The Nation Newspaper

Category: Idowu Akinlotan

  • Soyinka, visa revocation and parallels

    Soyinka, visa revocation and parallels

    Death and life, says the bible, are in the power of the tongue. Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka willed his visa revocation by making his Green Card to ‘have an accident’, a forerunner of the revocation of his B1/B2 visa. Hazarding a few guesses for the revocation, he believed that what happened to the Green Card was probably the ‘new facts that came to light’ to attract the United States response. He also suggested that his unyielding criticisms of President Donald Trump, whom he likened to former Ugandan president Idi Amin in Whiteface, might have played a role in the revocation. Notwithstanding the visa revocation, and certain that his judgement of the style and policies of Mr Trump was accurate, the laureate hinted he might still do some creative work with the American president as the protagonist. The professor may indeed be prescient, but it is unlikely that even he anticipated the dystopian nature American society and immigration controls have assumed. The Green Card accident and the visa revocation have fortuitously saved him the embarrassment and torment he would probably have encountered on trips to the US.

    If a lot of fight was still left in the old warhorse Prof. Soyinka, and he both spoke and acted the fight in his convictions about the depressing manifestations of US democracy, particularly in respect of the upending of the old rules-based international order as well as the decline and warping of American values and global leadership, other participants and activists on the Nigerian scene have spoken themselves into a very different kind of trouble they neither have the ethical mooring or courage to face. It is not every commentator that speaks himself into trouble that does it from a noble or altruistic point of view. Unfortunately, it is also not all the time that an undiscriminating public can tell the difference. Last March, a youth corps member, Ushie Uguamaye, spoke herself into foolish trouble when she admitted her participation in a ‘rant challenge’. Her ignoble confession did not rob her of significant public support, a sad commentary on the decline of values in Nigeria and a reflection of ethnic, class and political polarisation. ‘Lagos smells,’ she had posted, and ‘President Tinubu was a terrible president’, she added. She apologised for her description of Lagos, but it was obvious she did not mean it, but declined to apologise for insulting the president, anchoring her adamancy on what she said was her constitutional right to free speech. Of course, she ignored her obligation and oath as a corps member. Activists lent her wild support.

    Last week another harebrained netizen, Innocent Chukwuma, openly and in offensive language advocated on X (Twitter) a coup d’etat in Nigeria, inspired, it was clear, by happenings in other parts of Africa, particularly the Alliance of Sahel States (AES). Here is what Mr Chukwuma posted: “A coup in Nigeria is needed. Dispose of APC, suspend the Nigerian Government, and join the AES. That is all we need now. It will happen eventually. Nigerians, the military needs your support now! Only them can save this country.” In another post, he said: “The @#*&! in Aso Rock has basically sold this country to the West, and they run our intelligence apparatus. Only the military can reset this country. Support them.” It does not matter to him and others who lionise his idiocy that Mali is in far bigger trouble than it can ever bargain for, and Burkina Faso is propped on insane propaganda. Nor is he discomfited by his mendacity about the president selling Nigeria to the West at a time US president Donald Trump is busy declaring Nigeria a country of particular concern, preparatory to declaring it a terrorist state deserving of American military action to ‘protect Christians’.

    Read Also: Relief for commuters as Warri-Itakpe rail services resume

    Activist Omoyele Sowore, who jumps on every anti-establishment controversy, gave Ms Uguamaye, alias Raye, huge support. It was expected. His lifestyle and politics are dysfunctional, and without any reflection, projects that warpedness onto national issues. He lives and thrives on discord and chaos, a member of the army of chaotic activists dedicated to dismantling Nigeria in line with some global doomsday predictions. To lend support to a self-confessed ranter embarking on a challenge to determine who was the nastiest on social media is an indication of failure of home training or psychological imbalance. But Mr Sowore was not the only one to lend support to Raye; many media houses and Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) also did, thereby turning her into a cause célèbre. The constitutional right to free speech is of course inalienable, but there are always limits. When Mr Chukwuma advocated a coup on X, the consequences are not limited to him, whether he is arrested or ostracised. It strikes at the core of Nigeria’s stability, especially at a time when a few African countries are succumbing to extra-constitutional methods for regime change. Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger Republic, Sudan, Madagascar, Guinea, Gabon – all pejoratively described as belonging to the African coup belt – have truncated their democratic experiments. Some analysts have suggested that if current speculations about a foiled coup in Nigeria turn out to be factual, the plotters were probably encouraged by the public calls for military intervention.

    The social media has given rise to all kinds of extremism, particularly verbal and rhetorical terrorism. It encouraged the false narrative of EndSARS massacre in Nigeria, fuelled the Nepalese and Madagascar revolts, and gave fillip to the Tanzanian election protests regardless of President Samia Suluhu Hassan winning 98 percent of the estimated 32 million ballots according to the electoral commission. A few Western countries have made bland statements about the situations in the coup-ridden countries of Africa and those in the grip of electoral violence, but none issued a warning or note of caution regarding the January 2021 attack on the US Capitol. Decades of self-deprecation and de-marketing have pushed Africa to the precipice. And that de-marketing is fuelled in Nigeria by civil society groups, activists, political opposition, militias, insurgents, traditional and social media, and the gullible populace indifferent to economics but allergic to hardship.

    But the worst is about to come for Nigeria. Under President Trump, the US has become the world policeman, bombing and bullying its way around the world, and destroying post-World War II rules-based international order. It has re-designated Nigeria a country of particular concern while ignoring its own past and contemporary history of racism, gun violence, police discrimination, a justice system tilted against Blacks, and now creeping authoritarianism. Seizing upon the largely fallacious campaigns of some Nigerians and US lawmakers and private groups, Mr Trump has called for action against Nigeria to ‘save Christians’. Whatever methods of involvement it chooses to deploy are bound to complicate ethnic and religious relations in Nigeria, worsen counterinsurgency operations, destabilise the country, facilitate illegal mineral exploitation and expropriation, and perhaps predispose the country to state failure or new alliances to the East. The US approach is unprecedented. It is not designed to build, unite, or stabilise; it is fashioned to fracture and engender large-scale instability in the West African sub-region. But all this is happening because a few Nigerians, by their rhetoric, suborning of foreign interests, and neocolonial orientation, are exposing their country to plunderers.

    However, by failing for more than 15 years to rein in insurgency in the Northeast and banditry in the Northwest, and by being unable to curb the madness in the Middle Belt states of Benue, Nasarawa and Plateau, many local victims and aggrieved individuals as well as international observers have gone away with the impression that what is happening in Nigeria is not ethnic or economic struggle for land and mineral resources, but religious genocide. Yet, the attackers are largely foreigners who received training and arms from non-state actors following the collapse of Libya. The US had designated Nigeria a country of particular concern for nearly a decade, together with Mr Trump’s new darlings Syria, Pakistan and even Saudi Arabia; but the Nigerian media has painted the news as if the declaration was fresh or recent. If Nigeria can muster the will and the military muscle to undertake a final push against the lawlessness that has overtaken parts of the country, it may buy time to resolve its economic crisis and find a workable and fairly permanent solution to its structural and existential questions. But it does not have the luxury of time. If US meddling is allowed, in line with the lobbying of some Nigerian interests, there is no assurance that the country will survive. And if chaos ensues, no one, not the complainants nor the groups complained against, will be spared the consequences of anarchy. For decades, many Nigerians have spoken disaster, death and tragedy upon their country, with politicians leading the way and activists following hard on their heels; now their words are returning to haunt them in a way they may be unprepared to live with.

  • The coup stories

    The coup stories

    The federal government is adamant there was no coup attempt. The military speaks fluently of taking some disciplinary measures against more than a dozen soldiers that ran afoul of the law. But the media blithely reported stories and follow-up stories of a coup they indicated was probably at its infancy or conceptual stage when it was busted. Even if the attempt was at an advanced stage, it still does not matter. It does not also matter at this point which speculation or account is right, or how the government would respond, nor whether the change of service chiefs had anything to do with it. What really matters are the social media commentaries accompanying the media reports of the supposed coup, how some commentaries suggested Nigerian democracy was not worth defending, and how still some other comments showed their revulsion against the political elite who in their view should be got rid of by whatever means.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s exit from FATF Grey List excites President

    Ignorance in Nigeria, particularly of how the economy works, is more massive than first thought. It astonishes this writer that to some people, Nigerian democracy, which today is even more robust than America’s, should not be defended in the event of a coup. It is more worrisome that despite the education they boast of, some commentators could still go ahead to conflate the hardship in the country with the health of the country’s democracy. They seem to think that if democracy is threatened and it is not defended, it is democracy itself or other people that would bear the brunt of the calamity. Worse, it is far more tragic that for some other commentators, their intense loathing for President Bola Tinubu justifies their distaste for democracy and canonises their conviction that should a coup be planned, it would not be a bad idea for it to succeed. For them, the country and its democracy are equal to, or interchangeable with, the president.

    Given media reports of the incident, few Nigerians doubt a coup was not afoot. But here is the real tragedy: that the exigencies of the moment and the education and commonsense of the presumed plotters, not to say the lessons learnt from this country’s inglorious history with military rule, do not dissuade coupists and their supporters from their exultations. Could it be true that some officers were so dumb as not to know that while they can guarantee the firing of the first bullet, they have no way of knowing how or when the last bullet would be fired; or whether a coup would not sound the death knell for both the republic and the country as a whole? Since the 2023 poll was concluded, too many people, including activists and unions, have incited either a coup or an insurrection without fear of consequence. It may be time for the government to put its foot down; for after all is said and done, Nigeria is in fact a more tolerable country to live in and thrive, as global events are showing.

  • Southeast builds next generation of leaders

    Southeast builds next generation of leaders

    While a number of leading politicians in the Southeast and a huge percentage of party supporters in the same region have remained fixated on old political orthodoxy, a few governors are gently but firmly breaking out of the cocoon to carve a national niche and circle of influence for themselves. These few governors and a minister – Peter Mbah of Enugu State, Hope Uzodinma of Imo State, Chukwuma Soludo of Anambra State, and David Umahi of Ebonyi State – have realised that they must calibrate their regional appeal vis-à-vis their national influence to stand any chance of making a mark at the national level in the years ahead. They have seemed to realise how counterproductive the regional appeal subscribed to by Peter Obi, a former Anambra governor and Labour Party presidential candidate in the 2023 election, could be.

    Leadership paradigm is shifting in the Southeast. A new generation of leaders is emerging in the region, and it eschews the needless antagonisms and opportunisms of the past. It recognises that despite being somewhat viewed with suspicion, that new paradigm involves an uncanny appreciation of how the power pendulum is swinging at the national level and which alliances they must associate with in order to stand any chance of future political successes. In their private musings and public discussions and debates the three governors and a minister have understudied the Southwest and discovered that excessive regional appeal could countermand, if not entirely undermine, a significant national appeal. They appreciate the qualities displayed by Chief Obafemi Awolowo, but noted how dismally he performed when he sought higher national office. And they saw how MKO Abiola created a groundswell of national following that galvanised his politics and gave him the 1993 presidential election.

    More crucially, the emerging national leaders from the Southeast also saw how President Bola Tinubu carved a national following and, despite seemingly insurmountable obstacles erected by powerful interests and top political leaders around the country, won the 2023 poll. They have learnt to ignore every other thing controversial about him, and have chosen to focus on his methods. They have seen that to make a mark, a Southeast politician must have the broadened view of a national player, unencumbered by ethnicity and religion, and the self-immolating parochialism of irredentists and religious fanatics. Equally important, they have seized the small opportunity of leadership positions at all levels to leave an indelible developmental mark on their states and ministry. While the Southwest is immersed in complacency and has not produced a stand-out leader in the states in recent years, the emerging Southeast leaders have imbued their efforts with a sense of urgency never seen before in their region.

    While Mr Uzodinma’s first electoral victory as governor in 2019 was controversial and the second in 2024 spectacular and well-deserved, he has proved a great asset to the state, and has offered remarkable and liberal leadership to his state and the region instead of the stifling insularism hitherto popular among Southeast politicians. Educated at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, USA, and Federal University of Technology, Owerri, the two-term senator (2011-2019) counsels the Southeast to change their political paradigm from the narrow-minded provincialism they have long embraced to the open and tolerant politics that will help them break free of the chokehold that has kept them marginalised and grumbling. He probably stumbled into the All Progressives Congress (APC) as a result of the discrimination he suffered in the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) on which platform he was a senator, but since his arrival in the APC he has deprecated the ethnic card and has played expansive and broad-minded politics, seeking new friends and networking with a deliberateness that indicates foresight.

    Mr Uzodinma is 66. While he will continue to be relevant after his second term as governor, it is unlikely he still harbours any presidential ambition. He may have laid a solid political foundation for himself, but neither time nor geopolitics is on his side. On the other hand, Mr Umahi, an engineer and current Works minister harboured presidential dreams, and indeed showed interest in the 2022 APC presidential primary; but at 62, it is not clear whether time and geopolitics will be kind to him. Far in excess of what he had achieved as a governor, he has displayed brilliance and energy in his current assignment as a minister. Migrating to the APC in 2018 as a second term governor, he finished well and strong, installing a successor and leaving indelible developmental marks on Ebonyi State. Polemical and outspoken, he has also joined other emerging regional political leaders to warn about the countervailing factor of regional provincialism in presidential politics. He scorned Mr Obi’s efforts, describing the optimistic and naïve LP candidate’s presidential campaign in 2022 and 2023 as deeply flawed and doomed from the beginning.

    Read Also: Nigeria’s exit from FATF Grey List excites President

    Another emerging leader is the redoubtable Prof. Soludo, a first-class economist and academician who is unafraid of controversy or debate. He is up for reelection early next month; he is projected to win by a healthy margin. He showed interest early enough in politics, particularly in the governorship of his state. Had he won early, he would have stamped himself in the consciousness of Nigerians far earlier than he has done and much more effectively than during his governorship of the Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) between 2004 and 2009. A visiting scholar at some of the world’s most prestigious universities in the US and UK, the 65-year-old governor may have flowered politically a little too late despite his glittering resume. He has chalked up outstanding records as governor, and has wondered at the naivety of many south-easterners in the game of national politics. Like Messrs Uzodinma and Umahi, the eminent economist and All Progressives Grand Alliance (APGA) chieftain, has already taken his place in the Southeast pantheon. He will continue to be relevant locally and nationally.

    At just 53, Enugu’s Mr Mbah has demonstrated he is not afraid to take risks. Critics in the Southeast may not understand why the lawyer and businessman took the fateful step of defecting to the APC, but he is showing the region his capability for perspective reasoning by foreswearing parochial politics in favour of national and liberal politics with a crossover appeal. He will still be within the presidential age range when power rotates to the South in 2039 when it would be much harder to deny the Southeast finally. At that time, an aspirant will not only need a great and powerful party platform, he must also show his connections, have a record of supporting others to get to the top or win national elections, and must possess the ideological rampart to back his ambition. Mr Mbah is both an achiever and an intuitive politician who has his heart in the right place. Though he only managed to win the Enugu governorship poll controversially, should elections be held today, he will win by a landslide. Such is the force of his vision and developmental strides that only few governors can match.

    For the first time in generations, the Southeast is producing leaders who can fight for their place nationally, pound-for-pound. They are showing courage in disavowing the sterile and crippling political orthodoxies of the past, and are projecting strength and intellectual depth far beyond their region, and breaking glass ceilings of all kind. They seem to be confirming what many political analysts have always concluded: that there is no inherent distrust or hatred for the Southeast; that what the region needs are cosmopolitan politicians who have paid their dues by associating with and supporting other national politicians in order to merit other people’s support. Messrs Soludo, Umahi, Uzodinma, and Mbah will go far, very far. They are the powerful and reassuring face of the new Southeast politics, and will help shape the elections of 2027, 2031, and beyond.

  • The Nnamdi Kanu affair

    The Nnamdi Kanu affair

    When self-determination agitator Nnamdi Kanu sacked his lawyers during the trial court’s last sitting, he signaled his preference for legal histrionics rather than substance. He will go on to give Nigerians and the courts a horse dose of that medicine as he takes over his defence. Already he is assembling, at least theoretically, a cavalry of international and domestic witnesses certain to grind his trial either to a halt entirely or to a snail’s pace. Many of the witnesses in question loath him; but he believes he stands on excellent legal grounds to haul them before the Federal High Court, Abuja where he expects to put them through punishing cross-examinations disconcerting enough to make them stammer or implicate themselves. He will not have his wish, of course, but he will entertain everyone, including himself, snd animate the gullible.

    In July 2024, this column had weighed in on Mr Kanu’s long-running trial saga by suggesting that it was time to discontinue his case, not because there were no grounds to lock him up for good, but because the trial had become disruptive and distracting. In addition, argued the writer, it was time to respect the Southeast elite who had, speaking as one man it seemed, importuned President Bola Tinubu to release their son to them, with the region’s political elite standing as guarantors. It seemed a fair campaign, suggested the writer, but cautioned that restraining the voluble agitator who thrived on chaos and noise would be difficult, if not impossible. If they could guarantee that they would rein him in, a prospect the writer doubted, it was time to discontinue his case and release him. Mr Kanu, the scarlet pimpernel, had been arrested in 2015 and charged in court, but fled in 2017 while on bail, and was renditioned in 2021 and charged again in January 2022.

    In 2025, the case is still as far from resolution as it was when he was extraordinarily renditioned from Kenya to Nigeria. His co-agitator, the Southwest’s flamboyant and superstitious Sunday Adeyemo, alias Sunday Igboho, had since got his freedom, not from Nigeria, but from Benin Republic where he had fled, was tried, and eventually released. It turned out that the Beninese justice system is not as convoluted as Nigeria’s, nor Mr Igboho himself as dramatic, incendiary, tragic and flawed as Mr Kanu. As a matter of fact, where Mr Igboho spoke in terms of using supernatural powers to achieved self-determination, with a hint of violence if it came to it, Mr Kanu spoke of nothing else but threats and violence, following up his daily radio and video harangues with concrete steps that led to the formation of militia groups dedicated to the projection of unconstitutional power.

    Read Also: Onos dedicates Nigeria-France Sports Award to Delta Gov Oborevwori

    Seeing how Mr Kanu has theatrically stalled his case, treated his lawyers scornfully, and like activist Omoyele Sowore, carried himself with a pomposity even fascist Benito Mussolini never attempted, this writer now balks at Mr Kanu’s release or pardon, regardless of whatever strings are attached. He deserves a speedy trial, if his legal chicaneries will allow. Indeed, from all indications, he will get a fair trial, despite the allegations of bias levelled against the Nigerian justice system. And since he has sacked his lawyers, obviously by mutual consent in order to allow him leeway to indulge his dramatic and bombastic escapades, the ball will remain squarely in his court. However, the courts should not allow him in the driver’s seat, let alone acquiesce to his whimsical speed. It is important for the courts to be in unequivocal control of the substance of the case and the tempo of the trial. Mr Kanu has developed a habit of not just pomposity, he also suffers from delusions of grandeur and would love to seize control of proceedings should the judge be lax in any way. They should not let him.

    Last week’s street agitation in support of Mr Kanu, promoted and executed by Mr Sowore using his foreign grants, is a meddlesome attempt to confuse, complicate and undermine the terrorism trial. The protests presumed, like many non-south easterners, that there was a regional consensus in favour of Mr Kanu’s release. There was none. And there is unlikely to be any. The violence Mr Kanu’s supporters, particularly the Eastern Security Network (ESN) and the Indigenous Peoples of Biafra (IPOB), left in their wake has shattered families, destroyed lives, and caused cataclysmic economic losses in the region such that nothing would please some south-easterners more than to see the agitator locked up for a long time. They may forego reparations, but they want their pound of flesh, with or without blood. In any case, what is paramount is that his enemies and his supporters have called for justice. Let the courts ensure that ultimately justice is served, no matter how much delayed.

    The media have generally tended to line up behind Mr Kanu. It is hard to understand why. They may perhaps simply be pivoting from their deep animosity towards President Tinubu to supporting anything and anyone opposed to the president, anything to bring the president to heel. Whatever the case, no one who has reflected on the Kanu case will fail to appreciate that it goes far beyond what the president has done or not done. The Kanu affair is first a regional ploy, then a national security issue, and finally a personal and megalomaniacal drive by a man so enamoured of speaking and acting violence in ways that are mocking, confrontational and unfeeling. Whether the courts can find any mitigation for his words and methods, for instance judicially appraising the manner of his rendition from Kenya in June 2021 and his exculpation by a Nairobi court in June 2025, is entirely up to the judges and the evidence adduced before their lordships. 

  • PDP fails to break the siege

    PDP fails to break the siege

    When he concluded plaintively on October 11 that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was powerless to arrest the defections of leading members of his party, it was obvious that Bauchi State governor and PDP Governors’ Forum chairman, Bala Mohammed, was despondent. “I cannot say that my colleagues are wrong,” he began with a hint of sarcasm, sounding almost like he was dreaming. “They are free to do whatever they choose. But I have been advising them that even those who left are not finding it easier because most of the people at the grassroots level are PDP and are not happy with the defections. Sometimes, it is done because of permutations and calculations. I will not denigrate or speak negatively about my colleagues, I assure you.” His lament came shortly after the cat was let out of the bag about Enugu State governor Peter Mbah’s impending defection. Three days later, Mr Mbah left the PDP and berthed at the All Progressives Congress (APC), giving convincing reasons and ignoring Mr Mohammed’s remonstrations.

    Before the week ran out, another governor, Douye Diri of Bayelsa State, one of the least expected to defect, though it had been widely rumoured, had left the PDP sheepfold. He too gave eloquent reasons for his exit. More defections could still follow, for the leading opposition party has proved incompetent to arrest the exodus. But those who prematurely sing a funeral dirge for the PDP suggest that the ruling APC seems bent on fostering a dictatorship over Nigeria, a one-party state that would dim the light of democracy. They exaggerate. The defection problem is less what the APC plans to do as what the PDP omits to do. Yes, the opposition party faces grave existential challenge, but it still possesses the seed to counter the ruling party and give hope for the future. The party is now down to eight states, from a decent 13 in 2023. It lost one through off-cycle election, and four by defections: Bayelsa, Enugu, Delta and Akwa Ibom. But it prefers to moralise the problem rather than strategise to arrest it. It prefers to preach rather than act timely and sensibly.

    Two things ail the PDP: a lack of visionary and assertive leadership, and a lack of strategy. Since it lost the epoch-defining and mind-shaping presidential election of 2015, the party was never the same. Ex-president Goodluck Jonathan who cost them the election refused to fall on his sword in penance for leading the troops to disaster; instead, he did much worse. Alleging betrayal against his party members and leaders, and displaying a sense of entitlement at a time when his leadership was sorely needed and even demanded, he sulked back to his native state. And when he caught his breath a little, he returned to Abuja and promptly adopted the post of ambassador plenipotentiary, stomping through African states and cities for election monitoring and other peacemaking duties, supposedly mocking Nigerians about the gem they foolishly scorned. But Nigeria has since moved on to other seductions. PDP leaders’ judgement was of course often infantile, but they were determined not to have anything to do with Dr Jonathan whom they controversially blamed for all their miseries and shortcomings. The party panted for great and transformative leaders who could stanch the flow of electoral blood depleting them, but no leader came forward. Their 2015 loss had so bewildered them that they lost the will to live or even play politics intelligently.

    Former Rivers governor Nyesom Wike saw the vacuum after 2015 and immediately filled it. He imbued the party with a new sense of direction, energised them with funds, imposed his will on party chieftains, and brought the party out of the doldrums. Even when some dissatisfied party chiefs lured the nomadic former vice president Atiku Abubakar into using the party’s platform to contest the presidency, Mr Wike still held the reins, refusing to feel scorned by ungrateful party members. The return of Alhaji Abubakar unfortunately produced two counterproductive elements. Firstly, it opened the party to his unhealthy and entitled influence; and secondly, it robbed the party of the commitment and resourcefulness of Mr Wike. With dissension now freely coursing through the party and polluting its soul, it was just a few steps away from disaster. That disaster exploded in their faces in 2023, and shortly after the polls, Alhaji Atiku, the great nomad, once again departed for greener pastures, thrusting the knife deeper into the party’s back. This time, sadly, there was no one left in the party to help pick up the pieces. All its leaders are now gone, and third-rate leaders with no sense of direction, urgency or the funds to back up their talk are inexpertly attempting to chart a new path.

    Read Also: ₦9.102 Million Ghana Lotto Win Recorded on EasyWin Nigeria

    The second failing is even much worse than the first. Yes, the PDP lacks vibrant and imaginative leaders; but by lacking a strategy to reclaim and rediscover itself, the party has become rudderless. After losing the 2015 elections, it was apoplectic and began adopting desperate and impractical measures. But after losing the 2023 presidential election, party leaders seemed to have virtually lost all hope thereby endangering the party’s survival. After the 2025 electoral disaster, party leaders should have constituted a high-powered panel to rejig the party and recreate its purpose by refining and honing its founding ideals. Instead, they were obsessed with the next presidential election in 2019, sought for a draftee to be their champion, and found the mercurial and jinxed Alhaji Atiku. The founding ideals of the party should have been repurposed, and party organs and structures should have been reworked in a way that finds and elevates new or younger and more driven leaders. As a matter of fact, they should have glossed over the 2019 election and set a new timetable for themselves, either 2023 or 2027. Unfortunately, they spurned the idea of the long haul, ignored the crying need for restructuring, and rushed with fatal consequences into the next electoral war they were both unsuited and unprepared for.

    It is, however, not too late to make amends once they are persuaded that they need to do substantial refitting of their party. They must start by acknowledging that they are too hobbled by internal dissension to win the 2027 presidential poll. Next, they must find brilliant and animated politicians with the resources and rhetorical flourish who can both approximate and aggregate their future and speak persuasively and fluently to it. They must centre their renewal on those who remain behind, the real altruists who are willing to work and put their shoulders to the wheel, men and women who see the PDP as a project worth dying for. Twelve years of losing presidential elections may have deprived them of the capacity to mentor the party’s future leaders; it is now time to find and mentor the hopes of that future. The APC will not always be strong, and may even sometimes drop the ball; the PDP must, therefore, find ways to take advantage of those overconfident and careless moments.

    Some analysts have predicted the demise of the opposition party; but such predictions are probably exaggerated. Party leaders must not allow those predictions to become self-fulfilling. Pride may not allow them to abandon the 2027 race, which may explain why they have been hunting for jaded politicians like Dr Jonathan to come and help them fight the Goliath confronting them. Let them instead register only a token presence in the race; and let them strategise for the future, a strategy that begins with repurposing and refitting their once powerful party. Indeed, their main challenge is finding a few brilliant and altruistic leaders to lead the charge, men who understand strategy and deplore political self-aggrandisement.

  • Defections and wind of change

    Defections and wind of change

    In 2023, the All Progressives Congress (APC) controlled 20 states and 59 senate seats. It was not a tenuous hold, but it was also not an overwhelming grip. By last week, that control had expanded to 24 states, and in the senate, to a dominant 73 seats from its 2023 level of 59 seats. These growths have been due to steady defections from opposition political parties to the ruling party, with the stream getting less viscous than one or two years ago. The APC’s previously controversial economic reform that earned it repudiation is suddenly not as controversial as they once seemed, as the economy has begun to enjoy a rebound in place of the great spasms and suffocations of the earlier months. Even President Bola Tinubu previously, once caricatured as the devil or agent of despair, has in the estimation of many of his former ardent critics become prescient.

    Despite favourable economic indicators and uplifting governorship and legislative defections, few Nigerians predicted the massive change of affiliations witnessed in the past few months. The political cognoscenti might undoubtedly have foreseen some shifts, perhaps in a few vulnerable states or off-cycle elections states, but they will be telling tall stories to say they saw anything resembling the seismic shifts that have reshaped the political leanings of Bayelsa, Akwa Ibom, and Enugu States. They had no pressing reasons to change alliances and were not under siege by anti-graft agencies on a scale and severity glibly referenced by critics. Nor was it obvious that by keeping their former affiliations they would be brutally suffocated by Abuja, especially considering that for the last two years there had been no punitive policies or exercises directed against opposition states. Indeed, the president had admired and recommended some opposition states and deprecated, privately and to a little extent publicly, a few states under the APC umbrella.

    All the off-cycle governorship elections held in the past two years, not to talk of most of the by-elections noised among opposition coalition leaders as definitive and epochal, have been won by the ruling party. They were not rigged. While they suffered a few administrative hiccups, they were nonetheless mostly free and fair. Opposition leaders were mystified by the seemingly inexorable trend that defied their confident projections; but they seemed, after catching their breath, to have either reconciled themselves to the wind of change blowing over Nigeria or acknowledged the new realities. It may get worse for them. That wind is not only political; it is also economical. The economy is growing at a healthy rate, foreign exchange rates have not fallen as precipitously as opponents had wished and instead stabilised and strentghened, the stock market is generally and invitingly bullish, and the world, which had in the first few months of the administration excoriated the administration’s policies and warned of apocalyptic consequences, have been surprisingly upbeat.

    The APC is still six states shy of the 31 the PDP boasted of in 2007 in the closing months of the Olusegun Obasanjo presidency. The ruling party is unlikely to match that PDP feat, and even if it does, it is unlikely to boast of ruling Nigeria for 60 unbroken years. The PDP dominance at the time was, however, a spinoff of the democratic euphoria sweeping over Nigeria, with indications to exultant Nigerians that the Fourth Republic would last longer than they dared to hope. The APC’s appeal in the past two years has been anchored on the administration’s courageous and perceptive management of the country’s distressed economy. Few analysts expected a turnaround as impressive and persuasive, with many of them initially sceptical about the bona fides of the men entrusted with the management of the economy, not to say the judgement of the president himself. But clearing $10bn forex debt, raising net foreign reserves from $3.99bn in 2023 to over $40bn last month, in addition to sustaining a growth rate of about four percent, all in a little over two years, was nothing less than phenomenal.

    Read Also: Nigeria secures $8bn energy investments

    The governors saw a president willing to take the flak for them by absorbing acerbic public criticism that bordered on insurrection, a president who refused to engage in blame game with his predecessor, and one who freed public funds through courageous economic policies so that states could embark on massive infrastructural renewal while borrowing little from financial institutions. No, they didn’t need to be intimidated or cajoled into defecting. They saw the future, and despite the mocking conclusions of naysayers, decided to climb in bed with the APC administration. More governors and lawmakers could still defect because the indices of change and the power of the headwind appear irresistible.

    The chances of this wind of change metamorphosing into one-party dictatorship is, however, far-fetched. It didn’t happen under Chief Obasanjo when the ruling PDP controlled 31 states. It is unlikely to happen now for the same reasons it didn’t happen then. Nigeria is not dominated by one ethnic group or religion which sometimes provide the favourable ecosystem for dictatorship. In addition, its constitution is in fact becoming more federal than the inchoate unitarism of its unpromising and uncompromising beginnings. What is more, power is gradually devolving to the sub-nationals in a way that does not flagrantly and defiantly threaten the hegemonism of the cartels that have maintained a stranglehold on the country. In any case, as history has shown, a seismic shift to dictatorship is often facilitated by periods of economic emergencies, such as depression, or massive existential challenges, such as civil or external wars. Check out Spain under Franscisco Franco, Italy under Benito Mussolini, Germany under Adolf Hitler, and Portugal under Antonio Salazar, among others. Where military generals and political demagogues sometimes tended to authoritarianism when circumstances permit, economists and financial experts rarely make dictators or one-party virtuosi, of course with the notable exception of Prof. Salazar, a brilliant political economist who balanced his country’s distressed budget and lulled distraught and hungry Portuguese to complacency. 

  • Gen Irabor’s state of emergency call

    Gen Irabor’s state of emergency call

     In his book, ‘Scars: Nigeria’s journey and the Boko Haram conundrum’, former Chief of Defence Staff (CDS) Lucky Irabor calls for the declaration of a state of emergency to marshal all elements of national power towards ending the insurgency in the Northeast. Undoubtedly, that declaration would also deal with the insurgency cum banditry in the Northwest and North Central. Months ago, this writer called on the federal government to put Nigeria on a war footing by mobilising about 30,000 to 50,000 troops to deal with banditry and Boko Haram once and for all. In the words of Gen. Irabor, “The understanding of Boko Haram as purveyors of anguish and torment under the cloak of religious puritanism should serve as a lesson for all in our future socio-cultural and socio-political interactions.” The former CDS also argued that the actions of the insurgents were disconnected from religion which they, however, use to mask their predatory and nihilistic goals.

    Read Also: Nigeria secures $8bn energy investments

    At the rate misleading inferences are distorting the terrorism narrative in Nigeria, especially with allegations of intentional genocide ascribed to government connivance, if not collusion, it is no longer realistic to continue to waffle about labels and definitions or which measures are sensible and adequate to combat terrorism in the North. For years the Nigerian government had deployed sterile paradigms to fight terror and experimented with a mixture of kinetic and non-kinetic measures based on their understanding of the multifarious roots and manifestations of the crisis. This is sheer sophistry. While much progress has been made in battling banditry and Boko Haram, it is nevertheless time to mobilise once and for all to defeat the spreading cancer. It is only after victory that it may be time to embark on non-kinetic measures to deal with the root causes of the crisis. To rehabilitate insurgents midway in the war is, for instance, to open the government to allegations of official connivance, another way of saying, as Gen. Irabor argued, that the country lacked the political will to defeat insurgency. It is not certain that insurgents are deliberately dispersing their forces into autonomous cells to saturate all parts of the country with terror and stretch the military thin and run them ragged; but whatever the causes of the dispersal, the government must urgently stop the haemorrhaging before more states are ensnared.  

  • Jonathan unfazed by constitutional ambiguity

    Jonathan unfazed by constitutional ambiguity

    With each passing week, former president Goodluck Jonathan seems doubly sure no constitutional obstacle stands in his way of running for the presidency a second time. His opponents may regret his firm stance, but they stand on very flimsy ground to think that anything bars him from contesting in 2027 should he choose to run. Dr Jonathan is not new to the impediments strewn across his path, some of them purporting to be constitutional. In 2012, the effort to bar him from running began in earnest. First sworn in on May 6, 2010 to complete the late President Umaru Yar’Adua’s tenure, he had gone on to win the 2011 election, and soon began making sheep’s eye at the 2015 presidential election. It was the attempt to stop him that triggered a cavalcade of legal cases begun in 2012. All the three cases brought against him to date have, however, been decided in his favour.

    All the suits aimed to abort Dr Jonathan’s re-election plans. The first case, filed in 2012 at the High court of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) before Justice Mudashiru Oniyangi, was decided in his favour. The judge had no hesitation whatsoever in ruling that nothing barred the then president from contesting in 2015. Dissatisfied, the appellant, Cyriacus Njoku, appealed. In March 2015, shortly before the election of that year, the Court of Appeal held that nothing barred Dr Jonathan from contesting. They gave their reason, and it seemed so incontrovertible that it settled the case once and for all. But the furore that accompanied the case, not to say the constitutional lacuna many legal experts said they noticed, led to a constitutional amendment that took effect in 2018. Embodied in Section 137(3), the alteration indicates that “A person who was sworn in to complete the term for which another person was elected as President, shall not be elected to such office for more than a single term.”

    The alteration was expressed in very simple and accessible language, admitting of no ambiguity. But against a litigious Nigerian, even the simplest expression acquires new and convoluted meaning. In 2022, when it seemed a clearly nostalgic Dr Jonathan would not take no for an answer and seemed determined to run again, the litigious duo of Andy Solomon and Idibiye Abraham headed to the courts to see whether they could bar him from the 2023 poll. Filed at the Federal High Court in Yenagoa, the judge, Isa Hamma Dashen, in May 2022, held that the constitution did not disqualify Dr Jonathan, and that if he had won in 2015, he would have been sworn into office anyway, with no one the wiser. Anchoring his decision on the inability of the amendment to take retroactive effect, the judge concluded that Sec 137(3) “cannot apply retrospectively, except the Legislature, in clear terms, expressly stated their intention for it to be so.”

    Read Also: BMONI set to launch in Nigeria to Redefine How Africa Saves, Spends, and Grows Wealth

    Here is the crux of the matter. When the legislature made the alteration to the constitution to take care of peculiar circumstances and puzzles, the kind that hamstrung Dr Jonathan’s ascension in 2010, they never imagined that he would try to return on a later day, say in 2023 or 2027. They were unable to anticipate that Dr Jonathan is one of those unique politicians who never let bad enough alone. More accurately, power mongers and political schemers have continued to badger the former president with tantalising prospects of returning to office. Every time they seduce him, he falls. The United States constitution, on the other hand, made term limits beguilingly easy to comprehend and adhere to when the 22nd Amendment was ratified in 1951. Just one sentence, and the job was done. It says in Section 1: “No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.” Had the Nigerian constitutional alteration indicated a time period for the ‘acting’ president, say one year or two, there would have been no court case.

    But court case or not, the fact is that Dr Jonathan is not constitutionally barred from contesting in 2027. The All Progressives Congress (APC) should discountenance that supposition and reconcile with reality. It should not waste time and money on any litigation, for any court case might instead canonise a man who has no sense for liturgy of any kind. What will stop the former president from contesting in 2027 are history and his personality. History, because other than massive adoption by a sitting government, such as happened to ex-president Olusegun Obasanjo, no former Nigerian ruler has made it back to the State House; not Gen. Ibrahim Babangida in 2011, and not Gen. Yakubu Gowon in 1993. Secondly, his personality is one of his chief liabilities. Dr Jonathan was neither extraordinary during his five years in office nor decisive and assertive as great leaders should be. He has remained averse to risk-taking and uncomfortable with visioning. He has seemed to hone these last behavioural defects since he left office in 2015, given the way he has run from pillar to post seeking a party to unanimously adopt him. He has egregiously flirted with the African Democratic Congress (ADC) being built with former vice president Atiku Abubakar’s money. And he has dallianced with the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) which he abandoned shortly after he left office, citing betrayal and other reasons.

    The constitution will not stop Dr Jonathan, and indeed cannot, no matter how liberally the relevant sections of the constitution are interpreted. The Nigerian judiciary may not exactly be the darling of the masses, but three judgements in a row in favour of Dr Jonathan should not be discounted. The constitution is on his side. On the contrary, he is his greatest liability: his personality, his records, his stark inability to read the signs of the times, his constant overrating of self, and his even more baffling underestimation of his opponents and all other forces poised to doom his candidacy should he find a platform to indulge his lackluster politics. As mired in controversy and lethargy as the PDP is, one of its weaknesses is not stupidity and wastefulness. Notwithstanding its desperation to find a formula to beat the ruling party, the leading opposition party will think twice before giving their ticket to Dr Jonathan, assuming he is capable of the genuine absolution his years of political truancy demand of him.

  • Israel-Gaza ceasefire and aftermath

    Israel-Gaza ceasefire and aftermath

    In the end, the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which United States president Donald Trump desperately coveted, eluded him. It instead went to a Venezuelan opposition politician, Maria Corina Machado, despite last ditch efforts by the US president to achieve a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas and orchestrate a realistic path to lasting peace. Mr Trump’s 20-point peace plan incorporated significant elements of the France-Saudi peace plan, and bore Turkish, Qatari, and Egyptian imprints. Altogether, stripped of all diplomatese, the ceasefire deal clearly indicates a number of consequences regarding the Middle East, and especially Palestine. Put simply, the plan implies that Hamas lost the war it triggered in October 2023, Iran is demystified, Hezbollah is significantly degraded, Yemen is virtually isolated and rendered impotent, Syria has been inoculated against terror, and Arab States can breathe a little easier because the Iranian Axis of Resistance will be of less concern to them in the short term.

    The ceasefire deal will be consummated over three phases. It starts with the release of all Israeli hostages and hundreds of Palestinian detainees, which is expected to take place in the next 72 hours starting from yesterday; withdrawal of Israeli troops in phases from Gaza and the demilitarisation of Hamas; and the rebuilding of Gaza over the next three to five years. In the medium term, which may be more challenging, other key points of the Trump plan will be revealed. There are as yet no clear indications those other terms will be met, including the more vaguely stated two-state solution. But next week, Mr Trump will take a victory lap in Israel where he will address the Israeli parliament, though the deal owes so much to Gulf States leaders, especially Qatar and Egypt, and also Turkey as well as Israeli leader Benjamin Netanyahu.

    There are three angles to the ceasefire deal, which is already being celebrated almost like a peace deal because of its impact in ameliorating suffering in Gaza and removing Israel as the cynosure of global attention. President Trump, despite his theatrics and narcissistic politics, placed himself at the centre of the resolution of the Gaza war, and must feel immensely disappointed to have been passed over in the award of the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize. His idiosyncrasies facilitated the deal. He begins a deal by blustering, progresses to taking hostile actions, and then offers a deal which at that point becomes almost irresistible. He talked tough on Gaza by proposing to turn the territory into a resort, asked some Arab states to encourage Gaza emigration, and then joined Israel to bomb Iran, Hamas’ main backers. Secondly, he kept up an unusual and in the long run beneficial relationship, political and business, with Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States as a whole. He asked no moral questions and made no ethical demand of them, and entered into both private and public business deals with those countries, precisely the kind of powerful leader they wish to have on their side.

    Thirdly, he sustained incredibly close and powerful diplomatic and personal relations with Israel both in his first term, and in the opening months of his second term, including breaking the anathema of relocating American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. He also went more than one step better in backing Israel unconditionally in its war in Gaza, at least publicly, while privately bringing enormous pressure to bear on the Israeli prime minister. It made it possible for him to compel Mr Netanyahu to apologise to Qatar for the attempt on Hamas leaders’ lives in Doha early September. And it also made it possible to leverage on his enormous popularity in Israel to compel Mr Netanyahu to agree to the ceasefire deal over and above the objections and reservations of Israeli political coalition leaders.

    The second angle, entirely constituted by Mr Netanyahu himself, is even more profound than the Trump angle. He may be a corrupt and controversial politician, and may be mercurial to boot, but he has the right instincts of a leader. At a time when most of Israel believed it was brinkmanship to engage in some of the wider and ramifying actions he took in the past two years on the international stage, the prime minister doubled down on his decisions, stuck to his guns, gingerly held on to his Knesset coalition, and broke so many diplomatic tables that no one thought possible. It took nerves to launch a blitzkrieg on Iran, decimate Hezbollah, while at the same time fighting a vicious campaign next door, in Gaza and Syria, and long range strikes against Yemen. The extraordinary and unprecedented military successes that greeted his efforts earned Israel global respect, even if the world, minus America, deplored and loathed Mr Netanyahu’s gung-ho policies. He showed what it is to be a leader, that it cares less about public relations, that it is about courage, intuition, and tactical brilliance. Yes, Israel fought a similar war in 1967 during the Six-Day War, but in its recent campaigns it made the world glimpse technology’s lethal effect on modern warfare. Indeed, it took a Trump and Netanyahu leadership nexus to unfurl the frightening and apocalyptic possibilities which determined leaders are capable of conjuring.

    The third angle, constituted by Qatar, Turkiye and Egypt, is no less crucial for the resolution of the Gaza conflict, and they will continue to play a huge role in pacifying the region in the years ahead. Without their efforts, it is doubtful whether the ceasefire could have been reached at the time it happened. Hamas, it has become clear, miscalculated in instigating the war in Octobers 2023. They knew they stood no chance of defeating Israel militarily, but they counted on Hezbollah to pressure Israel from the North, Iran to give back-up should it be needed, and the rest of the world to give it public relations advantage because of the untold humanitarian catastrophe expected to be unleashed. They didn’t count on Mr Trump’s return to the White House, probably misjudged the resolve of Mr Netanyahu and his vulnerable Knesset coalition, and had romantic ideas of what influence the outraged world could muster. Worse, they never believed Israel could dismantle the Axis of Resistance so rapidly and so effortlessly, nor budge over the humanitarian disaster the invasion would trigger. Having embedded their command posts, armouries and tactical units beneath and within public buildings such as schools and hospitals and international organisations buildings, Hamas hoped to achieve some form of stalemate. All the calculations, however, unravelled quickly.

    Read Also: “Nigeria’s leadership and commitment to peace and security on the continent”. At the briefing were Mr Wale Edun

    Now, as a result of that attack on October 7, 2023, the power dynamics of the Middle East has been reconfigured. Lebanon stands the chance of reclaiming its sovereignty from Hezbollah’s stranglehold; Iran is weakened and a shadow of itself, particularly of its boastful self; Syrian militias toppled the Assad dynasty because Iranian support was no longer available; nearly the entire Hamas leadership has been wiped out making it possible for the Palestinian Authority operating form the West Bank to lay claims to Gaza; Gaza lies in absolute ruins and will be administered by external forces in the foreseeable future; and Israel has emerged much stronger than before the war, with Mr Netanyahu’s political and leadership reputation considerably bolstered.

    However, the world must watch out for the unseen consequences of the war. Mr Trump may be widely acknowledged for his diplomatic skills today, but the essential core of those skills, if world history and end times prophecy are anything to go by, are much brittler than imagined. Fascists, of whom Mr Trump is arguably numbered, often achieve great successes and triumphs in the short run; but in the long run, they collapse under the weight of their eccentricities and contradictions. The US president is today acclaimed in the US, Israel, and Middle East, but his achievements have been secured mostly by bullying tactics, domestic and international, and by taking advantage of the follies and foibles of incompetent or timid regional leaders. He will come to grief sooner or later, possibly damaging America’s reputation irreparably. For Israel, the ceasefire and the hostages release may buoy the reputation of Mr Netanyahu, but as a student of history, he will recall that the spectacular success of the 1970 Yom Kippur War was insufficient to save the leadership of Gold Meir who was blamed for the country’s lack of preparedness and initial military setbacks that caused massive casualties. She accepted blame and resigned in 1974.

    For Hamas, having retarded the Palestinian cause by its terrible miscalculations, not to say damage Gaza’s infrastructure and caused nearly 70,000 dead, it may be the end of the road. Neither they nor the less influential Islamic Jihad, will play any significant role in Gaza for a long time. Even if they try to play some political role in the future, they are unlikely to meet with as much success as they had after they took control of the strip in June 2007. Nor will they have the kind of financial assistance from the Gulf States as they had previously received. A ceasefire may have taken effect, but the long-term goal of a two-state solution may remain far-fetched. They toyed with it after Camp David Accords of 1978 and the Oslo I & II Accords of 1993 and 1995, but a final peace treaty was torpedoed by Palestinian leaders. It is not certain that such a zero-sum game is not still the regnant philosophy in the disputed region. Indeed, the last has not been heard of the war, the last one being the fifth in the series of Israel-Hamas wars.

  • Discourses on Gen Irabor’s Boko Haram conundrum

    Discourses on Gen Irabor’s Boko Haram conundrum

    This is not a review of former Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Lucky Irabor‘s book, ‘Scars: Nigeria’s journey and the Boko Haram Conundrum’. In the next one or two weeks, if not more, discussions on the book will in the meantime centre on the discourses of about four notable Nigerians who addressed issues in  the book presented in Abuja last Friday. The review itself will come a little later, after Nigerians must have exhausted themselves examining the pontifications of the eminent quartet who declaimed on the Boko Haram menace. By inviting such high-profile personalities to the launching, the author probably suspected that he could be overshadowed, and some of the things the invitees said might be given more weight than the conundrums he tried to raise in his book. Authors are usually more finicky about facts and logic when writing books, probably because of their permanence, but flippant commentators often grandstand.

    As he is accustomed at public functions which he has attended over the years since he left office, former president Olusegun Obasanjo is either the keynote speaker or chairman. He does not settle for less. Sometimes, he even combines the two roles by making ponderous assertions in both capacities, not because he plans it that way, but because the media end up attaching more significance to his statements. Fortunately for Gen. Irabor, though Chief Obasanjo chaired the public presentation, what he had to say, while significant and even weighty, did not overshadow the contributions of other notable speakers like former president Goodluck Jonathan, Bishop Mathew Hassan Kukah, and the Sultan of Sokoto, Muhammadu Sa’ad Abubakar. Each of these eminent persons gave a good account of himself, dissecting Boko Haram and its leadership and objectives as well as taking potshots at succeeding administrations characterised as incapable of resolving the crisis which began in 2009 during the Umaru Yar’Adua presidency.

    Chief Obasanjo’s opinion was predictably didactic. Though his view was not the most eloquent, paling by comparison with those of Dr Jonathan and the crossfire between Bishop Kukah and Sultan Abubakar, it merited significant attention for casting doubt on the competence and thoroughness of successive administrations, starting with the late President Yar-Adua. Recounting his trip to Maiduguri to interrogate the Boko Haram issue, he told his audience in Abuja on Friday that he established the existence of the group and all its attendant menaces, but wondered whether successive governments had taken pains to study and decode the phenomenon or whether they were active and proactive about tackling or smothering it. He concluded that he was uncertain Boko Haram was anything more than a socio-economic revolt instead of the long-held belief of its politico-religious beginnings. He also added that he was appalled by the fatalism of successive administrations, especially how they had resigned themselves to accommodating or coexisting with the terror group. The former president’s views are undoubtedly succinct, but it is doubtful whether his audience thought those views were also incontrovertible.

    Despite not been the most convincing or salient, Dr Jonathan’s perspective seemed to have dominated the Saturday papers and even the social media. He insisted his administration did everything possible, both kinetic and non-kinetic, to defeat the rebellion, including setting up fact-finding teams and negotiating committees. All efforts, he said, went up in smoke. But it was when he made a passing remark about his successor’s lack of breakthrough in the counterinsurgency efforts that he stirred up a hornets’ nest. He whispered that he had thought ex-president Muhammadu Buhari, whom Boko Haram once nominated as their negotiator, would be more successful in tackling the rebellion because he presumably had their confidence. His successor’s lack of success, he concluded with some relief, if not self-justification, explained why he himself failed in resolving the crisis, adding that it all showed the intricacies and complexities of Boko Haram. Critics immediately lashed out at Dr Jonathan, accusing him of embracing and peddling falsehoods, when in fact, according to a former spokesman of the late president, Garba Shehu, Boko Haram leaders refuted their appointment of any negotiator.

    The most interesting and probably spontaneous exchange took place between Bishop Kukah, the book reviewer, and Sultan Abubakar. The bishop had drawn a nexus between the Boko Haram rebellion and the opportunistic action of some northern elite who hid under the rebellion’s cover to advance political objectives. He insisted that regardless of whatever anyone says Boko Haram leaders knew their religious fundamentals and went warring under that flag. Without necessarily spelling it out clearly, the bishop subscribed to the well-known conclusion that a section of the northern elite did not seem to mind the ethnic and religious cleansing perpetrated by Boko Haram in its initial years. They in fact engaged in far-reaching conspiracy by embracing the rebellion and describing the insurgents as their sons who should not be massacred. But the sultan stoutly rose against both the nexus between the rebellion and political power as well as the insinuation that the North resented the Jonathan presidency. Islam or even jihad, the sultan argued, was not about killing others or violence, but about being better citizens, first and foremost. His view was almost coterminous with that of Chief Obasanjo who had downplayed the religious factor in the rebellion.

    Both Bishop Kukah and Sultan Abubakar may ironically be right. What Boko Haram leaders did, particularly in its first five or so years, was to prosecute their cause under the banner of Islam. That exercise may be right or wrong, and the sultan has insisted it was wrong; but they did it anyway. So, when the sultan debunked the notion that Islam had a political side to it, especially in rousing the faithful to seize political power, he was theoretically right. And when the bishop also argued that Boko Haram used Islam as a pretext to make a bid for power, or caliphate as they called it, he was also right, regardless of the insurgents’ flawed interpretation of the Quran, and even regardless of the falsehoods they had promoted under the banner of Islam. It is indeed interesting that the mask is now off, as no Boko Haram leader continues to fight under the banner of Islam. After being massively degraded over the years, Boko Haram, together with its more violent, well-funded, and ideological cousin, ISWAP, is now all about caliphate.

    Read Also: Minister Oyetola: Marine, blue economy set to replace oil as Nigeria’s main revenue source

    What is incontestable, as the book presentation reflected, is that the rebellion was difficult to categorise in its early years, just as a section of the northern elite also seemed to have misjudged the rebellion and reposed hope in its violent methods which they erroneously but privily thought would help birth the theocracy of their boyish fancies. The deception went on for years until the rebellion began to consume its own children, while the commentators also agreed that till today the country has not yet understood the dynamic of the rebellion. They are right. To assume that poverty alone could generate the uprising witnessed in Boko Haram, as Chief Obasanjo seemed to suggest, may be inaccurate. Yes, there is alienation in the country, and indeed Nigeria, by the actions of successive administrations, has proved alienating. But far more than poverty, the chief cause of alienation is arguably the misshapen structure of the federation which promotes inefficiency, disconnection, and ethnic and religious conflicts that keep morphing hideously. As a matter of fact, just as Boko Haram rebellion in the Northeast seemed to be weakening, banditry in the Northwest began gathering momentum; and worse, that second rebellion is slowly spreading southward.

    In the coming weeks, it will be clear whether Gen. Irabor did a fine job of capturing the major issues surrounding the Boko Haram rebellion, and whether his prognosis stands any chance of convincing anyone. But judging from the four or so discourses the newspapers copiously reported yesterday, it is unclear that the four speakers or successive administrations have fully understood the hows and the whys of the rebellion. They are just beating around the bush. Dichotomising the approaches to dealing with the rebellion to kinetic and non-kinetic measures, in addition to the questionable prognoses of forgiving and rehabilitating so-called former militants at extraordinary costs to the public, show that no rigour has gone into formulating the responses to Boko Haram or banditry, or any of the urgent security challenges the country has faced in recent years.