Category: Nuances

  • Tinubu: From baobab to serial election winner

    Tinubu: From baobab to serial election winner

    In celebrating his 73rd birthday a week ago, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu received very many goodwill messages. Of the lot, a particularly striking one was by former President Muhammadu Buhari who described President Tinubu as “a serial winner of democratic elections.” This compliment confirms President Tinubu’s claim, in his famous pre-primary election “Emilokan” speech delivered to party faithful on 3 June, 2022 in Abeokuta, Ogun State. He said, on that occasion, that former President Buhari invited him to be his vice-presidential candidate in the 2015 election, because Asiwaju Bola Tinubu had never lost an election.

    In this regard, in a 24 November, 2023 article titled “Tinubu, the baobab,” published in this paper, but outside this column, this writer noted: “President Tinubu’s life experience, I believe, is the stuff of which legends are made, and his is the epitome of a grace-filled life. He won a senate seat at the first attempt, won the governorship seat at the first attempt, and won the presidential election at the first attempt. The crowning glory of this legendary winning streak would be his institution of sustainable good governance in Nigeria.”

    Incidentally, with respect to this objective, the President remarked as follows at the special Ramadhan fast-breaking dinner he hosted at the Presidential Villa on 29 March, 2025: “Those who are very close to me knew the odds were very much against me. … I almost dropped the idea of running, of continuing the race. … When I assumed office, it was extremely difficult. But the day of the inauguration … I had to decide on what is not in the original script of my speech. It’s on the subsidy. I looked straight into the crowd … and I knew what was in the handing over note that I reviewed a night before. … I had to decide. Whichever way it comes, the hallmark of a great leader is the ability to decide to do what you have to do at the time it ought to be done. That was the day I said the subsidy is gone. The following day, floated the currency.”

    The President continued: “I was hounded and abused, thoroughly criticized in the papers. But I believe in the cause of retooling our economy and changing the narrative of our nation. Not because of me, but because we were spending the money that belongs to our generation yet unborn in advance, ahead of their birth. It cannot continue. We reversed the situation. It is less than two years in office. The economy is turned round. We’ve taught management to ourselves. … We must achieve food security and sovereignty for our country. … We’re about less than 24 months in the administration. What they think … will blow up in our face is giving us the hope and Nigeria is turning around.”

    Read Also: Food prices drop, ease cost of living

    In one respect, while acknowledging the positive impact of President Tinubu’s policies, the Guardian of 15 March, 2025 reported Governor Dapo Abiodun of Ogun State to have said: “Looking at it, 20 to 22 months down the road, to the glory of God, with your wisdom, tenacity, far-sightedness, and your Renewed Hope initiative, this is the first time in the history of this country that we will be fasting while the cost of foodstuffs is coming down. … Inflation, which we were all afraid of, is also coming down. The price of petrol is also coming down every week. I congratulate him for this feat.”

    In contrast, Malam Buba Galadima, a member of the New Nigeria Peoples Party (NNPP) and one of President Tinubu’s staunch critics, was quoted in The Nation’s Hardball column of 14 March, 2025 to have said that the fall in food prices was as a result of food imports and that “this will make the economy of the North, which depends on agriculture, to dwindle as many won’t be able to farm again to gain any meaningful profit.” As Hardball rightly asked, “Pray, who does falling food prices hurt?  The northern ‘Talakawas’ that need cheap food to make life more livable?  Or the rich that would spend even less on food, while sinking their excess money into more earthly comfort?  Who?” Hardball also rightly noted: “Galadima has a right to play whatever politics he likes, no matter how senseless.  Still, his illogical take – ease on food prices as anti-northern conspiracy – is likely to make him the butt of jokes, even among the northern masses he is trying to hoodwink.”

    President Tinubu has made some new friends, due to the unimaginable patronage they have received from him; and he has made some new enemies, due to the unfulfilled expectations of some of his erstwhile backers. Strangely enough, some opposition politicians have been accusing him of inciting crises in their parties in order to facilitate his winning of a second term election in 2027. In a particularly noteworthy example, former Governor of Kaduna State, Malam Nasir el-Rufai, an erstwhile supporter of President Tinubu and former member of the All Progressive Congress (APC), said to some leaders of his new party, the Social Democratic Party (SDP): “The crisis … in the Labour Party is contrived. It is funded by the government of the day. Everyone knows it. Jumping from one court to another is all designed to distract the party leadership from focusing on their core functions.”

    El-Rufai continued: “The same thing is happening in the PDP. Even the NNPP has been targeted for destruction. There are people that have resourced to go and cause problems in NNPP. The last thing I read about NNPP was that one faction of the party has expelled Kwankwaso and the sitting governor. When you see things like that you know it’s contrived crisis. Which party sacks a sitting governor, and the only governor they have? You know it’s contrived. I don’t have the details. I cannot mention names.”

    Another of President Tinubu’s erstwhile supporters is Mr. Dele Momodu, a former presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). On the heels of the President’s declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State and the suspension of Governor Fubara, the Deputy Governor and the members of the House of Assembly, Dele Momodu said: “I think it is very unfortunate. I know President Tinubu very, very, very well. Though I’ve not been in the same party with him and all that, we were together in exile, and he fought gallantly for this democracy. So a lot of us, co-comrades at that time, are actually very embarrassed that we have a pro-democracy leader in government, and yet what we are witnessing is worse than dictatorship.”

    Interestingly and ironically, Dele Momodu counselled: “You must deepen our democracy, which President Goodluck Jonathan succeeded in doing, which Obasanjo succeeded in doing, despite allegations and accusations of a third term attempt, still managed to hand over power to President Yar’Adua.” He also noted: “He [President Tinubu] should just do his job. The only thing that can guarantee a second term is to do your job well. You do not need to intimidate anybody.”

    All considered, it would be a fitting birthday tribute to recap below the 24 November, 2023 article titled “Tinubu, the baobab,” which was referred to earlier in the present article:

    “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s Yoruba ethnic group has an interesting proverb about ascendancy: Eni t’ó bá ma ga, esè rè á tínrín. (‘Those who would be tall cannot avoid having thin legs.’) Being tall here is the metaphor for recording the highest levels of achievement or reaching the highest rungs on the social ladder. Thin legs, on the other hand, are the metaphor for all the vicissitudes, cumulative challenges and obstacles encountered on the way to the top. No doubt, President Tinubu has had more than his fair share of these legs.

    “The president has, like Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar, received the unkindest cut of all from people who, in the normal course of affairs, should be there for him. In fact, a review of the politicking preceding the 2022 All Progressives Congress (APC) presidential primary shows clearly that many aspects of the denigration of Asiwaju Bola Tinubu by Peter Obi (the presidential candidate of Labour Party – LP), Atiku Abubakar (the presidential candidate of the Peoples Democratic Party – PDP) and their followers were leftovers from the derogation of Asiwaju by significant sections of the Yoruba elite. This bears out the Yoruba proverb that says that the enemy is in the backyard, but the traitor lives right within the house with the target.

    “Some detractors have stridently cast aspersions on every bit of the president’s life and have invested huge resources into dragging him through the mud. Considering all the denigration, flagellation, sabotage, ingratitude and peer envy the president has suffered for so long, it is understandable for him, warts and all, to have earned substantial sympathy. Providentially, at every turn, he has been lifted well above his detractors.

    “Getting this far in life in spite of the seemingly overwhelming challenges on his path is enigmatic. Steadily, his detractors have inadvertently been creating a mystique around him, making him to live out the Yoruba saying, that the more they debark the baobab tree, the fatter it becomes. I found it noteworthy that a columnist with Nigerian Tribune, Suyi Ayodele, placed the president in the class of àkàndá. Specifically, in the article titled, “Salute to Melchizedek of Nigeria”, he said: “There are people known in Yoruba worldview as Àkàndá (special beings). Everything about them is a mystery (Àdììtú). They get away with everything that would easily consume other mere mortals.” …

    “In this regard, the following articulation by Yap Kioe Sheng of the United Nations (UN) outline of the essentials of good governance is noteworthy: “Good governance has eight major characteristics. It is participatory, consensus-oriented, accountable, transparent, responsive, effective and efficient, equitable and inclusive and follows the rule of law. It assures that corruption is minimized, the views of minorities are considered and that the voices of the most vulnerable in society are heard in decision-making. It is also responsive to the present and future needs of society.” As another UN-related perspective states, the key question any effort towards good governance would seek to answer is: “Are the institutions of governance effectively guaranteeing the right to health, adequate housing, sufficient food, quality education, fair justice and personal security?”

    “President Bola Ahmed Tinubu should not be deterred by detractors of whatever hue. And when he has recorded optimal success with respect to the above-mentioned indices of good governance, as his Renewed Hope Agenda promises, this nation would have been blessed with a profound visionary, an undisputable hero and an epochal and enduring inspirational figure.”

    As President Tinubu continues to savour his 73rd birthday celebrations, here’s wishing him more grace.

  • The Rivers state of emergency

    The Rivers state of emergency

    In a national broadcast on 18 March, 2025, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu, exercising the powers conferred on him by Section 305 of the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria, as amended, declared a state of emergency in Rivers State to resolve the political logjam in the state arising from the feud between Governor Siminalayi Fubara and the Rivers State House of Assembly. The crisis had led to the demolition of the House of Assembly complex, the running of the state with only four or three legislators loyal to the Governor and the seizure of the salaries and entitlements of the 27 lawmakers whom he believed were disloyal to him and could impeach him. The terms of the state of emergency included the suspension for six months of Governor Fubara, his Deputy Governor (Mrs. Ngozi Odu) and the elected members of the House of Assembly and the nomination of an Administrator (Vice-Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas) to run the affairs of the state during the period.

    The President referred to the Supreme Court judgement of 28 February, 2025, which observed: “a government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a state under the 1999 Constitution as amended. In this case the head of the executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the legislature to enable him to govern without the legislature as a despot. As it is there is no government in Rivers State.” He also noted: “The Supreme Court then made some orders to restore the state to immediate constitutional democracy.” Still, “both the House and the governor have not been able to work together. Both of them do not realise that they are in office to work together for the peace and good governance of the state.” He also noted: “The latest security reports made available to me show that between yesterday and today there have been disturbing incidents of vandalization of pipelines by some militants without the governor taking any action to curtail them.”

    Usually, on a controversial constitutional issue such as the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State, the Nigeria Bar Association (NBA) is expected to be the point of reference and the arbiter, and its opinions are expected to be definitive and authoritative. Unfortunately, in the present circumstance, the views of the NBA have not been of much help. For example, in its reaction to the state of emergency, an 18 March, 2025 release by the NBA President, Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, stated: “These [constitutional] provisions provide that a state of emergency declared by the President does not assume automatic validity. It requires legislative ratification within a defined timeframe to remain in effect.”

    The NBA further declared: “A state of emergency is an extraordinary measure that must be invoked strictly within constitutional limits. The removal of elected officials under the pretext of emergency rule is unconstitutional and unacceptable.” Mazi Afam Osigwe, SAN, then declared: “The NBA, therefore, emphasizes that the National Assembly should not approve the declaration of a state of emergency in Rivers State as the same is unconstitutional.”

    Read Also: Why NGF is silent on Rivers crisis, by DG Shittu

    Probably taking their cue from the NBA, the Peoples Democratic Party, through its National Publicity Secretary, Debo Ologunagba, on 19 March, 2025, also said: “Section 305(2) of the Constitution clearly states that the President must transmit the proclamation to the National Assembly, which must approve it before it takes effect. Tinubu’s order for immediate implementation is a blatant violation of the Constitution.” Ologunagba further claimed: “The purported suspension of Governor Fubara is unconstitutional, impracticable, invalid, and completely out of the question. No provision of the Constitution empowers the President to dismantle a sub-national government or suspend a democratically elected governor under any circumstances.”

    However, some commentators have been more cautious. For example, Babatunde Ogala, SAN, in a TVC interview titled “I see Fubara return as governor after suspension is lifted – Ogala”, on 19 March, 2025 said: “In my opinion, I think NBA perhaps should have tarried a while before speaking out.” He then noted: “The first step the constitution prescribes is the proclamation; so that the President takes action first and goes for ratification. … It did not say that he must seek the consent first before proclamation. Proclamation comes first. He has to declare first before going to the National Assembly.”

    This view is consistent with Section 305(6)(b) of the 1999 Constitution which states: “(6) A Proclamation issued by the President under this section shall cease to have effect – … if it affects the Federation or any part thereof and within two days when the National Assembly is in session, or within ten days when the National Assembly is not in session, after its publication, there is no resolution supported by two-thirds majority of all the members of each House of the National Assembly approving the Proclamation.”

    Babatunde Ogala, SAN, further noted with respect to President Tinubu’s suspension of the Governor, Deputy Governor and the elected members of the Rivers State House of Assembly: “When you declare a state of emergency, it is unusual times … Let us wait for the National Assembly to say no, you cannot suspend. Those are his [the President’s] terms of the state of emergency, because the state of emergency is not just a blanket thing. He could declare a state of emergency and say we retain all structures. He could declare a state of emergency and say maybe it’s the legislative arm we are suspending.” 

    In addition, Babatunde Ogala, SAN, said: “The Supreme Court had consolidated about eight different appeals and the key thing the Supreme Court said – this is the highest court of the land – they had said the governor was … behaving like a despot, that governance had ceased in the state. … The Court made allusion to the demolition of the House of Assembly, how the House had been scuttled, how he was running the state without that other structure for governance. So, in clean conscience, can we really say there was a democratic structure in Rivers without a House of Assembly? … Nothing thus far has been done that is not in accordance with the Constitution. Nothing.”

    Honourable Justice (Prof.) Mojeed Owoade (rtd.) also observed, in a 19 March, 2025 Arise News interview: “The law is dicey. Nobody seems to know the limit of Section 305, except it is properly interpreted. … Yes, Section 188 talks about how a governor can be removed: impeachment, sickness, et cetera. No one is sure that that precludes removal in a state of emergency. Like I said, that is for interpretation.”

    Furthermore, popular Lagos-based lawyer, Mr. Jiti Ogunye, asserted in a TVC interview on “Beyond 100 Days with Nifemi Oguntoye” on 19 March, 2025: “I’m aware that a number of lawyers in Nigeria, including the Nigeria Bar Association, have contested the power of the President to suspend a governor and members of the House of Assembly while declaring a state of emergency. In all these public declarations or pontifications or enlightenments, as the case may be, nobody has been able to cite a precedent in Nigeria by which a court of law positively and categorically declared that kind of action by previous Presidents or Prime Minister to be illegal and unconstitutional. I’m a lawyer. Lawyers live by and they practise by precedents and decided cases … and so what has occurred largely will be regarded as enlightened opinion. I won’t say guesses. Enlightened opinions on what the issues are. … People are speaking too affirmatively when there is no guidance, case law guidance, on the subject.”

    Jiti Ogunye continued: “Historically in this country, declaration of a state of emergency on ‘a political crisis’ has always come with these kinds of suspension. … So, the point I’m making is that while there is nothing under Section 305 that clearly permits a President to take this step … there is no case law precedent prohibiting that conduct as we speak. So, all of us are then left with our own opinions.”

    The conflicting or contradictory or superficial or even emotional views of sundry legal practitioners have given room for a wide range of non-experts to pontificate magisterially on the constitutionality and legality of declaring the state of emergency by President Bola Tinubu and his suspension of Governor Fubara, his Deputy and the elected members of the House of Assembly. This situation has resulted in what is called the “Dunning-Kruger effect.”  According to Healthline.com, the Dunning-Kruger effect “is a type of cognitive bias [or delusional self-perception] that causes people to overestimate their knowledge or ability, particularly in areas with which they have little to no experience.” The debate on the state of emergency in Rivers State has therefore continued to be muddied with all sorts of sentimental outbursts and illogical arguments passing off as informed opinions.

    Meanwhile, as the Alhaji Atiku Abubakar-led coalition of opposition political parties was stoking dissent by the National Assembly members on 20 March, 2025, and directing or urging them not to approve President Tinubu’s declaration of the state of emergency in Rivers state, both arms of the National Assembly were critically examining the details of the declaration. At the end of the day, both the Senate and the House of Representatives approved both the declaration of the state of emergency and the suspension of the Governor, the Deputy Governor and elected members of the House of Assembly.

    It is heartening that in his speech at the Presidential Villa, Abuja, after his swearing in on 19 March, 2025 as the Administrator of Rivers State, Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd.), said that he recognised that the task before him was “to work together with other stakeholders to ensure that we bring peace, order and security and stability to the people and government of Rivers State and Nigeria at large”.

    In addition to these commitments, the Administrator should, as a matter of priority, pay the 27 legislators whose salaries and entitlements were stopped by Governor Fubara. He should also note that, arising from the Fubara-Legislature conflict, the elders in Rivers State have suffered collateral damage, with neither of the feuding sides respecting them. Vice Admiral Ibok-Ete Ibas (rtd.) therefore needs to do all he can to bridge the divide, restore confidence in the elders and get them to interact harmoniously for the benefit of the people of the state.

    Moreover, given the shambolic Local Government elections which held under Governor Fubara on 5 October, 2024 and have now been rightly declared null and void by the Supreme Court, it is important for the Administrator to organise new free and fair Local Government elections or at least prepare the ground for free and fair elections to hold into the offices of that very crucial level of government.

  • Fubara and Politics 102

    Fubara and Politics 102

    In a 31 December, 2023 article titled “Fubara and Politics 101,” this column outlined aspects of politics that Governor Fubara needed to pay attention to. These include: “One, the interest of the Governor and the state, on one hand, and those of the Governor’s presumed supporters, on the other, may be diametrically opposite. … Two, a good politician knows that genuflections and affectations of love for an incumbent office holder are superficial and usually end as the tenure of the holder ends. … Three, as in play-fighting by goats, real politicians do not normally fight with their eyes closed, do not fight to finish and rarely hurt one another fundamentally while fighting. … Four, political feuds between political associates are like elixirs.”

    With his governance style, it is not clear how much Governor Fubara has given these lessons consideration. But his standing in the eyes of the law is clear. The Supreme Court in its lead judgement of 28 February, 2025 delivered by Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, Justice, Supreme Court, remarked: “The Appellant [Governor Fubara] that has passion in violating the provisions of the Constitution that he swore to uphold with impunity, disobeying Court’s order at all will using his immunity under Section 308 of 1999 Constitution as a cover is breaking the bridge over which he himself will cross. … My Lords, democracy is anchored on the rule of law not on the rule of might.”

    Justice Agim further noted: “A government cannot be said to exist without one of the three arms that make up the government of a State under the 1999 Constitution. In this case, the Head of the Executive arm of the government has chosen to collapse the Legislature to enable him govern without the Legislature as a despot. As it is there is no government in Rivers State.”

    The first lesson in Politics 102 which Governor Fubara therefore needs to hold dearly is that, whatever his motives may be, he should subject his actions to the test of due process and the rule of law.  In this regard, the lead judgement by Jamilu Yammama Tukur, Justice, Supreme Court, held that “In consequence of the failure to abide by the extant provisions of the Electoral Act Regulating the conduct of the election to the Local Government Areas in Rivers State of 5th October 2024 the said election is hereby declared invalid pursuant to the Provision of Section 150(3) of the Electoral Act 2022.”

    Read Also: The case for a Tinubu second term

    Moreover, on the presumed defection of the 27 lawmakers, the Judgement delivered by Uwani Musa Abba Aji, Justice, Supreme Court, ruled: “Similarly, the media was agog also with the charade and façade of defection from PDP to APC by the Hon. Martin Amaewhule-led members of  the Rivers State House of Assembly. However, while the media most times may deal with public opinions and comments, the court of law deals with facts, which are sacred. … In the instant case, the evidence of defection of the 27 lawmakers of Rivers State House of Assembly to APC has been left in the limbo or completely not present for this court to act upon.”

    Citing Section 96 of the 1999 Constitution which provides that “The quorum of the House of Assembly shall be one third of the members of the House,” Emmanuel Akomaye Agim, Justice, Supreme Court, noted: “4 out of 31 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly cannot by any stretch of imagination constitute required quorum for transacting a legislative business of the Rivers State House of Assembly. The conduct of the Appellant in presenting the Appropriation Bill to 4 out of 31 members of the Rivers State House of Assembly is a gross violation of Section 91 of 1999 Constitution as amended he swore to uphold when he took the oath of office and oath of allegiance of the Constitution.”

     As a result, the Court ordered as follows in the lead judgement read by Justice Agim: “(1) The Central Bank of Nigeria and the Accountant General of the Federation should forthwith stop releasing and paying to the Government of Rivers State, its organs, departments and officials any money belonging to the Rivers State until an Appropriation Law is made by Rivers State House of Assembly constituted as prescribed by the 1999 Constitution. (2) The Right Honorable Martin Chike Amaewhule and the other 26 members should forthwith resume unhindered sitting as Speaker and members respectively of the Rivers State House of Assembly. (3) The Rivers State House of Assembly should resume sitting with all elected members forthwith.”

    The second lesson in Politics 102 which Governor Fubara has, incidentally, learnt through direct experience is that political relationships are dynamic, and that old mindsets cannot be used to conduct new businesses.   This is exemplified in the Governor’s visit to the Rivers State House of Assembly on 12 March, 2025 without a clear and mutually agreed understanding of what the preliminary processes should be.

    According to the Governor, speaking in front of the locked gates of the Rivers State House of Assembly, he was at the House “to comply with the Supreme Court judgement. Before my arrival, I’ve already made several attempts by phone call to reach the Speaker and other members. I also did a letter personally which was transmitted to the Honourable Speaker for this particular invitation. But it’s unfortunate that, at the gate, you can see that the place is completely sealed and there’s no sign that anything is going to happen today. … Well, I don’t think there’s anything to worry about. Maybe, they’re working on the letter. I expect to hear from them, maybe after this hour.”

    In the letter personally signed by the Governor and dated 11 March, 2025, and published by Channels Television on 12 March, 2025, he wrote: “[We] wish to notify Mr. Speaker of our desire and intention to present the 2025 Rivers State Appropriation Bill to the Rivers State House of Assembly on Wednesday 12 March 2025 by 10:00 a.m.” It appears as if this letter and the unsettlingly short ‘notice of meeting’ rather than ‘request for meeting’ did not make allowance for due bureaucratic processing of the letter. It also seemed to have been underlain by the attitude that the Governor, rather than the Speaker, had the overriding say in the scheduling of the legislative budget presentation meeting. The Governor himself probably recognised the problem with this presumption when he said: “Maybe, they’re working on the letter.”

    Moreover, was an advance party of the Governor’s aides not expected to have been at the House of Assembly to assess the situation on ground and advise their principal appropriately? The spectacle created at the gate to the legislative complex where a helpless Governor Fubara was shut out was not sufficiently elevating, especially considering the fact that he had in the past called that same complex “my property”. The status of the legislators has been immensely enhanced since the 28 February, 2025 Supreme Court judgement. The Governor should therefore desist from any conduct that has the potential to demystify him or attract indignities to his office.

    The third lesson is that any politician who intends to go far should identify successful or influential politicians and read their lives like a book. Governor Fubara should realise that the only shortcut to experience is vicarious experience. He needs to ask himself the following questions: How have or do they handle benefactors, ingrates and political peers? How have or do they navigate obstacles? How have or do they deploy silence? And when they decide to speak, how have or do they do it to ensure that their opponents pay attention?

    To cite one example, if Governor Fubara didn’t know of President Tinubu’s political sagacity as at 18 December, 2023 when he brokered a peace deal between the feuding sides in Rivers State, at least he knows the President’s political far-sightedness now that the Supreme Court has settled the legal issues in the Rivers State Peoples Democratic Party crisis. In both the Abuja resolutions and the Supreme Court judgement, Governor Fubara has been asked to recognise the 27 pro-Wike lawmakers and re-present the state’s budget to the whole House of Assembly to repair the travesty of having questionably presented it to only 4 or 3 lawmakers loyal to him. At a meeting with a delegation of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF) at the Presidential Villa on 11 March, 2025, President Tinubu advised Governor Fubara to obey the Supreme Court judgement, and enjoined PANDEF to help him to do so.

    The fourth lesson of Politics 102 is that a politician needs to maintain a very sharp focus. The focus dictates consistency, prioritisation of interests and sacrifice. Governor Fubara has noted that a lot of the state’s resources have been wasted on the crisis. It was therefore hope-inspiring that while commissioning the Judges’ Quarters on 11 March, 2025, the Governor acknowledged, with due deference, the presence of legal luminary Sir O.C.J. Okocha, SAN, whom he had publicly demeaned in the past. However, he followed this with the crisis-perpetuating act of treating the House of Assembly members with less than due respect with regard to the ill-advised hasty attempt to visit the legislature to re-present the budget on 12 March, 2025.

    Governor Fubara needs to be advised that paying the 27 legislators their withheld salaries and entitlements does not require a meeting between them and the Governor.  There are records of the value of each legislator’s salary and the number of months for which it was withheld. As a measure of goodwill, the Governor should just direct the appropriate financial officers of the state government to pay the outstanding salaries and entitlements. He should avoid any foot-dragging that could question his sincerity regarding working towards enduring reconciliation.

    The fifth lesson is that, as William Shakespeare put it, sweet are the uses of adversity. All of the crisis in Rivers State may yet make the state a model of democratic practice. Since there seems to be a balance of forces between the Executive and the Legislature in the state, it may not be misplaced to hope for free and fair Local Government elections. If that happens, it would present the nation with a salutary model different from the cases in some states where, in their Local Government elections, election victors emerge without election figures.

    The situation has become so bad that there are widespread calls for the scrapping of the so-called State Independent Electoral Commissions charged with organising Chairmanship and Councilorship elections. Should proper Local Government elections be held in Rivers State, Governor Fubara would be the acknowledged champion of that democratic rebirth.

    In the coming days, the Governor will be receiving all sorts of advice. May the ones which will ease his troubles be sweeter to his ears.

  • The Lagos House of Assembly theatrics

    The Lagos House of Assembly theatrics

    The primary purpose of the Lagos State House of Assembly (LSHA) is to make laws for the smooth running of the government for the benefit of the people. It is not clear how much of that has been done in the last eight weeks. But you can’t but notice the one-per-day theatrics of that legislature. And how did it all start? The Speaker of the House of Assembly, Right Honourable Mudashiru Obasa, had gone on vacation in the United States. While away, reminiscent of how the Nigerian military used to execute coups d’état, disaffected members of the House of Assembly, without consulting major stakeholders in the politics and governance of the state, impeached and replaced him with Honourable Mojisola Meranda.

    When Obasa returned from the United States, believing that he had actually not been impeached, he endeavoured to take back his position as the Speaker of the House on 27 February, 2025. Since Meranda and her supporters had been digging in, they resisted Obasa’s move. And that was where the drama started, with even the Nigeria Police Force being dragged in. It therefore became necessary for the Governor’s Advisory Council (GAC) to intervene. GAC, by the way, is a body of eminent personalities with vast political and cognate experience set up by then-Governor Bola Ahmed Tinubu to provide guidance to whoever is the governor and to maintain the stability of the ruling party in Lagos State.

    Exonerating the GAC of any responsibility for the crisis, its Chair, Prince Tajudeen Olusi, was quoted by Leadership newspaper, in a 3 March, 2025 report, titled “Count GAC out of crisis rocking Lagos Assembly – Olusi,” to have stated: “Members of the GAC are not part of the Lagos State House of Assembly to allegedly be behind the removal of Obasa. It can’t be true. We read it also that morning. The lawmakers carried it out without consulting the party and those of us in the GAC. … The lawmakers have no absolute power to remove and install their leaders. Nobody can become a member of the House of Assembly unless sponsored by a political party, and the sponsors are the inspectors.”

    This position of the GAC Chair is consistent with Section 106(d) of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 as amended which states that “Subject to the provisions of section 107 of this Constitution, a person shall be qualified for election as a member of a House of Assembly if …  he is a member of a political party and is sponsored by that party.” The position also coheres with Section 29(1) of the 2022 Electoral Act which provides thus: “Every political party shall, not later than 180 days before the date appointed for a general election under this Act, submit to the Commission, in the prescribed Forms, the list of the candidates the party proposes to sponsor at the elections, who must have emerged from valid primaries conducted by the political party.”

    Moreover, the position of the GAC Chair is in agreement with the following provisions of the Constitution of the All Progressives Congress (APC) on the INEC Website at (https://www.inecnigeria.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/APC-Constitution.pdf) Article   7(iv-v) of the APC constitution states two of the objectives of the party as follows: “(iv) To sponsor eligible candidates and canvass for votes for election into all elective offices in all tiers of government. (v) To consciously pursue the implementation of the policies and programmes of the Party, through those of its members that are appointed or elected into government, legislative houses and Boards throughout the Federation.” In addition, Article 21 (A)(ii) of the APC Constitution states: “Offences against the Party shall include the following: … Anti-Party activities or any conduct, which is likely to embarrass or have adverse effect on the party or bring the party into hatred, contempt, ridicule or disrepute.”

    The contemptuous action of the legislators to remove Right Honourable Mudashiru Obasa as the Speaker of the LSHA and replace him with the Deputy Speaker, Honourable Mojisola Meranda, through subterfuge, thus seemed to have had a tinge of treachery about it. The action was probably motivated by a desire to hand the GAC a fait accompli which would be difficult to reverse without earning the members of that distinguished body some bad press. But the legislators probably forgot that the members of GAC were not spring chicken as far as political maneuvering was concerned. The legislators also seemed not to have been aware of the English proverb, “Cunning is the dwarf of wisdom.”

    Meanwhile, the drama continued, and as in every theatre, especially where contradictory emotions are evoked by the respective actors, the audience of the LSHA drama have been varied in their response, with some applauding and some condemning. This audience has been composed of newspaper columnists, opinion writers, electronic media analysts, social media commentators and sundry experts. And those who were gladdened by Obasa’s tribulations had been most resourceful in terms of logical fallacies and propaganda. These fallacies ranged from false analogies (such as comparing the situation in the LSHA to the crisis in Rivers State) to red herrings (such as ignoring the lawful role of political parties to guide their respective legislators on critical issues and then magnifying the point that it was with a majority of votes in the LSHA that Obasa was removed). In fact, some have been agonsing over the GAC resolution of the crisis.

    Those who have been arguing that the GAC intervention undermines the independence of the legislature, and democracy at large, need to be reminded that while the legislature does indeed have independence with respect to the executive and judicial arms of government, they have less independence with respect to the party that nominated and sponsored them for elections. Legislators who discountenance party supremacy are therefore inexcusably delusional, because we do not yet have independent candidates in Nigeria. That is why it is partys’ names and logos that appear on ballot papers, and not candidates’. In effect, the platform on which the legislators stand belongs to the party, and party leaders have the moral duty to stop it from being weakened. Should the platform collapse, the individual legislators have the escape route of defection to other parties. The legislators are thus like what is picturesquely described, in Yoruba, as “Igi dá, eye fò” (‘Birds that fly away as the twig breaks.’)

    Read Also: Lagos House of Assembly aspirant promises better representation

    It is for this reason that political parties have their respective party caucuses in Houses of Assembly to prevent members’ legislative actions from jeopardising overall party interests. Incidentally, the election of Meranda (who is from Lagos Central like Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu) on 13 January, 2025 created rumpus outside the House of Assembly, because it upset the geopolitical balance that the GAC had ensured with regard to the distribution of party and government leadership positions as a means of maintaining the stability of the party. The impeachment of Obasa (who is from Lagos West) therefore led to grumblings about marginalising his constituency. This is the deleterious kind of development that the GAC intervention has nipped in the bud.

     The wisdom of the GAC and key national figures in the party has seen Meranda resign as Speaker, along with some other officers. It has also seen her re-elected as Deputy Speaker, and Obasa re-elected as Speaker. In her resignation speech, Meranda stated: “I took the above decision in order to save this legislative institution from further unnecessary conflict and embarrassment … and in deference to … our esteemed political leaders. … Just like we know, … the party decision is supreme.” Also, in his speech as Speaker, Obasa said to the legislators: “I want to thank you for your support, your dedication, your loyalty and your staunch belief in our party and the utmost respect for our party leaders.” Both speeches acknowledge and express respect for party supremacy; and that is commendable, because, as a Yoruba proverb puts it, “Odò tó bá gbàgbé orísún rè á gbe.” (‘A river that forgets its source will dry up.’)

    There was ample arrogant display of unfamiliarity with or mischievous discountenance of the Nigerian constitution, the electoral law and political party constitutions and conventions by some very vocal or influential commentators on and analysts of the LSHA crisis. Some seemed to see the crisis as more of an opportunity to denigrate the APC or President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Critical issues surrounding the legislative misadventure were therefore disregarded. Some were also commenting as if they had an axe to grind with Obasa and got a wonderful opportunity, in the crisis, to even up with him and rub it in as harshly as they could. And they did kick the fallen Obasa with gusto.

    If you didn’t know what the word ‘schadenfreude’ meant before now, just take a look back at the exuberant joy that some people expressed at the 13 January, 2025 military-coup-like ordeal of Mudashiru Obasa. According to Cambridge Dictionary, schadenfreude means “a feeling of pleasure or satisfaction when something bad happens to someone else.”

    This brings to mind the story of the Swedish chemist, Dr. Alfred Nobel, the sponsor of the world famous Nobel Prizes. He invented dynamite and other explosives, originally for use in mining and related activities. However, people later started to use them as devastating weapons of war, and Alfred Nobel made a fortune from his deadly inventions. Then as reported by Radleys.com in 2015, in an article titled “On world humanitarian day, remember the story of Alfred Nobel,” his brother Ludvig Nobel died in 1888, and a French newspaper mistook the deceased for Alfred, and wrote an obituary on him scathingly titled “Le marchand de la mort est mort.” (‘The merchant of death is dead.’) An 8 August, 2021 article in a publication of the Office of Science and Society at McGill University, in Canada, also reported that Alfred was described in the obituary as a man who “became rich by finding a way to kill more people faster than ever before.”

    As Britannica put it, perhaps to burnish his reputation, “In the will he drafted in 1895, Nobel instructed that most of his fortune be set aside as a fund for the awarding of five annual prizes ‘to those who, during the preceding year, shall have conferred the greatest benefit on mankind.’ These prizes as established by his will are the Nobel Prize for Physics, the Nobel Prize for Chemistry, the Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine, the Nobel Prize for Literature, and the Nobel Prize for Peace.”

    Like Alfred Nobel, Mudashiru Obasa has had the opportunity to read his obituary, even if metaphorically-speaking. Like Alfred Nobel’s, the obituary has been to some measure unflattering. He should therefore, like Alfred Nobel, emplace a sustainable humanity-enhancing programme to guarantee for himself a noble reputation among posterity.

  • Witty women

    Witty women

    This year’s International Women’s Day comes up this week on Saturday, 8 March, 2025, a day before the next edition of this column. It is therefore necessary for the column today to begin the celebration by featuring an array of women’s wit – their pithy, picturesque, persuasive rhetoric – their capacity to use language to arrest the attention of the listener or audience to varying degrees.

    This is important because of the long-standing global tendency to devalue women’s words. The clearest manifestation of this tendency in Yoruba Language is to describe their speech dismissively as “òrò obìnrin” (‘women’s words’). In English, one of the most misogynistic stereotyping of women’s speech is in the proverb, “Because is a woman’s reason.”  This proverb which is on page 38 of F.P. Wilson’s 1970 The Oxford dictionary of English proverbs and proverbial phrases originates from William Shakespeare’s The two gentlemen of Verona (Act I, Scene II, Lines 23-24), where the female character Lucretius says, when asked to justify her positive opinion on a male character: “I have no reason than a woman’s reason: I think him so, because I think him so.” The negative stereotype in the Yoruba phrase and the English proverb is that women’s speech is characteristically frivolous, and the stereotype seems to be aimed at keeping women mute.

    Women of note have therefore been challenging the female-silencing stereotype. Of particular note is the 18th to 19th century African-American amazon, Sojourner Truth. Ironically, it was other women who wanted to silence her ostensibly based on the colour of her skin and her dissonant class-based appearance which contrasted with that of the elite white female organisers of the 1851 Women’s Rights Convention, at Old Stone Church, in Akron, Ohio, in the United States. Eventually, she was allowed to speak. In her speech which has come to be famously titled, “Ain’t I A Woman?”, Sojourner Truth put forth timeless physiological, spirito-religious and moral arguments for recognising the value of women and granting women’s rights. Though there are some differences in various accounts of the speech, the key arguments are similar.

    The transcript of Sojourner Truth’s speech which has been set out below has been revised to make it comprehensible to a 21st century audience or reader:

     “Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that ‘twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what’s all this here talking about?

    “That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain’t I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain’t I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man – when I could get it – and bear the lash as well! And ain’t I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother’s grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain’t I a woman?

    “Then they talk about this thing in the head; what’s this they call it? [member of audience whispers, “intellect”] That’s it, honey. What’s that got to do with women’s rights or negroes’ rights? If my cup won’t hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn’t you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

    “Then that little man in black there, he says women can’t have as much rights as men, ’cause Christ wasn’t a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

    “If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back, and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

    “Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain’t got nothing more to say.”

    Then there was Margaret Thatcher. She was an Oxford University graduate of Chemistry, who later studied Law, and was a woman of strong personality. Sensing this unnerving quality in her, she was denied a job following an interview. Years later, when she had become the first female Prime Minister of Britain, she got access to the interview report, and in it, as a 1 May, 2012 article, titled “The Iron Lady,” in chemistryworld.com stated, one interviewer noted: “This young woman has too strong a personality to work here!” She was Prime Minister from 1979 to 1990 as Head of the Conservative Party, making her the longest-serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century; and her tenure was eventful, earning her the nickname Iron Lady, because of her tough character.

    Read Also: Akpabio vs Natasha: Letter to women politicians

    Margaret Thatcher was also a woman of deep wit. Examples of this, which were extracted from “Margaret Thatcher’s most famous quotes,” by Lucy Hutchings, in the British Vogue, Issue 8, April 2013, are shown below. On what is required to be a successful Prime Minister, she said: “Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country.” Related to this, she asserted: “If you want something said, ask a man; if you want something done, ask a woman.”

    Margaret Thatcher also had witty words which marked her governance style. These include the following: “I am not a consensus politician. I’m a conviction politician.” “To those waiting with bated breath for that favourite media catchphrase, the U-turn, I have only one thing to say. You turn if you want to. The lady’s not for turning.” “I don’t mind how much my ministers talk, as long as they do what I say.”  And then, “I am extraordinarily patient, provided I get my own way in the end.”

    With respect to political discretion and tact, she said: “To wear your heart on your sleeve isn’t a very good plan; you should wear it inside, where it functions best.” “You may have to fight a battle more than once to win it.” “Defeat? I do not recognise the meaning of the word.” “It pays to know the enemy – not least because at some time you may have the opportunity to turn him into a friend.”

    Margaret Thatcher wasn’t just a woman of wit; she was also a woman of action. And her actions matched her wit in amazing ways. This played out, for example, with respect to her defeat of her country’s very powerful National Union of Mineworkers. She emasculated the union so much that even when she died on 8 April, 2013, some of the miners who confronted her in the 1984-1985 strike were still shedding tears of pain and regret.

    The Zimbabwean medical doctor and Pan-Africanist, Arikana Chihombori-Quao, who served as the Permanent Representative of the African Union Mission to the United States from 2017 to 2019 is also worthy of consideration. She believed that the imperialist and colonialist exploitation of Africa, which started with the Berlin conference of 1884, was not abating. In the following excerpts from a 1 November, 2024 speech titled “H.E. Dr Arikana put African leaders under fire with revolutionary speech is South Africa,” she deploys her wit to underscore the condition: 

    “As Africans, we are busy running away from our who we are. We don’t want to embrace our Africanness. Why not? If you refuse and don’t accept your Africanness, then who are you? … You are just like a ship without an anchor: the wind blows that way, there you go [pointing in one direction]; the wind blows that way, there you go [pointing in another direction]. … The truth of the matter is, we don’t need the world, the world needs Africa. But do we really know that and believe in it and are ready to stand up and proclaim who we are and let them know? But I’ve sat in meetings where I’ve seen [African] ministers [saying] ‘Ah, America, can you help us with this? Ah, Europe, can you help us?’ Begging endlessly for something we have? Whatever they’re giving you is what they stole from us and they’re giving you peanuts. When are we going to stop being outsmarted by these people? They come smiling at you. They come to give you aid. You know very well that’s your money, but we are so grateful.” Chihombori-Quao then exhorts, “Africa, wake up!”

    She also narrated her experience in Ghana: “I stayed at a beautiful hotel. When I walked into the room, right above the headboard was the humongous photograph of Queen Elizabeth, and I thought to myself, now I am going to bed tonight with the shadow of Queen Elizabeth hanging over me. What kind of dreams was I going to have that night?” So, the photograph was removed    for the night, so that she could have “good dreams.”

    In closing, let me note that I’ve encountered wit from my mother too, and it has come, especially, in the form of a proverb which has remained indelible in my mind. Her usage of the proverb has a story behind it.  My wife needed to collect her certificate from her alma mater out of town. On the day she was to go for it, I started to explain to her how best to travel to the school. Then my mother interjected, and said, in Yoruba, translated as follows: “No. You won’t tell her how to get there; rather, you would accompany her there.” My mother then gave the reason for her counsel by citing the proverb, “Tí a ò bà rí olójú, a kìí tìí.” (‘You need to be face-to-face with people for them to be shy of you.’) That is, my presence would grant my wife the best or swiftest attention. My mother was too persuasive for me not to follow her counsel.

    I believe the wisdom of that proverb is the reason why countries establish embassies and why organisations, institutions and even associations establish country or liaison offices to derive the benefits of ‘being on ground’.  It is also the reason why countries send official delegations to other countries to maximise their gains in bi-lateral and multi-lateral negotiations.

    To all witty women worldwide, “Happy International Women’s Day 2025!”

    (Erratum: In last week’s article on “Malcolm X’s moral dilemmas,” 1964 rather than 1968 was indicated as the year of Martin Luther King Jr’s murder. Error is regretted.)

  • Malcolm X’s moral dilemmas

    Malcolm X’s moral dilemmas

    Malcolm X, the famous African-American civil rights defender, abhorred hypocrisy in whatever form and from whatever source. He believed that White America was systematically prosecuting psychological warfare against Blacks in the country by portraying everything black negatively and demonising efforts at resisting the oppression. Malcolm also believed that some Blacks were, advertently or inadvertently, collaborating or conniving with their oppressors by displaying lack of self-pride and race-pride and facilitating the divide-and-conquer tactic. He cited the example of White America setting up Black comedians, dancers, baseball players and similar stooges, puppets and clowns, making them celebrities and calling them Black leaders, who then said exactly what the White people wanted to hear.

    A dilemma Malcolm faced was thus that those whom he and his mentor Elijah Muhammad, among others, were struggling to protect against oppression were themselves fascinated with the nature of the White oppressors. In his 27 April, 1962 speech titled “Malcolm X’s Fiery Speech Addressing Police Brutality,” he exhorted his audience to Black pride, by asking rhetorically: “Who taught you, please, to hate the texture of your hair? Who taught you to hate the color of your skin to such extent that you bleach to get like the White man? Who taught you to hate the shape of your nose and the shape of your lip?  Who taught you to hate yourself from the top of your head to the soles of your feet? Who taught you to hate your own kind? Who taught you to hate the race that you belong to so much so that you don’t want to be around each other?   No, before you come asking Mr. Muhammad does he teach hate, you should ask who yourself who taught you to hate being what God gave you?”

    In further defence of Elijah Muhammad, in an interview on YouTube titled “Malcolm X first interview for British TV (1963),” when a British journalist asked him whether “the Black Muslim Prophet,” was preaching race hatred, Malcolm replied: “He’s not teaching hate; he’s teaching history. And since the American White man has used his control over the press and over the textbooks and over all forms of media to make it appear that he has done us a favor by bringing us here and enslaving us, then the Honorable Elijah Muhammad has to rewrite history or retell history. And since the White man can’t dispute this truth, he tries to defend himself by saying that Mr. Muhammad is teaching hate. It’s not hate to say that we were kidnapped and brought here. It’s truth, not hate, to say that the Supreme Court which is the highest court in this country came up with a hypocritical desegregation decision nine years ago which they haven’t enforced yet. That’s not hate, that’s true.”

    Malcolm underscored the hypocrisy in passing a desegregation legislation in 1954 and refusing to enforce it even as at 1963 and of passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, with Blacks murdered shortly after, without consequence.  Malcolm then said at a 3 December, 1964 Oxford University debate: “America … is … as racist as South Africa … The only difference between it and South Africa, South Africa preaches separation and practices separation, America preaches integration and practices segregation. … I have more respect for a man who lets me know where he stands, even if he’s wrong than one who comes up like an angel and is nothing but a devil.”

    In an unsympathetic 5 March, 1965 TIME magazine article titled “Malcolm X assassination report: Death and transfiguration,” he was described as follows: “Malcolm had been a pimp, a cocaine addict and a thief. He was an unashamed demagogue. His gospel was hatred: ‘Your little babies will have polio!’ he cried to the ‘white devils.’ His creed was violence: ‘If ballots won’t work, bullets will.’” As a 9 May, 1999 entry by Lawrence A. Mamiya entitled “Malcolm X” in Encyclopedia Britannica put it, “Malcolm quit smoking and gambling and refused to eat pork in keeping with the Nation’s dietary restrictions. … Following Nation tradition, he replaced his surname ‘Little,’ with an ‘X,’ a custom among Nation of Islam followers who considered their family names to have originated with white slaveholders.”

    Malcolm could therefore be said to have undergone moral moulting and psychological reconditioning. And he credited Elijah Muhammad with cleaning him up through the message of Islam. Malcolm therefore established the newspaper “Muhammad Speaks” to spread the message and teachings of Elijah Muhammad. Moreover, in a 6 August, 1964 interview with Mike Wallace of CBS, Malcolm said: “Everything that I said always was designed to protect Mr. Muhammad himself primarily because the image that he had created was the image that enabled his followers to remain strong in faith and things of that sort and I didn’t want to see adverse effect or negative result develop in the faith of all of his followers.”

    Read Also: Malcolm X’s family releases letter alleging FBI, police role in his death

    Malcolm also said: “If you notice the stake that I always use in presenting, representing and defending the Muslim movement was the fact that it had the ability to reform the morals of the so-called Negro community. It eliminated drug addiction, alcoholism, fornication, adultery, loose sexual behavior; which meant that it eliminated bastard babies, illegitimate children … We had a law which was that whenever any Muslim became involved in any kind of sexual relationship with someone to whom they weren’t married, that person would be brought before the Muslim community, humiliated and then isolated for one to five years. … In 1954, a teenage sister left Detroit and became one of Mr. Muhammad’s personal secretaries. And there in the Chicago office, she became pregnant after being there for a year. She was brought before the Muslim community and humiliated and isolated.”

    Malcolm noted that because the man involved was not brought forward during the court session, it was assumed that he was not a Muslim. The same thing happened in respect of five other girls. In total, the six girls had eight babies out of wedlock. He was morally shocked to discover that Elijah Muhammad was the man who impregnated all of the six sisters. Malcolm was now between the devil and the deep blue sea. Should he stand with the man he had spent a greater part of his reformed life seeing in cosmic terms, leave him morally unencumbered and thereby rubbish his own hard-earned credentials as an uncompromising fighter against oppression? Or should he stand with the young sisters who were inequitably carrying the burden of shame and thereby face the moral charge of biting the Elijah Muhammad finger that fed him, metaphorically-speaking? Malcolm chose to stand up in defence of the dignity of the helpless young women.

    His revelation of the unfair treatment of the young sisters and the impunity of the charismatic Elijah Muhammed earned Malcolm enmity from even his erstwhile mentees, friends and admirers, like Louis Farrakhan and Muhammed Ali, and they didn’t mind if he died. They believed that Malcolm was a rebel, a hypocrite and an ingrate, considering the fact that it was Elijah Muhammad who “cleaned him up” and gave him the platform that made him widely known. Asked in a media interview whether he was worried about the intense hostility against him, Malcolm replied: “No, I don’t worry … I tell you, I’m a man who believes that I died 20 years ago and I live like a man who is dead already. I have no fear whatsoever of anybody or anything.” On 21 February, 1965, Malcolm was assassinated by at least one member of the Nation of Islam.

    Malcolm was a victim of the White establishment in America who thought his Black consciousness-raising campaigns were dangerous. In fact, it was alleged that once they noticed a rift between Elijah Muhammad and Malcolm, the White authorities were impersonating each of the feuding sides and sending the other side incendiary fake messages to aggravate the crisis. Malcolm was also a victim of the Christian Afro-American elite who thought his style was abrasive and could jeopardise their tokenistic privileges. Malcolm was concurrently the victim of the envy of his fellow members of the Nation of Islam who thought his rising profile was supplanting theirs, and so worked against reconciliation.

    There was an ironical convergence between TIME magazine and Malcolm’s erstwhile mentor, the embittered Elijah Muhammad. Asked, in an Associated Press interview on 22 February, 1965, a day after Malcolm’s assassination, what the point of disagreement between him and Malcom was, Elijah Muhammad said, in a repudiation of Malcolm who had regularly stoutly defended him against the same charge of violence: “Malcolm wanted to use arms, and I disagreed with him. … Malcolm is the victim of his own preaching. He preached violence and so he became the victim of it.” But if the logic were that simple, then Martin Luther King Jr should not have been assassinated, because he preached peace so much that he earned the Nobel Peace Prize in 1964. Yet, he was murdered in 1964 by a White man.

    Ossie Davis, in his eulogy on Malcolm on 27 February, 1965, said: “There are those who will consider it their duty, as friends of the Negro people, to tell us to revile him, to flee, even from the presence of his memory, to save ourselves by writing him out of the history of our turbulent times. Many will ask what Harlem finds to honor in this stormy, controversial and bold young captain – and we will smile. Many will say turn away – away from this man, for he is not a man but a demon, a monster, a subverter and an enemy of the black man – and we will smile. They will say that he is of hate – a fanatic, a racist – who can only bring evil to the cause for which you struggle! And we will answer and say to them: Did you ever talk to Brother Malcolm? Did you ever touch him, or have him smile at you? Did you ever really listen to him? Did he ever do a mean thing? Was he ever himself associated with violence or any public disturbance? For if you did you would know him. And if you knew him you would know why we must honor him.”

    “Gold is tried in fire,” and Malcolm had gone through fiery refinement, and had become morally gold-pure. Malcolm died young because he probably had become too pure to live long. He couldn’t afford the compromises that make longevity easier to attain. Yes, America is a nation of laws; but Malcolm was probably too naïve to accept the reality that some personages outgrow mundane laws. To him, equity was immutable. In another milieu and in another circumstance, Malcolm would likely have been canonised.

  • From Ghana’s “Koren Busia” to Nigeria’s “GhanaMust Go” to America’s “Remain in Mexico”

    From Ghana’s “Koren Busia” to Nigeria’s “GhanaMust Go” to America’s “Remain in Mexico”

    Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the first President of Ghana, was a Pan-Africanist par excellence. In his clear manifestation of this Africa-wide vision, Nkrumah declared as follows at the independence of Ghana on 6 March, 1957: “Our independence is meaningless unless it is linked up with the total liberation of Africa.” In recognition of this broad commitment to African unity, Ghana became a magnet for Africans from across the continent and the diaspora. Many of the Africans who moved to Ghana were into farming, especially cocoa farming, and other commercial activities, and constituted a thriving immigrant community.

    Unfortunately, the allure of Ghana as a Pan-African magnet was undermined, beginning with the coup which ousted the Kwame Nkrumah government. As GhanaWeb put it in a 24 February, 2020 article titled “Today in history: Ghana’s first coup – Nkrumah’s overthrow in 1966,” “On 24 February 1966, the National Liberation Council (NLC) overthrew Ghana’s first president, Kwame Nkrumah and the Convention People’s Party (CPP) in a military coup d’état while he was on a peace mission in Hanoi the capital of Vietnam at the invitation of the president, Ho Chi Minh.” This coup was a joint military and police operation and was led by Lt-Gen E.K. Kotoka, Major A.A. Afrifa and then Inspector-General of Police, Mr. J.W.K. Harley, with the significant collaboration of civilians such as Professor Kofi Abrefa Busia.

    According to biographical accounts, Busia acquired a First degree with Honours in Medieval and Modem History from the University of London (through correspondence), another First degree in Politics, Philosophy & Economics from Oxford University, a Master’s degree in the same subject area from the same university, and a Ph.D. in Social Anthropology from Nuffield College, Oxford. He was also a Fulbright Scholar in the United States in 1954. Busia was the first African Professor at the University College (now University of Ghana), and became a Professor of Sociology and Culture at the University of Leiden in The Hague, The Netherlands, and a Senior Member of St. Anthony’s College, University of Oxford.

    About the 29 August, 1969 parliamentary elections, All Ghana Data, in a 12 April, 2008 article titled “The National Liberation Council and the Busia Years, 1966-71,” said: “The major contenders were the Progress Party (PP), headed by Kofi A. Busia, and the National Alliance of Liberals (NAL), led by Komla A. Gbedemah. Critics associated these two leading parties with the political divisions of the early Nkrumah years. The PP found much of its support among the old opponents of Nkrumah’s CPP … [while] the NAL was seen as the successor of the CPP’s right wing, which Gbedemah had headed until he was ousted by Nkrumah in 1961.”

    Incidentally, regarding the elections, the immigrant community in Ghana, particularly Nigerians who were predominantly Yoruba, was largely sympathetic to Gbedemah’s NAL, but Busia’s PP won. He assumed office on 1 October, 1969, and by 18 November, 1969, ostensibly as an act of political vengeance, Busia announced the Aliens Compliance Order. Corroborating this fact, in a May 2009 Master of Philosophy (M.Phil) in History thesis titled “The origins, implementation and effects of Ghana’s 1969 Aliens compliance order” and submitted to the University of Cape Coast, Adjei Adjepong noted: “In spite of its general landslide victory, the Progress Party, it is alleged, blamed its minor losses on the presence of immigrants in the country. To prevent a similar occurrence in the future, the government decided on outright expulsion of all illegal immigrants as the only alternative.”

    In addition to the political motive, Adjei Adjepong listed some of the other reasons for the order as: “the government’s desire to reduce the rate of unemployment and remittances from Ghana, combat crime, guarantee the security of the country, compel immigrants to comply with the immigration laws of Ghana, control the growth of the country’s population, ensure cultural homogeneity, clear the streets of immigrant destitutes and beggars, continue the policies of the NLC, and xenophobia on the part of some Ghanaians.”

    Read Also: Obasanjo back on familiar terrain

    Johnson Olaosebikan Aremu and Theresa Adeyinka Ajayi, in an invaluable 2014 journal article titled “Expulsion of Nigerian immigrant community from Ghana in 1969: Causes and impact,” quoted the most critical part of Busia’s Aliens Compliance Order which states: “It has come to the notice of the Government that several aliens, both Africans and non-Africans in Ghana, do not possess the requisite residence permits …. There are others, too, who are engaging in business of all kinds contrary to the term of their visiting permits. The Government has accordingly directed that all aliens in the first category, that is those without residence permits, should leave Ghana within fourteen days that is not later than December 2, 1969. Those in the second category should obey strictly the term of their entry permits, and if these have expired they should leave Ghana forthwith. The Ministry of Interior has been directed to comb the country thoroughly for defaulting aliens and aliens arrested for contravening these orders will be dealt with according to the law.”In local parlance, interestingly in Hausa which is widely spoken in Ghana, especially in the Northern Region of the country, expelled immigrants were derogatorily called “Koren Busia” (‘People expelled by Busia.’) The expulsion of Nigerians from Ghana was done at a most traumatic time. As Aremu and Ajayi put it, “it needs be stated that perhaps the greatest impact of the 1969 expulsion of Nigerians by Ghana in the heat of [the] Nigerian Civil war was interpreted as a tacit way of destabilizing Nigeria and weaken its cohesion, especially when the Igbo elements in Ghana were classified as ‘special refugees’ and were thus exempted from the expulsion order.” The expulsion led to widespread humiliation, suffering and even death of some of the expellees.

    Busia’s precipitate ejection of so many investors from Ghana resulted in economic shock. Due to a combination of adverse local and international conditions, and the inflation and patent pains that come with implementing IMF/World Bank policies (which Busia adopted), he fell out of favour with the people, because the Eldorado that the common folks had envisioned from the aliens expulsion did not come to reality. Moreover, the inclement economic climate of the nation necessitated reducing the funding of the military, and the army rode on the back of the citizens’ disaffection with Busia to oust his government on 13 January, 1972 in a coup led by Lt-Colonel Ignatius Kutu Acheampong. At the time, Busia was in London receiving medical treatment.

    In spite of the coup, Ghana’s economy continued to nosedive. This led to Ghanaians’ economically-motivated ‘reverse immigration’ to Nigeria. Following the established pattern, Ghanaians and other immigrants were held accountable for economic decline, religious crises, and violent crimes like armed robbery. Elections were approaching and anti-immigrant stereotyping was made a campaign strategy. As a show of how the ruling National Party of Nigeria could defend the ‘besieged’ citizens, President Shehu Shagari issued an Executive Order giving illegal immigrants two weeks to leave Nigeria, with effect from 17 January, 1983. Ghanaians were about half of the around two million illegal immigrants affected. The preponderance of Ghanaians among the expellees gave the policy the name “Ghana Must Go” – a name that has also come to stand for the very practical, red or blue, strong checked low-priced bags with which the expellees caried their belongings.

    The expulsion was horrendous and led to the death of some of the victims. But it didn’t result in the social and economic benefits that had been envisaged by its supporters. As with the case of Busia, the disillusionment provided the excuse for the military to take over government and usher in the General Muhammadu Buhari military administration on 31 December, 1983. Incidentally, the Buhari government continued with the immigrants expulsion policy. 

    Beyond West Africa, United States President Donald Trump and his supporters have regularly alleged that illegal immigrants were allowed to vote in 2020, and that this was what led to Trump’s loss. In relation to this claim, CBS fact-checker · Laura Doan, in a 30 October, 2024 piece titled “Trump falsely claims noncitizen voter fraud is widespread,” notes: “During the 2024 presidential race, former President Donald Trump and his allies, including X owner Elon Musk, have promoted an unfounded conspiracy theory that undocumented migrants are being allowed into the U.S. to vote. Trump’s false claims of widespread voter fraud by undocumented immigrants are not new. In 2020, after losing his reelection bid, he alleged that tens of thousands of noncitizens voted in the battleground state of Arizona, which election officials there disputed. Trump made similar claims about illegal voting as far back as 2014.”

    Moreover, Trump often blames immigrants for crimes in America. In fact, in his inaugural address on 20 January, 2025, he said: “First, I will declare a national emergency at our southern border [with Mexico]. All illegal entry will immediately be halted, and we will begin the process of returning millions and millions of criminal aliens back to the places from which they came. We will reinstate my “Remain in Mexico” policy. I will end the practice of catch and release, and I will send troops to the southern border to repel the disastrous invasion of our country. Under the orders I sign today, we will also be designating the cartels as foreign terrorist organizations. And by invoking the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, I will direct our government to use the full and immense power of federal and state law enforcement to eliminate the presence of all foreign gangs and criminal networks bringing devastating crime to U.S. soil, including our cities and inner cities.”

    There is also the belief that undocumented immigrants have been taking Americans’ jobs, and that they have been enjoying benefits they never worked for. So, from his first day as the 47th President of America, Trump signed a series of anti-immigrant Executive Orders. As a consequence, thousands of immigrants have been arrested, handcuffed with legs shackled, and herded on to military planes to be dumped at various borders and foreign airports in horrible conditions. The Executive Orders also allow security personnel to raid stores, farms and churches, among other places, looking for illegal aliens. Many undocumented immigrants have therefore stayed away from work. This has been having devastating effects on Americans with some stores already limiting the quantity of food items a single person can purchase, and with inflation biting hard.

    From the foregoing, whether it was Busia’s 1969 “Koren Busia” or Shagari’s 1983 “Ghana Must Go” or Trump’s 2025 “Remain in Mexico” policy, the pattern has been the same. Economic, social and political problems were encountered; immigrants were held responsible; expelling them was seen as the solution; the massive expulsion of immigrants was ordered; and the crises worsened.   

  • Martin Luther King Jr and the revolution of values

    Martin Luther King Jr and the revolution of values

    There is often the risk of getting carried away by the eloquence of the Reverend (Dr.) Martin Luther King Jr. (MLK), the African-American civil rights Baptist Minister, so much that a significant part of his profound thoughts gets missing. MLK had taken it as his bounden duty to shine a guiding light on public morality. In a 16 April, 1963 “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” MLK wrote: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly.” Moreover, in his famous 28 August, 1963 “I have a dream” speech, MLK declared: “I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

    Though a Christian Minister, MLK was conscious of the use of religion to service segregation and oppression. In a 25 March, 1965 speech titled “Our God is Marching On!” which he delivered in Montgomery, Alabama, he said: “If it may be said of the slavery era that the white man took the world and gave the Negro Jesus, then it may be said of the Reconstruction era that the southern aristocracy took the world and gave the poor white man Jim Crow [the metaphor for racist and anti-communist hysteria]. He gave him Jim Crow. And when his wrinkled stomach cried out for the food that his empty pockets could not provide, he ate Jim Crow, a psychological bird that told him that no matter how bad off he was, at least he was a white man, better than the black man. … And when his undernourished children cried out for the necessities that his low wages could not provide, he showed them the Jim Crow signs on the buses and in the stores, on the streets and in the public buildings. And his children, too, learned to feed upon Jim Crow, their last outpost of psychological oblivion.”

    On the persistence of the struggle for freedom and justice, MLK said, in the same speech: “Yes, we are on the move and no wave of racism can stop us. We are on the move now. The burning of our churches will not deter us. The bombing of our homes will not dissuade us. We are on the move now. The beating and killing of our clergymen and young people will not divert us. We are on the move now. The wanton release of their known murderers would not discourage us. We are on the move now. Like an idea whose time has come, not even the marching of mighty armies can halt us. We are moving to the land of freedom.” MLK then exhorted the audience passionately: “My people, my people, listen. The battle is in our hands.”

    On the Vietnam war, MLK remarked, in his 4 April, 1967 speech entitled, “Beyond Vietnam: A time to break silence,”: “The Vietnamese people proclaimed their own independence … in 1945 … after a combined French and Japanese occupation and before the communist revolution in China. They were led by Ho Chi Minh. Even though they quoted the American Declaration of Independence in their own document of freedom, we refused to recognize them. Instead, we decided to support France in its reconquest of her former colony. … For nine years following 1945 we denied the people of Vietnam the right of independence. For nine years we vigorously supported the French in their abortive effort to recolonize Vietnam. … After the French were defeated, it looked as if independence and land reform would come again through the Geneva Agreement. But instead there came the United States, determined that Ho should not unify the temporarily divided nation, and the peasants watched again as we supported one of the most vicious modern dictators, our chosen man, Premier Diem.”

    Furthermore, MLK noted, in the speech: “These are revolutionary times. All over the globe men are revolting against old systems of exploitation and oppression, and out of the wounds of a frail world, new systems of justice and equality are being born.” Agreeing with “a sensitive American overseas official” who said in 1957 that America was on “the wrong side of a world revolution,” MLK recalled the words of the late US President J.F. Kennedy: “Five years ago he said, ‘Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable.’ Increasingly, by choice or by accident, this is the role our nation has taken, the role of those who make peaceful revolution impossible by refusing to give up the privileges and the pleasures that come from the immense profits of overseas investments. I am convinced that if we are to get on the right side of the world revolution, we as a nation must undergo a radical revolution of values.”

    Read Also: Grace school wins Martin Luther King Jr speech competition

    According to MLK, “A true revolution of values will soon cause us to question the fairness and justice of many of our past and present policies. On the one hand, we are called to play the Good Samaritan on life’s roadside, but that will be only an initial act. One day we must come to see that the whole Jericho Road must be transformed so that men and women will not be constantly beaten and robbed as they make their journey on life’s highway. True compassion is more than flinging a coin to a beggar. It comes to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring.”

    He continued: “A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa, and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say, ‘This is not just.’ It will look at our alliance with the landed gentry of South America and say, ‘This is not just.’”

    Furthermore, he remarked: “A true revolution of values will lay hand on the world order and say of war, ‘This way of settling differences is not just.’ This business of burning human beings with napalm, of filling our nation’s homes with orphans and widows, of injecting poisonous drugs of hate into the veins of peoples normally humane, of sending men home from dark and bloody battlefields physically handicapped and psychologically deranged, cannot be reconciled with wisdom, justice, and love. A nation that continues year after year to spend more money on military defense than on programs of social uplift is approaching spiritual death.”

    He also contends: “This kind of positive revolution of values is our best defense against communism. War is not the answer. Communism will never be defeated by the use of atomic bombs or nuclear weapons. Let us not join those who shout war and, through their misguided passions, urge the United States to relinquish its participation in the United Nations. These are days which demand wise restraint and calm reasonableness. … We must with positive action seek to remove those conditions of poverty, insecurity, and injustice, which are the fertile soil in which the seed of communism grows and develops.”

    Moreover, MLK asserts: “A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies. … This call for a worldwide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class, and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing – embracing and unconditional – love for all mankind. … We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. And history is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate.”

    On the question whether progress was being made in the struggle for justice and freedom, MLK responded in an 11 January, 1968 speech at Ohio Northern University: “I think in answering the question we have to avoid, on the one hand, a superficial optimism. On the other hand, we must avoid a deadening pessimism, because a superficial optimism says in substance that the problem is about solved now and we really don’t have much to do, while the deadening pessimism tends to conclude that the problem can’t be solved and that we’ve only made minor strides in the struggle for racial justice. I would much prefer following what I consider a realistic position which combines the truths of two opposites while avoiding the extremes of both. The realistic position would agree with optimism that we have made some meaningful strides, but it would also agree with some aspects of pessimism in recognizing that we still have a long, long way to go. … We have come a long, long way, but we have a long, long way to go.”

    On the value of hope and patience, MLK said, in the speech titled “Our God is Marching On!”: “Somebody’s asking, ‘How long will prejudice blind the visions of men, darken their understanding, and drive bright-eyed wisdom from her sacred throne?’ Somebody’s asking, ‘When will wounded justice, lying prostrate on the streets … be lifted from this dust of shame to reign supreme among the children of men?’ … ‘How long will justice be crucified, and truth bear it?’ I come to say to you this afternoon, however difficult the moment, however frustrating the hour, it will not be long, because ‘truth crushed to earth will rise again.’ How long? Not long, because ‘no lie can live forever.’ How long? Not long, because ‘you shall reap what you sow.’”

    The ultimate value which MLK himself acquired was to conquer the fear of death, and given the inevitability of death, that was the best thing any human being could do. So, he ended his 3 April, 1968 “I’ve been to the mountaintop” speech as follows with respect to information on threats against his person: “What would happen to me from some of our sick white brothers? Well, I don’t know what will happen now. … But it really doesn’t matter with me now, because I’ve been to the mountaintop. … And I’ve looked over. And I’ve seen the Promised Land. … And so I’m happy, tonight. I’m not worried about anything. I’m not fearing any man. Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord.” The next day, he was assassinated at the age of 39.

  • Ayodele Fayose’s 2014 thank you rally in Ibadan

    Ayodele Fayose’s 2014 thank you rally in Ibadan

    If you could suspend political cynicism, suppress political skepticism, and, just for a moment, set aside political stereotypes and partisanship, you’ll discover there’s so much to enjoy in Nigerian politicking, and that there are so many profound truths to learn. That’s what I did and that’s what I experienced and gained watching the video of the Wednesday, 9 July, 2014 People’s Democratic Party (PDP) thank you rally in Ibadan following the victory of former Governor Peter Ayodele Fayose in the 21 June, 2014 Ekiti State governorship election.

    “PDP!” That was how, with a very loud shout, an umbrella-cum-walking-stick-carrying and dancing former Governor of Oyo State, Alao Akala, kicked off the rally. The mammoth crowd responded, “Power!” Again, he exclaimed, “PDP!” Again, the crowd responded: “Power!”, and he said, “Power to the People!” He then recognised party members present. These included the Governor-Elect of Ekiti State (Ayodele Fayose), the Chairman of the South West Organisation and Mobilisation Committee of the PDP (Buruji Kashamu) and the Chairman of the party in Oyo State (Yinka Taiwo).

    After the recognitions, the politicking began, and Akala declared in English: “We in Oyo State PDP, we’re ready … for the elections. And I want to assure you that Oyo State is for grabs by PDP. … People in Oyo State are tired of APC [All Progressives Congress]. And by the grace of God, come year 2015, PDP is going to rule Oyo State.” He then raised a Yoruba song which was chorused by the audience: “Ó fé ìtójú nlá, ó fé àmójútó; ó fé ìtójú nlá, ó fé àmójútó; eni tó n se power, power tó wá fé di agbálè ojà, ó fé àmójútó. Ó fé àmójútó, ó fé ìtójú nlá; eni tó n se power télè tó tún wá di agbálè ojà, ó fé àmójútó. Mo le mo ba, mo tún gbàá padà. Mo le mo ba, mo tún gbàá padà. Mo le mo ba, mo tún gbàá padà. Mo le mo ba, mo tún gbàá padà. Ire gbogbo tó sonù lowó wa.”

    Shorn of all rhetorical repetition, the message of this song is that the person who was a member of the PDP and was chanting the slogan “Power”, but who thereafter wanted to or had actually defected to the APC and was carrying a broom (the symbol of the APC), like a market sweeper, required serious medical attention. His message also included the declaration that he and the PDP were diligently seeking to reclaim the governorship seat of Oyo State which he, as the incumbent governor, lost to the APC’s Abiola Ajimobi in 2011.

    He then addressed the audience, again in Yoruba, passing the following English-summarised message: Tell the ruling APC to be packing their things in readiness for a take-over of Oyo State by the PDP. And, stand by the PDP. He also declared: “Àwa lókàn.” (‘It’s our turn.’)  He underscored the now famous claim (“Àwa lókàn.”) by citing the Yoruba proverb “Oyè tó kan ará Ìwó n bò wá kan ará Ede.” (‘The chieftaincy given to the people of Iwo assures that the turn of the people of Ede will come.’) He also reasoned that as the PDP defeated the incumbent APC government in Ekiti State, so would the party defeat the incumbent APC government of Oyo State.

    The former Senate Leader, Teslim Folarin, who was the next to speak, made a very short speech. “PDP!”, he proclaimed. And the audience responded, “Power!” Again, he shouted out, “PDP!” And they responded again, “Power!” Then he spelt out the acronym of the party’s name: “P, D, and P!” And he raised his own song: “Mérin-mérin àròpò ebi ni o; mérin-mérin àròpò ebi ni o. Mérin-mérin àròpò ebi ni o; mérin-mérin àròpò ebi ni o.” (‘4+4 = Hunger.’ [i.e., should the electorate vote in the incumbent APC government in Oyo State, in 2015, for another four years, it would translate into more hunger.]) 

    As with the case of Alao Akala, there is a grand irony to the song, because Teslim Folarin, like Akala, defected from the PDP to the APC, and their new party organised a public reception for them and others at Mapo Hall Arcade in Ibadan on Saturday, 16 December, 2017. In fact, Folarin was the candidate of the APC for the governorship election in the state in 2023; and he remains a member of the APC till today. This development underscores the shiftiness of Nigerian politics. The political somersault of Akala and Folarin validate the Yoruba proverb, “Iná ilé l’omo ehoro ó yá gbèyìn.” (‘The young bush rabbit ends up keeping warm at the fireplace of the hunter’s home.’ [i.e., it will eventually be killed by the hunter and become roast meat.])

    Then came Fayose’s turn to address the audience. He started by saying, “PDP!” And the audience responded, “Power!” Again, he shouted out, “Power!” Then he raised the song: “Eni bá n fáyò ko nawó sokè; èmi n fáyò mo nawó.” (‘Those that want joy or love Peter Fayose, let them raise their hands; I want joy and love Fayose, so I raise my hand.’) Here, Fayose’s middle name “Ayòdélé’ (‘Joy which I experienced on my sojourn stayed with me even on my arrival home.’) This name is sometimes shortened as “Ayò”. When Fayose then asked that those who wanted “Ayò” should raise their hands, he was playing on the word “Ayò”, for rhetorical effect, because it was not likely that any member of the audience would not have liked joy. Now, in liking joy they concomitantly liked Fayose.

    Read Also: Tinubu’s reforms will bear fruits, says Fayose

    He raised another chorused song in which, through innuendo, he referred to the incumbent APC Governor Abiola Ajimobi of Oyo State as “Eléyí”, as follows: Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!” Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!!” Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!” Fayose: “Bó gbé’ná karí!” Audience: “Yio lo!” Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!” Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!” Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!” Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!” Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!”  Fayose: “Eléyí ó lo!” Audience: “Yíó lo!” Fayose: “Bó gbé’ná karí!”  Audience: “Yíó lo!” Fayose: “Bó gbé’ná karí!” Audience: “Yíó lo!”

    The key message of the song was that whatever gimmicks Ajimobi might play, “Eléyí ó lo!” (‘This one will go.’) As with other Asiwaju-Ahmed-Bola-Tinubu-popularised range of political expressions such as “Èmilókàn” and “Àwalókàn” at the Tinubu campaign speech of 3 June, 2022 in Abeokuta, “Eléyí” (that ultimate political put down) resonated at the 9 July, 2014 PDP rally in Ibadan.

    Like Akala and Folarin, Fayose appeared to be so sure that the PDP would defeat the APC in the governorship election in Oyo State in 2015. But this did not come to pass. APC retained the governorship of the state. The PDP’s grandstanding as shown in the speeches of the PDP’s leading members at the Ibadan rally therefore came to be a validation of the English proverb, “Talk is cheap.” This idea is more picturesquely expressed in the Yoruba proverb, “Enú dùn rò’fó.” (‘It’s easy to cook vegetables with the mouth.’)

    From the grim perspective, watching today the video of the 2014 Fayose thank you rally demonstrates the mortality of human beings. Alao Akala who was at his boisterous best at that event died on 12 January, 2022. The sturdy and confidently calm Buruji Kashamu died on 8 August, 2020. And the “Eléyí” of Oyo State, the vivacious Abiola Ajimobi, who was the primary object of rhetorical attack at the PDP rally, died on 25 June, 2020. As a Yoruba proverb articulates the lack of immunity to death, “Ikú ó pa eni à n pè; ikú ó pa eni tí n pe’ni.” (‘Death will kill the person we’re condemning, and death will kill the person condemning us.’) The challenge that the inevitability of death throws is therefore that life should be lived with humility, circumspection and a desire, at all times, to leave behind a noble and enduring legacy.

    Furthermore, in the 2014 thank you rally in Ibadan, Fayose underscored the value of ensuring a level playing field in the primaries of parties, and that he had no preferred candidate among the aspirants for the governorship ticket of the PDP in Oyo State. He appealed in English: “Let us work for the most popular candidate. There must be no imposition. … There must be no imposition. … The Muazu-led Exco gave me the rare opportunity of allowing a level playing ground which produced me as the candidate of the party [in Ekiti State]. … Let the best candidate win the election for the party.”

    It is significant that it was in Oyo State that Fayose was making the point about creating a level playing field for aspirants. In fact, it is widely agreed that imposing a governorship candidate on the APC in the state for the 2019 election accounted for the loss of the party in that year’s election. In protest against the perceived imposition, some dissatisfied aspirants and party members defected to other parties. Some of those who stayed back decided not to work for or vote for the APC’s governorship candidate. The PDP candidate, Seyi Makinde, therefore won the election. The incumbent Governor of Oyo State at the time, Abiola Ajimobi, who was believed to be the key actor in the imposition, was also made to lose in the senatorial election.

    In 2023, history repeated itself in the APC, as the governorship primary of the state was believed to have been manipulated with the acquiescence of the national hierarchy of the party; and Governor Seyi Makinde of the PDP won re-election for a second term in office. The question now is, “Would Oyo State APC learn from its bitter experience, follow Fayose’s invaluable counsel, and provide a level playing field in choosing its candidate for the 2027 governorship election?”

    Former Governor Ayodele Fayose is steadily building for himself the image of an astute politician. When he wanted to be governor for the first time, he identified water as a critical problem for his people. So, he got water tankers into Ekiti State to supply water free of charge to them. In appreciation, they voted for him, and he won. He also created the concept of ‘stomach infrastructure’ – those things that could be used to satisfy the immediate survival needs of the populace. Moreover, Fayose attended Governor Nyesom Wike’s end-of-tenure activities in Port Harcourt in 2023. At the programme, he counseled the then-Governor-Elect of Rivers State, Siminalayi Fubara, to be circumspect and avoid conflict with Wike, if he desired to enjoy his tenure. It’s not certain whether Fubara took Fayose’s advice, but crisis broke out between Wike and Fubara shortly after Fubara assumed office, and it continues till today.

  • Arikana Chihombori-Quao and the French condition in West Africa

    Arikana Chihombori-Quao and the French condition in West Africa

    Dr. Arikana Chihombori-Quao, MD, is a Zimbabwean medical doctor, precisely, a Family Medicine expert, married to the very supportive Ghanaian Pan-Africanist Dr. Nii Saban Quao, MD, specialist in Internal Medicine, whom she met in the United States. According to her, she was quietly plying her trade, when, in 2017, she was unexpectedly invited by HE Dr. Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma to take up the position of African Union (AU) Representative to the United States. When, reluctantly, she assumed office, she was confronted most directly with Western policies and practices detrimental to African interests; and, like the Pan-African activist that she was, she voiced her dissatisfaction stridently.

    Finding her African liberationist voice intolerable, as reported by the 24 October, 2019 issue of Amsterdam News (New York), a letter to her from the AU Chair at the time, H.E. Moussa Faki Mahamat, a former Chadian Minister of Foreign Affairs, read in part: “I have the honor to inform you that, in line with the terms and conditions of the service governing your appointment as Permanent Representative of the African Union Mission to the United States in Washington, D.C., I have decided to terminate your contract in that capacity with effect from Nov. 1, 2019.”

    The sack sparked swift international outrage. In this regard, the Amsterdam News (New York) noted: “Supporters such as Jerry Rawlings, the former president of Ghana who, upon learning of her dismissal tweeted: ‘The dismissal of Arikana Chihombori-Quao, AU ambassador to the United States, raises serious questions about the independence of the AU. For someone who spoke her mind about the detrimental effects of colonization and the huge cost of French control in several parts of Africa, this is an act that can best be described as coming from French-controlled colonized-minds.’”

    Moreover, a petition demanding her reinstatement gathered over 100,000 signatures. Asked if she was surprised by the massive global support, she said: “Absolutely. … I did not realize that the work that I had been doing had reached that far. I was just a mother, a grandmother, who happened to be a diplomat speaking our truth. But also I felt that I had been given a platform to represent 1.27 billion people on the planet and 250 million within the Americas and that if I did not speak up about the evils and the ills I see every day, I saw every day, and continue to see every day, then that would mean the 1.27 billion people on the continent and the 250 million in the Americas will be voiceless. That is not something I was willing to do.”

    As such, rather than make her cower before the international powers-that-be, the dismissal strengthened her resolve to play her part in liberating Africa. Chihombori-Quao’s thesis is that, in 1884, the Berlin Conference held in which Europeans divided Africa among themselves; and did so in a cynical way, by cutting up erstwhile solid states or vast empires into tiny ineffectual countries which couldn’t assert themselves on the global scene, but needed props from the European hegemons. The vulnerable condition of these countries facilitated the continuation of colonialism by other means. She has been of the view that France was most predatory in its colonial exertions, and that when the country was pressurised to leave the continent, France emplaced inequitable conditions which undermined the sovereignty of the colonised nations and ensured that French colonialism continued effectively, especially in West Africa.

    The French policy of ending colonisation without decolonisng is referred to by the obnoxious term ‘Françafrique’. According to a 5 February, 2020 piece by Filip Noubel titled “’Françafrique’: A term for a contested reality in Franco-African relations,” in GlobalVoices.org, “’Françafrique’ is a term that describes the historical relationship between France and its former colonies in sub-Saharan Africa. … A portmanteau linking ‘France’ and the French word for Africa. … In its broadest definition, it encompasses the political, financial, military, cultural, and linguistic relations between France and the countries that came under French rule or influence – Benin, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Comoros, Côte d’Ivoire, Djibouti, Gabon, Guinea, Madagascar, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, and Senegal.”

    Moreover, in a 23 March, 2018 article, titled “Françafrique: A brief history of a scandalous word,” in New African magazine, Boubacar Boris Diop states: “A Janus-faced entity – one African, the other French – Françafrique is the ultimate symbol of a confiscated, perverted sovereignty. … [T]his singular coinage perfectly illustrates France’s dogged refusal to decolonise.”

    Read Also: Nigeria remains committed to foster stability in West Africa – FG

    Adem Kiliç lists the terms of the agreement as follows: “According to the signed colonization agreements, (1) The newly independent countries have to pay for the infrastructure that France built in the country during colonialism. (2) African countries have to deposit their national monetary resources in the Bank of France. (3) France has the priority in purchasing all natural resources of its former colonies. (4) In public tenders, it is imperative to give priority to French companies. (5) Africans have to send their senior education officers to France or French military infrastructures, due to a multifaceted system of scholarships and grants tied to the colonization treaty. (6) In accordance with the signed colonization agreement, France has the right to intervene militarily in African countries and permanently deploy troops in military bases and facilities managed by the French.”

    Others include: “(7) According to the colonization agreement, these countries are subject to the obligation to make French the official language of the country and the language of instruction. (8) According to the agreement, these countries are also obliged to use the CFA Franc. (9) Again, according to the agreement, these countries, in the event of a global war or crisis that may arise, have to ally with France.” Two additional terms which Mawuna Koutonin had mentioned on 28 January, 2014 in an article in Silicon Africa.com titled, “14 African countries forced by France to pay colonial tax for the benefits of slavery and colonization,” are (10) “Renunciation to enter into military alliance with any other country unless authorized by France” and (11) “Obligation to send France annual balance and reserve report, [and] without the report, [the defaulting country would have]  no money.”

    Boubacar Boris Diop further notes: “To be frank, the meek silence of Francophone African intellectuals is the main reason why French public opinion thinks there is nothing wrong with Françafrique.” He also states: “There are many signs that the situation is changing. France is no longer the great world power she used to be three decades ago, when Paris could easily topple an African head of state without too much fuss. Now, she needs the ‘approval’ of the UN – and the money – to do so. Moreover, most of the new African leaders were born after these strange ‘independences’ their fathers threw so cowardly to the dogs. Even though many of these young presidents still have a slave mentality vis-à-vis Paris, some of them refuse to act as its obedient lackeys. Ironically, these ‘resisters’ are the ones who will, at last, decolonise France, a country still haunted by its colonial past – tragicomically at times.”

    In a conversation with students and alumni of the University of South Africa, on Africa Web TV on 13 March, 2024, Thabo Mbeki, former President of South Africa, gave the details of one of the agreements as follows: “I think we’ve got to understand this about the West Africa situation. A few years back, you remember we had to work with Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast), to help them to get sorted out. One of the things we found was that there was an agreement with France signed at the point of the independence of Cote D’Ivoire that France would maintain a military barrack in Abidjan, the capital, and the Commander of the French troops, in any situation where he felt the security of Cote D’Ivoire or the security of France was threatened, he had the power, the sovereign power, a French General, to take over the public station broadcasting and announce whatever he liked. It’s one of the twelve or so agreements that not only Cote D’Ivoire but many Francophone countries signed with France at independence. Mali has just repudiated all of those agreements.”

    President Mbeki continued: “Part of what is happening in West Africa is a rebellion by young officers against French neo-colonialism. It’s not only military coups to remove some elected president, but these young soldiers are saying ‘Our politics since independence has respected this junior relationship with France that must end. … It’s an anti-neo-colonial rebellion.’”

    And by the way, Adem Kiliç, in a 16 November, 2021 piece on “The system of Western exploitation in Africa and the case of France,” in the United World International, recalls the cruel antecedents of today’s debilitating exploitation of the continent and the victims’ resistance efforts: “The influence of the Western countries on Africa was the result of a bloody process and completely based on obtaining the resources of the region. There were violent conflicts and wars with the indigenous peoples who resisted the influence of the West in the African Continent. Indigenous peoples who resisted were violently and bloodily neutralized. The enthusiasm of the West to obtain resources on land and above ground in the beginning has evolved into another dimension with the determination of precious metals and strategic mines in the future.” That future is here.

    With France steadily losing its stranglehold on its former colonies and an uncertain diplomatic and economic future in West Africa lying ahead of the country, it seems as if France is now courting other countries, especially Nigeria. But Nigeria’s experience with France hasn’t been particularly reassuring. During the Nigerian Civil war (1967 to 1970), France supported and supplied arms to the Biafran side. Two of the motives some experts gave for the French actions were to control the oil resources of Biafra and to weaken and reduce Nigeria’s influence on French-speaking West African states. Given these and other antecedents, Nigeria needs to be quite cautious in the new relationship with France, and regularly ask the question, “Can the leopard change its spots?”

    It’s a credit to Ambassador Arikana Chihombori-Quao’s profundity, foresight and tenacity that elements of the post-coup speeches and policies of current soldiers who ousted their pro-France governments, and even some democratically-elected ones, in West Africa sound like pages from Dr. Chihombori-Quao’s playbook. For example, the Alliance of Sahel States (French: ‘Alliance des États du Sahel [AES]’) has been established to get the benefits of unity, a common liberationist theme in Chihombori-Quao’s counsel, in order to enjoy the benefits of common vision and common action and ensure the stability and the enhancement of the sovereignty of the uniting countries. Moreover, the countries, including democratically-governed ones like Senegal and Cote D’Ivoire, have asked French troops to leave.