money. Having been in business since he was 17, the 66-year-old magnate is lyrical about defining values from the money or wealth perspective. He identifies the levels of money to be (a) credibility, (b) credible relationship, (c) integrity, (d) character, and (e) competence, the last being the least. He, however, adds a sixth, but he is not keen on making it a level of money for reasons he explains in the clip. His classifications are generally sound, if not profound. It is hard to fault him on any of the five, or even the six, but his perspective on character appears inconclusive, perhaps for reason of time on a video clip to explicate the subject; or perhaps because trying to tie that virtue to success and wealth can be sometimes very arduous and limiting.

    Apart from being a successful businessman, he is also a pastor, motivational speaker, philanthropist, and business mentor. In explicating character, he suggests that it is at the foundation of anyone’s life. He also explains that character is the fulcrum of leadership, but adds that once a person possesses character he will ‘have success and make wealthy’, obviously because he is talking about the levels of money. But since he brings the issue of leadership into his talk, it is important to let his publics know that wealth may not necessarily accompany character. If wealth comes, of course, character should undergird it. But success is a little more universal and perhaps less discriminating, implying that sometimes success in money terms can be achieved unscrupulously and exploitatively. The success subject is, it seems, much wider and even less ethical than Mr Maduka has argued in a short clip. But as for character, it will be far better and safer to disentangle it from money terms.

    Read Also: Coscharis Motors displays Renault Taliant at Motor Fair

    The dictionary definition of character is restrictive and unhelpful, regardless of its generally acceptable connotations and denotations. The dictionary defines character in two flexible ways to mean the “mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual”, and/or “the way someone thinks, feels, and behaves: in short, someone’s personality”. The definitions are sensible but not expansive enough to give a profound feel to what Mr Maduka is saying on the subject, especially since he links it to leadership. Other sources have provided a list of constituents of character that help expatiate the subject, including but not limited to integrity, which Mr Maduka describes as the third level of money, courage, empathy, resilience, accountability, vision, collaboration, passion, and judgement. Both former United States president Richard M. Nixon, and a former French president Charles de Gaulle wrote copiously on the subject of character, even though ironically, Mr Nixon fell short of profiting from his own counsel and knowledge.

    But in his recent book, On character: Choices that define a life, highly decorated US Army general Stanley A. McChrystal explains what it means to live with purpose and integrity, encouraging everyone to engage in self-examinations and judge the end results of the choices they make. According to him, “Generations will view themselves and the world differently. And they should. Their vantage points aren’t the same, and we live, work, and struggle for what we value as people, not as generations.” Last week, on television, the general dismissed US president Donald Trump as destitute of character. The House of Representatives in Nigeria will in fact find the book valuable for its recommendation on compulsory voting in which the general suggests that voting be made mandatory even if the voter would end up selecting ‘no preference’. In his compelling 118-page 1932 book, The Edge of the Sword, President de Gaulle provides what may be described as a most enthralling dissection of the art of leadership. In it he talks eloquently about what character is, including characteristics that seem sometimes absolutely counterintuitive, such as the need to cultivate mystery and aloofness, even apparent lack of empathy. With character constituting one chapter out of about five or so, he wanted the book to help everyone get a grasp of ‘the very substance of man’.

    If Mr Maduka speaks restrictively of success in the business sense, and goes ahead to qualify or circumscribe it by the definitional cultures of how to make money, a reader might be tempted to gloss over the deeper intricacies of what he glibly conjoined as success and wealth within the context of character. His explanations are gripping as far as motivational speaking is concerned, what with its reference to business ethics, and the general import of his conclusions appear to be indisputable and unquestionable. But placed side by side with much deeper treatments of what character means, even exclusive of moral and religious underpinnings, not to say regardless of the idiosyncrasies of great and successful leaders, Mr Maduka’s argument appears superficial and unnecessarily moralistic. But he at least has done the country a favour by giving that interview in a video clip that has now gone viral. Younger Nigerians, many of whom have a dimwitted approach to wealth and society, should listen to him and take some useful lessons.

  • ‘Fire in the Sahel’

    ‘Fire in the Sahel’

    Speaking  in Yobe State more than two weeks ago, the Chief of Army Staff (COAS), Lieutenant-General Olufemi Oluyede, told Governor Mai Mala Buni that the “The Sahel is on fire. If we allow that fire to come down this way, we’ll be in trouble…It’s best as a country for us to brace up for what is coming and nip it in the bud as fast as possible.” And addressing State House correspondents in Abuja two Fridays ago after a security meeting with President Bola Tinubu, the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Gen. Christopher Musa, confirmed that “What has happened of recent is that there’s a global push by terrorists and jihadists all over the Sahel area, and that pressure is what actually came into Nigeria because of the nature of our borders.” The long and short is that the Sahel is burning, and Nigeria is vulnerable.

    There is obviously no disagreement about the diagnosis of what Nigeria is facing or about to encounter. What remains is how to prepare for the horses of the apocalypse galloping down the Sahel. Is Nigeria united in its bid to curtail the menace? There are doubts. As Governor Babagana Zulum wailed last week during his visit to three beleaguered local governments, he and his men have managed to decipher that some politicians and soldiers are collaborating with the enemy. He did not say whether the collaboration was induced by pecuniary reasons or caliphate dreams, or perhaps both. What is, however, clear is that apart from the cracks and confusion in the frontline states, there has been no national demonstration of unity and commonality of purpose in combating insurgency, banditry and other forms of terrorism in the country.

    Read Also: Russia, Ukraine to begin cease fire negotiations after Trump-Putin call

    President Tinubu’s first task, it is becoming clear, is not just to muster the resources and men to defeat insurgency and banditry, it is also to find ingenious ways of uniting the country behind him in the fight against the common enemy. He will encounter stiff resistance and distractions, but he must find ways to transcend those limitations and staunch the madness unfurling in the Sahel and creeping slowly down to the Northwest and Northeast. The frontlines will not be a single, identifiable front. It will be multiple. He needs to speak to this cataclysm rapidly approaching, especially in light of what is happening in Burkina Faso, Mali, Niger Republic, and Cote D’Ivoire, which is being gradually undermined and destabilised.