The Nation Newspaper

Category: Nuances

  • How did Wike lose Odili?

    How did Wike lose Odili?

    Constancy is the mark of true love. This is the key message of William Shakespeare’s Sonnet 116. One of the events for which this message has relevance is the current souring of the relationship between two former Rivers State Governors – Dr. Peter Odili and Barrister Nyesom Wike. Dr. Odili was the Governor of the State from 29 May, 1999 to 29 May, 2007 and Barrister Wike was Governor from 29 May, 2015 to 29 May, 2023. Barrister Wike is currently the Honourable Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT), Abuja. Dr. Odili is 75 years old and Barrister Wike is 56. Moreover, Dr. Odili’s 72-year-old wife, Justice Mary Odili, who is a retired Justice of the Supreme Court of Nigeria, is also of key significance in regard to the relationship between the two former Governors of the State.

    At the lecture delivered by Professor Julius Ihonvbere on 25 May, 2023, to mark Wike’s imminent end of tenure, Governor Wike said as follows about Dr. Odili and his wife: “One of the things that I can say, and I would continue to say it, that guided me before I was sworn in as the governor in 2015, I would not forget that, and which is what I have also told my successor. Dr. Peter Odili wrote out certain things and gave to me that these should be my guide; that he had made his own mistakes and he didn’t want me to make those mistakes. And I took that seriously and this is what has led me or led us to where we are today. So, Dr. Peter Odili, I sincerely thank you and your wife.”

    Tracing the benefactor and mentor roles that Dr. Odili and his wife had been playing in the lives of Wike and his wife far back in time, Governor Wike also said on 16 May, 2022: “Any day that I would make Dr. Odili and his family to cry, God, don’t allow me to grow. These people suffered blackmail, everything, because of people like us. Sir, sir, I want to tell you today, I want to tell you today before people here. I would never be alive to make you cry and your wife. I will never do it. … I will never abandon you and your family. See where I am today … I’m a governor. … Where would I have been but for you and your wife?”

    Considering the reverence in which he has held the Odilis, Wike has been cited as the epitome of political gratitude. In fact, in a 9 June, 2023 WhatsApp discussion of political mentees who had betrayed their political mentors, or those who had tried to edit their political mentors out of the mentees’ political history, Wike attracted the following compliment: “In contrast, former Governor Nyesom Wike is legendary in his constant appreciation of and loyalty to those who helped him to fame. For example, he acknowledged and tried to immortalise the Odilis at every opportunity he had.” This difficult-to-earn reputation of Wike is now at risk of being completely destroyed, because of the Minister’s obsession with cutting Fubara to size.

    Read Also: PDP: How Atiku, Wike tug-of-war reshapes party’s 2027 dynamics

    In what seems to be a gratuitous insult, Wike committed the Odilis to anonymity. He said as follows using innuendo on 25 March, 2024: “I hear they have a Judicial Consultant now who says they should not worry, [and that] as far as she’s there nothing would happen. That’s their business. … I built the cancer centre … and I named it after one man. I built a Judicial Institute and I named it after one woman.” “A Judicial Consultant” and “one woman”, here, appear to be jibes taken at Justice Odili (whom he had been calling “Mummy” or “My Mother” before now) and “one man” refers to Dr. Odili. Wike also uses certain derogatory expressions which as a consequence of ambivalence could be perceived as referring to the Odilis. Here, Wike seems to disregard the Yoruba proverbial admonition that whatever part of the body you designate as head, you shouldn’t use it to step on the ground (“Ibi tí a bá pè lórí ẹnìkan kìí fi í tẹlẹ̀.”)

    In fact, Wike told journalists on 2 April, 2024 as follows in response to the question whether he still had a good relationship with Dr. Odili: “As it is today, politically, we don’t have. We don’t work together [due to political differences].” He said further: “In politics, you see, for me, we have finished with this stage. It does not mean that in the next stage you will be in the same camp. No. He took a decision. I took decision.” This raises the questions, “Do favours have expiry dates beyond which it becomes ethical to undermine or attack one’s erstwhile benefactors? Do favours expire?” There are restrained ways of fighting one’s mentors. Engaging in public verbal attack of your mentor closes the door to reconciliation, because, as a Yoruba proverb puts it, “Ẹyin lohùn; t’óbá tí fọ́ kò ṣeé kó mọ́.” (‘Words are eggs; once broken, they cannot be collected into a whole again.’)

    On 24 March, 2024, Wike referred to his opponents in the Wike-Fubara feud as “political harlots” and “political charlatans”, and assured his own supporters as follows: “I will continue to defeat them. … In Ikwerre tradition, when you start beating the drum of wrestling, it’s not that time the real wrestlers will come out. … The real wrestlers will come in later, towards the end.” Wike’s self-portrayal as an unbeatable wrestler calls to mind this story on page 4 of Chinua Achebe’s Arrow of God:  “Once there was a great wrestler whose back had never known the ground. He wrestled from village to village until he had thrown every man in the world. Then he decided that he must go and wrestle in the land of the spirits, and become champion there as well. He went, and beat every spirit that came forward. Some had seven heads, some ten; but he beat them all. His companion who sang his praise on the flute begged him to come away, but he would not, his blood was roused, his ear nailed up. Rather than heed the call to go home he gave a challenge to the spirits to bring out their best and strongest wrestler. So they sent him his personal god, a little wiry spirit who seized him with one hand and smashed him on the stony earth.”

    The narrator continued: “Men of Umuaro, why do you think our fathers told us this story? They told it because they wanted to teach us that no matter how strong or great a man was he should never challenge his chi. … The fly that has no one to advise it follows the corpse into the grave.”

    Wike needs to recalibrate. It is hoped that he would not cast himself in the mould of a tragic hero. In literature, it is in the nature of tragic heroes that they possess some inimitable qualities which are undermined by a fundamental flaw in themselves. In fact, litcharts.com, states: “Tragic heroes typically have heroic traits that earn them the sympathy of the audience, but also have flaws or make mistakes that ultimately lead to their own downfall.”

    In his feud with Fubara, Wike needs to appreciate the Yoruba view that it’s difficult to fight a younger person. If the older one defeats the younger one, the older person is called “àgbà’yà” (‘Old bully’); and if the younger one defeats the older one, the older person is called “àgbà yẹ̀yẹ́” (‘Big-for-nothing old fellow’). In the ambivalent and complex case of Fubara, though he is the younger one, he has acquired the status of an ‘elder’ by virtue of his position as the incumbent governor. In fact, on 1 April, 2024, at the handing over of a health facility built by Dr. Odili’s foundation to the Rivers State Government, Dr. Odili said to Fubara: “You are the political leader of Rivers State.” It would therefore be a misjudgement to view Fubara from the prism of the pre-29-May-2023 mentee or political godson. As a Yoruba proverb puts it, “Ẹni tí ó bá fi ojú àná wo òkú, ẹbọra á bọọ lásọ.” (‘Anybody who treats a corpse as if it were yesterday’s living human being would be de-clothed by the spirits.’)

    Fubara may not yet have become a superlative verbal pugilist, but he’s making considerable progress. On 3 April, 2024, he sent the following warning to those who may be taking his implementation of the presidential peace deal as a sign of weakness: “And I am doing it because of the respect I have for Mr. President. But, let me say it here, if that action that I have accepted to take would be seen as a weakness, I will surprise them. I want this message to go to them.” On 4 April, 2024, in reaction to the outrage of the opposing camp at the original threat, he doubled down by saying: “You have seen how restless they have been since I made one small statement yesterday. We will continue to make them restless. They won’t know where we’re coming from. We will also hit them the way we hit them that day. …We will not allow anybody … to take our meekness for weakness.”  

    In an innuendo targeted at Fubara’s enigmatic transformation, Wike warned on 27 March, 2024: “And I tell you in life, be careful of those who don’t talk. … Be careful of people you say they’re very quiet. Be careful. … Be careful of those who … will never say anything.” This is in contrast to the nice things Wike said about the then-incoming Governor Fubara (affectionately called ‘Sim’) on 25 May, 2023: “You know he’s an Accountant. Accountants are very conservative. They don’t spend money anyhow. … But he’s a very good person, I can tell you. … He’s somebody you can rely on. His ‘yes’ is ‘yes’, that I can tell you.”

    As the competitive boasts and threats by the war-tested Wike and the simmering Sim continue, it is hoped that the brewing crisis would not boil over and enter the free-style, ruleless, unrestrained “two-fighting” or “roforofo fight” mode in which more erstwhile sacred relationships like the Odili-Wike one would admit impediments, suffer collateral damage and be thrown to the dogs.

  • The Faye phenomenon and its lessons

    The Faye phenomenon and its lessons

    Senegal’s new President Bassirou Diomaye Faye has confounded pundits with his unanticipated characteristic entry on to the world stage. He is 44 years old, officially married to two wives, and was born and raised in the small community of Ndiaganiao, where, in an Al Jazeera account, “in 2022 … [he] campaigned to become the village mayor but lost.” Until 14 March, 2024, just 10 days before the presidential election which took place on 24 March, he had been in prison for 11 months on charges of defamation and contempt of court.

    Faye’s Facebook protest, for which he was imprisoned, was against the incarceration of thousands of pro-democracy Senegalese, including his political mentor, Ousmane Sonko, who is now 49 years old and who has been described by voanews.com as a “popular opposition figure and mentor”, and, by Al Jazeera, as “a firebrand with a soft tone and a sharp tongue.” Sonko created a political party, PASTEF (African Patriots of Senegal for Work, Ethics and Fraternity), in 2014, and according to Al Jazeera, “the party attracted middle management civil servants who felt frustrated and powerless as they watched their superiors steal money and receive kickbacks with impunity.” In the 1999 presidential election, he contested and came third. Due to Sonko’s conviction, he could not stand for election in 2024, and so, in November 2023, while both of them were still in prison, he chose in his stead Faye who has been widely described as “largely unknown to the public”.

    As Al Jazeera further noted, “overwhelmingly funded by the Senegalese diaspora from Europe and North America, Faye and Sonko ran an American-style campaign, campaigning as a duo ‘Diomaye Sonko’ on a pan-African ticket. They filled up stadiums and lit up the sky with fireworks.” Moreover, in the words of Al Jazeera, “They crisscrossed the nation, surrounded by bodyguards holding back frenzied crowds of young people wanting to get a glimpse of the men – as if the two were rock stars and not former tax inspectors.”

    In addition, Al Jazeera recounted: “The crowds sang the anthem to their campaign: ‘Sonko is Diomaye, and Diomaye is Sonko.’ Broom in hand, [Faye] promised ‘sweeping’ change from a new currency and the renegotiating of oil and gas contracts to changing Senegal’s relationship with France and the French language. Faye promised he would put ‘Senegal first’ and make the Senegalese his priority.”

    The opposition was also deep-thinking, clear-headed and pragmatic in its agitation for change. When the incumbent President at the time, Macky Sall, declared amnesty to all those who had been linked with criminal acts related to the struggle, the opposition saw it as the President’s tactic to protect the government’s goons who had been alleged to have committed acts of violence, including murder, against the opposition. But the opposition also recognised that opposing the blanket amnesty would mean keeping Sonko and Faye longer in prison and thereby progressively weakening the democratic agenda to change the government.

    The opposition’s dilemma was like what is captured in the Yoruba proverb, “Ó só síni lẹ́nu ó bu’yọ̀ sii: ìṣó nìyí kò ṣeé gbé mì; iyọ̀ nìyí kó ṣeé tu dànù.” (‘They farted into one’s mouth, but added salt to it; the fart is not pleasant to swallow and the salt is not desirable to spit out.’) This is another case in which ‘compromise’ is not a dirty word. So, the pro-democracy agitators reluctantly accepted the “win some, lose some” dictum as a veritable principle of life.

    Faye’s hypnotic transition from prisoner to President has immense significance for Africa, especially her youth. His relative youthfulness and that of his political mentor indicate that if the youth present themselves and are seen as a credible alternative to the elders they mean to upstage, the masses would give them unflinching support. Though Sonko and Faye were not known to have been stupendously rich, a wide range of Diaspora Senegalese trusted them enough to provide the funds to facilitate their success.

    The trust and financial support may have been earned due to the fact that the Sonko-Faye movement had an unambiguous message which resonated widely. The clear message was that the old political order must change, and the objective consistently remained just that all through the struggle. Moreover, the Senegalese struggle had a discernible charismatic leader and a complement of credible compatriots. So, in or out of jail, the struggle had its set of trustworthy figures and rallying-points, and they were focused and dynamic enough to ensure that once any of them was legally-incapacitated, a replacement could be seamlessly designated.    

    This set of attributes was lacking in the Special Anti-Robbery Squad (#EndSARS) protests of 2020 in Nigeria. The protests were initially hugely successful, but soon manifested the rapid burst of bubbles as happens with “Andrews Liver Salt”, using the imagery favoured by opposition politician Rabiu Musa Kwakwanso. In Yoruba, this same effect is described as “Ò hó sùkùsùkù dá wáíwáí.” They started off as protests against police brutality, and according to BBCNews, “the demonstrations rocked the country for two weeks – and led to the government agreeing to disband Sars and set up judicial panels of inquiry to investigate the widespread allegations of abuse by officers.” Dazzled by this accomplishment, the protesters naively changed their goal-post and started demanding an end to the democratically-elected government of President Muhammadu Buhari.

    Legitimate questions therefore started to be asked about the real motives of the #EndSARS protests. Were they truly to stop police brutality? Did they have an ethnic agenda, given the desecration of the palace of Elékó, the Yoruba traditional ruler of Lagos? And given the live virtual directing of parts of the protests by Nnamdi Kanu, the leader of the secessionist Independent Peoples of Biafra (IPOB) that had been declared as a terrorist group by the government and the live reporting of the progression of the protests to Kanu by Igbo protesters? Was it also ethnically-motivated considering Kanu’s call for and the subsequent wanton destruction of properties in Lagos by Igbo protesters targeting Yoruba assets (especially those of Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu)? Were the #EndSARS protests also an opposition design for regime change, given the transmuting of the slogan from #EndSARS to #EndBuhari? Could that have been the reason for the anti-#EndSARS protests in Abuja?

    Moreover, there was no clear leadership for the #EndSARS protests. So, there was nobody or credible set of people to articulate an enduring noble anchor vision to feed the minds and consciousness of the protesters and energise them towards an unshakeable goal. In the circumstances, the protests were sustained by hedonistic t’ọ̀funlọ̀ràn (‘gut-propelled’ or ‘Where belle face’) needs. And food, drinks and reveling were provided in abundance while the protests lasted.

    Besides the #EndSARS protests, concepts such as “Third Force” were created to wrest power from the major political parties, especially the ruling All Progressives Congress (APC) and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). However, personal promotion made agreement on a consensus presidential candidate difficult to reach by the parties constituting the “Third Force”. In addition, those who vociferously claimed to be advocating for youth takeover of politics in Nigeria were people who did not have credible democratic antecedents. In fact, they had put themselves up as unabashed ethnic and religious jingoists in the past. So, the overwhelming, politically perceptive segment of Nigerian youth refused to be swindled by the self-appointed puppeteers.

    Read Also: Faye presidency wake-up call for Nigeria, Africa — Prof. Chris Imumolen

    The same fate bedeviled the Ebi n pa wá (‘We’re hungry’) phenomenon which was related to the tough economic situation of the country. Protests, possibly powered by some members of President Tinubu’s Yoruba ethnic group who never wanted him to contest or win in the first place, rocked the Yoruba heartland of Ibadan. Northern Youth, possibly angered by some of the President’s decisions which were deemed to be anti-North, also took to the street complaining about hunger and burning the nation’s flag. For some reasons, there were no notable Ebi n pa wá protests in the South-East. Some members of the Northern elite interpreted this as a reflection of the Igbo unpatriotic lack of concern for the fate of Nigeria and Nigerians.

    However, some of the members of the Igbo elite argued that the Igbo suffered more excruciating hunger during the civil war, and this made the present hunger child’s play, and it would be pointless for them to embark on any protest now. Other members of the Igbo elite also argued that Igbos were not crying Ebi n pa wa, because Igbos were enterprising and survivalist, and could find a way out of any existential problem. Chief Emmanuel Iwuanyanwu, the President of Ohaneze Ndigbo – the main Igbo socio-cultural group – also warned the Igbo not to take part in any protests, because such participation could lead to the singling out of Igbos for sanctions thereafter.

    In a further ethnicisation of the Ebi n pa wa agitations, some Yoruba supporters of the President asked why there were no hunger protests when the currency-change initiated by an Igbo Governor of the Central Bank and a Fulani President, before the 2023 elections, inflicted unprecedented pain on a wide range of Nigerians. They asked whether the protests, especially as it concerned the Nigeria Labour Congress led by an Igbo man, who is also a Labour Party chieftain, were not driven by those who wanted to destabilise the government headed by a President who is Yoruba.  The ethnicisation and politicisation of the protests therefore made effective common action difficult to undertake or sustain.

    Perhaps the most noteworthy lesson of the Faye phenomenon is that he has not shown any desire to supplant his mentor. The legal encumbrance Sonko suffered by virtue of his conviction did not inspire Faye to want to distance himself from him, and neither did his choice as the replacement presidential candidate by Sonko make Faye receptive to sycophantic flattery which has the tendency to rationalise and euphemise ingratitude. Accordingly, one of his first major presidential actions was to appoint Sonko, on whose back he rode to global fame, as Prime Minister.

    The Faye fate has reaffirmed the fact that liberal democracy is working in Africa. Moves by the incumbent government of Macky Sall to postpone the presidential elections, which were widely interpreted as a ploy to gift himself an unconstitutional third term in office, were vehemently opposed at high personal and social costs. Graciously, the opposition got the support of the judiciary, and, as AP News described him, “a previously little-known” Faye defeated the ruling coalition candidate, Amadou Ba, who was the country’s Prime Minister until 6 March, 2024. Ba called Faye, conceded defeat and congratulated him, even before the results were officially declared.

    Now, would Senegalese get the premium good governance for which they have struggled so much and risked life and limb? Time will tell. Meanwhile, fare fair, Faye.

  • Closed minds

    Closed minds

    He mind is a terrible thing to waste.” This timeless statement is the motto of the United Negro College Fund founded in 1945 by the African-American Microbiologist Frederick Douglass Patterson. As noted by Marian Johnson-Thompson in an article in a 23 February, 2023 publication of the American Society for Microbiology, it “remains an indelible phrase in the fabric of our nation to encourage and support those who lack educational and training resources.” It is not only the minds of those who lack those opportunities that are a waste. Equally wasted are closed minds.

    But, what does it mean to be closed-minded? According to Cambridge Dictionary, to be closed-minded is “not willing to consider ideas and opinions that are new or different to your own.” In other words, a closed-mind has fossilised ideas marked by an inability or refusal to think deep. As the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English puts it, “if people, ideas, systems, etc., fossilise or are fossilised, they never change or develop, even when there are good reasons why they should change.”

    Closed-mindedness is linked to incredulity which Oxford Languages defines as “the state of being unwilling or unable to believe something.” This definition implies that closed-mindedness can be willful. Many times, such closed-minded incredulity is presented as being ‘principled’. So, those who lapse into such insidious incredulity also suffer the delusion of thinking that what ails them is an unwillingness to compromise their ‘principles’. In human societies, closed-mindedness is ubiquitous and has continued to harm both the closed-minded as well as their targeted victims.

    So, it is pertinent to ask here, “Does education open a closed mind?” Unfortunately, the answer is, “Not necessarily.” In fact, ironically, some of the most despicable closed minds or bigots are people who have been highly-educated. This makes it pertinent to distinguished between ‘being highly-educated’, or ‘being learned’, from ‘being well-educated’ or ‘being properly-educated’. A pigheaded, highly-educated person would not rise above the level of a magisterial ignoramus. Examples can be found in television and newspaper analysts and they exist even in academic settings. This is the case because education is essentially socialisation. So, if a person has had extensive exposure to toxic socialisation in school, their string of academic certificates can only be a magisterial testament to mental incapacitation.

    This fact is recognised by the Yoruba saying, “Ìwé yàtọ̀ s’ọ́gbọ́n.” (‘Learning is different from wisdom.’)  This means that it is possible to have ‘an unwise knowledgeable person’, and they are often narrow-minded, fossilised in thinking, incapable of admitting new facts, asinine in outlook, operating in a bubble, incapable of accurate self-perception, arrogant in perspective, suffused with negativity, and above all prone to unhappiness.  A closed mind is therefore characteristically a sick mind.

    In world history, one of such closed-minds is Paul Joseph Goebbels, a PhD holder in Philology – the study of languages and literary texts – who was Adolf Hitler’s chief propagandist and who was remarkably skilled in public speaking. He was reported to have deployed his oratorical skills in propagating virulent and genocidal propaganda. History records it that in the end, he committed suicide through cyanide poison. 

    The title of Joseph Goebbels’s propaganda newspaper was, in English translation, “Attack”. Can you find a comparable propaganda media outfit in Nigeria today, which has a name syllabically similar to “Attack”, and semantically consonant with inciting insurrection? In Nigeria’s highly adversarial political climate, you can often find pitiable presumptuous political analysts with closed-minded views flowing like lava from their mouths.

    A closed mind can be self-propagating, but some of such minds are reversible, especially if the closed-mindedness is willful. However, some appear to be irreversible, seemingly because it may be said that the key with which they can be unlocked has been long lost. So, it is difficult for them to admit, acknowledge or accommodate any new or alternative facts, views, opinions or perspectives. It is easier to reverse or open a closed mind, if the closed-mindedness is not coupled with arrogance. In this regard, those who created the terms ‘intellectual humility’ and ‘intellectual honesty’ deserve commendation for their perceptiveness and foresight.

    Even in international fora like United Nations, elements of closed-mindedness is discernible, especially with respect to the veto – the power by any one or combination of two or more out of five member countries to override the decision of the around 200 remaining countries. This power to veto has been condemned by some of the leaders of the non-veto-wielding countries and they have called for scrapping it. For example, Dr. Mahathir Mohamad, as Prime Minister of Malaysia stridently campaigned against the veto power.

    For example, he said as follows the 74th United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) on 28 September, 2019: “Almost three quarters of a century ago five countries claimed victory in the Second World War. On the basis of that victory they insisted on the right practically to rule the world. And so, they gave themselves veto powers over the rest of the world in the organisation they built – an organisation they claim would end wars in the solution of conflicts. The veto power – they must know – was against all the principles of human rights which they themselves claim to be the champions [of]. It killed the very purpose of the great organisation that they had created. It ensured that all solutions to all conflicts could be negated by any one of them. Broken up into ideological factions they frustrated all attempts at solving problems. Each one of them can negate the wishes of the nearly 200 other members. It is totally and absolutely undemocratic. Yet, there are among them those who berate other countries of the world for not being democratic or being not democratic enough.”

    What Dr. Mahathir Mohamad was accusing the 5 veto-carrying countries of is what psychologists call ‘cognitive dissonance’, and which Oxford Languages defines as “the state of having inconsistent thoughts, beliefs, or attitudes, especially as relating to behavioural decisions and attitude change”. The appeal to good conscience as Dr. Mohamad did in his UNGA speech is also akin to what in Yoruba Language is encapsulated in the proverb, “Ẹni tó bá sùn laa jí; ẹnìkan kìí jí apirọrọ. ” (‘It’s only a person who is really sleeping that you wake up; nobody wakes up a person playing possum [i.e., pretending to be sleeping.]’) 

    The closed mind phenomenon also manifested in the Arab Spring which started in 2011. The agitators believed that it was only in dislodging their incumbent leaders at that time that their liberation and advancement lay. Now that some of the agitators have achieved their aim, stories abound of widespread disillusionment. In the specific case of Libya, the killing of Muamar Ghaddafi has ended up turning the erstwhile stable and prosperous country into a basket case of sorts. Similar closed minds who could not reconcile themselves to the fact that President Bola Ahmed Tinubu defeated their candidate, went to the Defence Headquarters to invite the army to take-over the government in order to stop the then-President-Elect from assuming office. Some of such closed minds also seem to be perpetually crouching in wait for bad news about Nigeria. It excites them whenever anything they perceive as negative happens to the country. Whenever anything positive happens to the nation, such perverse minds try to minimise or give it a negative twist.

    Closed-mindedness and its related phenomenon, group think – uncritically jumping on the bandwagon of the opinions of some vocal elements in society – can also be identified in the ongoing efforts to review the 1999 Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (as amended). One of the refrains by a category of commentators and analysts is “Elections should be won at the polling booth and not in the court.” This seems to be an attempt at a mental shortcut. The analysts, ostensibly pursuing partisan goals, claim that when the court has determined that there is fraud in an election, the court should only order a rerun. It is not certain whether those who hold this view have sufficiently exercised their intellect. When the court has determined that a particular candidate had the majority votes in an election, how just and democratic would it be to direct that the election be rerun? Would that not constitute double jeopardy for the person who was cheated in the first place to ask them to face their electoral tormentors afresh?

    Read Also: Religious mindset won’t advance your life – Woli Arole slams Christians

    Is the constitution review an effort to ensure that future elections in the country are freer, fairer and less litigious?  Or is it that some vocal or influential people think that the person they didn’t like won in the 2023 elections, because certain provisions were not in the constitution then? Are they trying to be like the dog in the Yoruba proverb which went to hide the knife after it had been used to cut its ears? Are they being wise after the act, as an English idiom would put it? Are they trying to shut the stable door after the horse has bolted?

    Interestingly, it is not only in race, politics and religion that closed-mindedness manifests. It manifests even in science. Pharmaceutical research is one area in which it is found in the form of sexism – the inequitable treatment of the sexes. In fact a 14 July, 2016 feature article by Sharon Florentine in CIO.com is wittily titled “Rats! Sexism is really everywhere.” The article deals with the preference for male rats in the efforts to develop new medicines, using the excuse that hormonal fluctuations could make research using female rats unreliable. Researchers have debunked this claim. According to Rebecca Shansky, as reported by Hannah Devlin, the Science correspondent of the Guardian (of London) on 31 May, 2019, “People like to think that they are being objective and uninfluenced by stereotypes but there are some unconscious biases that have been applied to how we think about using female animals as research subjects that should be looked into by scientists.”

    Hannah Devlin further reports that one of the consequences of using male mice and thereby focusing on male humans is that “across all drugs, women tended to suffer more adverse side effects and overdoses.” Another element of closed-mindedness is that it was also reported that some of the younger researchers were reluctant to accept the use of more female rats in their research, because, while in training, they were taught using largely male ones.

    As intractable as close-mindedness may seem to be, special mind-liberating training and retraining can yield positive results. Specifying that being sufficiently broad and equitable in scientific methodology is a requirement for grant eligibility has also been found to be very effective in accommodating change. Above all, taking personal responsibility, reviewing one’s own ideas and attitudes regularly and effecting necessary change in outlook would always be of immense value in tackling closed-mindedness.    

  • OAU women on the move (1)

    OAU women on the move (1)

    International Women’s Day (IWD) 2024 was on Friday, 8 March. According to the IWD website, the precursor to IWD was the 1908 campaign and protests in which “15,000 women marched through New York City demanding shorter hours, better pay and voting rights.” This march for equity and fairness resonated beyond America and in 1910 at an “International Conference of Working Women which was held in Copenhagen … a woman named Clara Zetkin (Leader of the ‘Women’s Office’ for the Social Democratic Party in Germany) tabled the idea of an International Women’s Day. She proposed that every year in every country there should be a celebration on the same day – a Women’s Day – to press for their demands. The conference of over 100 women from 17 countries, representing unions, socialist parties, working women’s clubs – and including the first three women elected to the Finnish parliament – greeted Zetkin’s suggestion with unanimous approval and thus International Women’s Day was the result.”

    The first IWD – “a global day celebrating the social, economic, cultural, and political achievements of women” – was marked in Austria, Denmark, Germany and Switzerland in 1911 supported by over a million people. As noted by the website, “IWD is an official holiday in many countries … The tradition sees men honoring their mothers, wives, girlfriends, colleagues, etc. with flowers and small gifts.” The general theme for IWD 2024 is “Invest in Women: Accelerate Progress”, and the campaign theme is “Inspire Inclusion”. According to the United Nations (UN), “One of the key pillars of Inspire Inclusion is the promotion of diversity in leadership and decision-making positions. … By providing support and resources, women can be empowered to overcome obstacles and achieve their full potential.”

    As part of celebrating IWD this year, this column today focuses on women in academia, specifically, in Obafemi Awolowo University (OAU), Ile-Ife, with which the column is most familiar, and which is a university which has recorded remarkable achievements in gender issues. The celebration has been done through the following interview with a woman of note in the university, Professor Funmi Soetan. Please, come along.

    Nuances: Good morning, Ma. Please, could you tell us a little bit about yourself?

    Soetan: Thank you. My name is Funmi Soetan, a Professor of Economics, specialising in Industrial Economics, Business Economics and Gender Economics. I’m very passionate about my faith in Christ, and I’m grateful to God for the opportunity to have spent almost 38 years at Obafemi Awolowo University in teaching, research and service. I’m happily married, with children and grandchildren.

    Nuances: March 8 is International Women’s Day. What’s the significance of this Day to Nigeria?

    Soetan: The UN adopted it as a day to highlight gender inequalities and celebrate progress and identify challenges. That started in 1974. Nigeria is a signatory to several UN conventions on gender equality, but when it comes to domestication we have a very poor track record. We have wide gaps in several areas of socio-economic development such as governance, access to resources, especially finance, and, worse still, maternal mortality. Nigeria has one of the highest burdens of maternal mortality in the world; I think the second or the third highest.

    IWD 2024 presents an opportunity for Nigeria to assess progress towards gender equality. As we know, the Sustainable Development Goals which are the successors of the Millennium Development Goals have the theme of inclusiveness that leaves no one behind. And if we are going to leave no one behind, certainly, it will not be women who make up at least fifty percent of our population. If we leave them behind, we are leaving development behind. So, this is another opportunity for Nigeria to spotlight, highlight and bring gender equality on the front burner and take a critical look at the challenges and how to address them, so that we can have development that is truly sustainable and inclusive.

    Nuances: As a very senior member of the OAU community, a very influential one for that matter, what institutional measures do you think OAU has put in place to enhance the prospects of women on this campus?

    Soetan: One of the most enduring institutional mechanisms put in place by Obafemi Awolowo University to protect the interests of women in the community is the Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy. It gives me such joy that finally Council adopted it and it was well-launched by the immediate past Vice-Chancellor Professor Eyitayo Ogunbodede. Interestingly, I got into ASH, as I call it, Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy, by default, being a woman. When I was hired in 1986, barely had I settled down that I was constantly being drafted into sexual harassment cases. And the last one that I served on was so messy; not only was it messy, it involved me personally, because the culprit sued me. He verbally assaulted me at the zoo car park.

    When I got home, I told my husband, and my husband said, “What have you done about it? Go and report to your Dean. Make a formal report, because next time, he may beat you up.” So, I reported to the Dean and the report was forwarded to Professor Ogunbodede, and another panel was set up on the same man, and he was found culpable. That was the eighth panel in nine years on this same person. So, I had personal experience. When he found out that he was found culpable by that committee, he put a notice on my door asking me to retract my statement or he would sue me. And he went ahead and sued me for five million naira. The case came up at the High Court here in Ile-Ife. I was shocked. I hadn’t done anything wrong; why was I being sued? Then I could feel for the students how they would feel oppressed and disempowered. So, my husband said, “We have a good case, but if we don’t get a good lawyer and rely just on the university lawyer, we will lose this case.” So, we hired a lawyer for two-fifty thousand naira then (around 2008/2009), out of pocket. And when he found that the case was getting hot, he stepped down. But see all it cost us.

    So, that gave me the burden to pursue the protection of the sexual rights of our students. And the opportunity came when I was appointed Director, Centre for Gender and Social Policy Studies, in 2010. The first thing I did, you can guess, when I resumed, was to ask the staff on ground, “Do you have an Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy?” And they said, “No.” And I said, “You have to get one.” The rest is now history.

    We mobilised the whole community including religious leaders in the mosques, in the churches, union leaders, staff and students, to come on board. And the policy was drafted, but put in the drawer for so long. Then I got into the Governing Council in 2017 and I kept asking, “Where’s the Anti-Sexual Harassment Policy?” That was the opportunity to push for the Council to adopt and back it up. And it happened while I was still there. So, if that is all I have been able to do, I’m happy, because the university started to implement it. Thankfully, when the Akindele case came up, Professor Ogunbodede called me and said, “Madam, we’re in trouble. BBC, VOA, everybody is on our case.” I said, “We have a policy.” So, that policy rescued us.

    Nuances: So, is it your general view that these measures have been effective? For example, how much attempt has been made to make our curricula gender-sensitive? 

    Soetan: Yes. Remember that we worked together on this under Professor Simi Afonja. The good news is that the Centre for Gender and Social Policy Studies runs postgraduate courses, but the bad news is that that is all. It has not sort of percolated through the whole university. And again, under the auspices of UNESCO, I was hired as Lead Consultant for the BMAS (Benchmark Minimum Academic Standard) in Gender Studies, and we got all University Directors of Gender Studies together in Abuja, and NUC, UNESCO, we prepared the BMAS, but they didn’t implement it. We even said that it could start from making sure that there was a gender component in the General Studies/Special Electives. We’re still waiting.

    Nuances: Thank you, Ma. Which additional measures do you think OAU needs to put in place, moving forward, regarding gender?  

    Soetan: I think we’ve mentioned the key areas – curriculum, we’ve mentioned harassment policy, and also mainstreaming gender. We must mainstream gender at all levels including administration, not only in terms of numbers, so that we would not be like a bird flying with one wing. We need to be more inclusive, and therefore have in place policies that are more sustainable.

     Nuances: What do you envision for International Women’s Day 2025 in OAU?

    Soetan: One, a reduction in sexual harassment through zero-tolerance such that both staff and students would know that this is a no-go area. Perpetrators, either males or females, would be brought to book and victims would be protected. That is my desire. Two, gender-mainstreaming of our curriculum would be undertaken, starting from General Studies courses, thus highlighting gender as a key area of scholarship at all levels.

    Read Also: Tears as OAU zookeeper killed by lioness is buried

    Nuances: Thank you very much.

    One quite interesting point that can be inferred from Professor Funmi Soetan’s views in this interview is that, in her gender scholarship and gender policy activism, she got solid support from her husband, Professor Olufemi Soetan, who is a very senior ophthalmologist. This amazing spousal support mirrors the one which the icon, doyen and Mother of Gender Studies at OAU, Professor Similolu Adunni Afonja, got from her husband, Professor Adeniyi Afonja, a Professor of Metalurgical Engineering and former Deputy Vice-Chancellor (Academic) at OAU. He was there for her as she set out to nurse the acorn of the “Programme in Women’s Studies” of the Department of Sociology and Anthropology in 1986 to grow into today’s oak – the Centre for Gender and Social Policy Studies – a pivot of gender research, gender consciousness-raising and gender policy activism approved by the National Universities Commission (NUC) in 2002, during her time as Director.

    Through seminars and other programmes, staff, both female and male, from different academic disciplines across the university, were brought together by Professor Simi Afonja to examine different aspects of the lives of women and girls. She invited me into the Centre as a Fellow on account of my research interest in “Language and Gender” or “Women and Language”. It is a testimony to Professor Simi Afonja’s solid foundational work, her foresight, tenacity and organisational prowess that today her successors as Directors of the Centre have a template which continues to facilitate both intellectual and infrastructural development. This column today is dedicated to her in continuation of the celebrations of IWD 2024.

  • Tinubu, academics and professionals

    Tinubu, academics and professionals

    As nations begin to face seemingly intractable, essentially existential challenges, academics and professionals in whom the nations have invested heavily are faced with the moral duty of putting their expertise and experience at the disposable of the leadership of these nations. Nigeria is at present in one of those critical moments and expects nothing less from the country’s academics and professionals. Rather than pre-occupy themselves with whining and producing doomsday prognostications from fertile imagination or even working actively to undermine the nation, one group of academics and professionals asserted their critical stake in Nigeria by rising up to the challenge of critically interrogating and analysing the nation’s problems and proffering pragmatic solutions based on the patriotic vision that this nation can and shall thrive.

    This group, the P-BAT Academics and Professionals, consists of former Members of the Governing Councils of Universities, former and current Vice-Chancellors, Professors and other categories of Lecturers across the academia in Nigeria and the Diaspora, seasoned administrators in the public and private sector, former and serving public office-holders, and professionals of various callings within and outside the country. The group has been organising in-house “Pre-Conferences” and “Mini-Summits” which have produced “Policy Advisories” which have been invaluable to different Ministries, Departments and Agencies (MDAs) of the President Bola Ahmed Tinubu (PBAT) administration.

    On 15 February, 2024 in Abuja, the group, which, out of public view, had been intervening in a number of ways to make the country work better in the interest of all, convened a one-day summit with the theme, “Activating the Policies and Promises in the PBAT Renewed Hope Agenda.” The Renewed Hope Agenda has eight components. According to President Tinubu, in a Statehouse publication of 28 November, 2023, “The Renewed Hope Agenda of my administration is defined by our commitment to unleashing our country’s full economic potential, by focusing on job creation, access to capital for small and large businesses, inclusiveness, the rule of law, and the fight against hunger, poverty and corruption.”

    The task which the P-BAT Academics and Professionals volunteered to embarked upon, with funds raised among themselves, is, in the words of the National Coordinator of the group and Convener of the summit, Professor Yemi Oke of the Faculty of Law at the University of Lagos, Akoka, Lagos, “to continue to volunteer in deploying our intellectual and professional advantages to influence and/or ensure the success of the Tinubu Administration … [through] our Clusters in line with the 8-point Renewed Hope Agenda.”  Professor Oke further noted as follows: “At inception, the Group tasked itself with the sole objective of generating critical, intellectual inputs to support [then-candidate] Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu to win the Presidential primaries and the general election to become the President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria.”

    The 8 clusters around which the summit deliberated include agriculture, water resources, applied science and high technology; power, oil and gas, environment, sustainability management and transportation; healthcare, citizens wellbeing and housing; economic development, public finance, trade and investment and foreign trade relations; national security, defence and communication; national orientation, information, youth and sports development, and culture, creative arts and tourism; education and training; and justice, law and order, constitutional reform and public governance.

    Dignitaries at the 15 February, 2024 summit included, among others, Alhaji Atiku Bagudu, the Honourable Minister of Budgeting and Economic Planning; Professor Ayo Omotayo, Director-General, National Institute for Policy and Strategic Studies (NIPSS), Kuru, Jos, who was the Keynote Speaker; Professor Tunji Olaopa, the Honourable Chairman of the Federal Civil Service Commission; Dr. Tope Fasua, the Special Adviser to the President on Economic Affairs in the Vice-President’s Office; Dr. Olajumoke Oduwole, the Special Adviser to the President on Presidential Enabling Business Environment Council (PEBEC); the Chief of Air Staff, represented by Group Captain Duke Daniels; the Inspector-General of Police, represented by Commissioner of Police Ihebom Chukwuma; and the Commandant-General of the Nigerian Security and Civil Defence Corps (NSCDC), represented by Commandant Charles K. Opara.

    Moreover, the Senate President Chief Godswill Akpabio was represented by Chief Femi Odere, the Senior Legislative Aide to the Senate President on Stakeholders’ Engagement and Mobilisation, and the Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives, Rt. Hon. Benjamin Kalu, was represented by Mr. Daniel Akwari, the Special Adviser (Politics) to the Deputy Speaker.  The programme was also given royal affirmation by the presence of Her Imperial Majesty Olori Ambassador (Dr.) Omolola Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi who represented His Imperial Majesty Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi, Ojaja II, the Ooni of Ife.    

    In his keynote speech, Professor Ayo Omotayo remarked that “the easiest thing to do is to criticise,” and that he was impressed that while others had opted to engage in vexatious criticism, P-BAT Academics and Professionals had decided to own the government and come together to ask, “What can we do to make government succeed?” He further noted that as a country, “we are not bereft of policies. What we are bereft of is policy coordination.” In his view, this lack of policy coordination or “silo-mentality of MDAs” has led to the deleterious trend of different MDAs manifesting mutual distrust and engaging in “unnecessary protection of territories”. He noted that this tendency eventually leads to each MDA pushing its personal agenda as national policy, and creating policy summersaults. According to Professor Omotayo, such lack of “policy carry-through” is accentuated by uncritical public pressure arising out of communication problems or lack of awareness of public policy or available opportunities. This, in his opinion, could be addressed by e-governance.

    According to the United Nations (UN), “E-government can … be defined as the use of ICTs to more effectively and efficiently deliver government services to citizens and businesses. It is the application of ICT in government operations, achieving public ends by digital means.  The underlying principle of e-government, supported by an effective e-governance institutional framework, is to improve the internal workings of the public sector by reducing financial costs and transaction times so as to better integrate work flows and processes and enable effective resource utilization across the various public sector agencies aiming for sustainable solutions. Through innovation and e-government, governments around the world can be more efficient, provide better services, respond to the demands of citizens for transparency and accountability, be more inclusive and thus restore the trust of citizens in their governments.”

    Asked to deliver his goodwill message shortly after the keynote address, the Minister, Alhaji Atiku Bagudu, was reported to have said that he would prefer to listen to further paper presentations first. In this regard, the compere of the ceremony noted, with admiration, that the Minister took notes all through the expert presentations that followed the keynote speech. In his remarks thereafter, the Minister appreciated the P-BAT Academics and Professionals for going beyond teaching and research and beyond criticising, and coming together to show how the products of their work can help to solve specific problems confronting the nation. According to the Minister, “it is the ability to stand up before a group such as yours that gives us energy.” He then assured that his Ministry was available to engage any stakeholders who show interest in advancing the cause of the country. Further appreciating the efforts of the P-BAT Academics and Professionals in organising the summit, the Minister remarked, “We are humbled to be reminded that we can do better.”

    Read Also: Tinubu celebrates Aisha Buhari on birthday

    Commending the P-BAT Academics and Professional’s invaluable volunteering effort, Group-Captain Duke Daniels remarked: “Stakeholders must find their roles, taking it upon themselves to make contribution to make sure that governance benefits the citizens.” He further noted that the Air-force was a highly technological service, and that sustained efforts were being made to equip personnel appropriately to contribute effectively to tackling the issue of insecurity in the country. Responding to calls at the summit for the establishment of State Police as a means of battling insecurity, CP Ihebom Chukwuma, who is a Commissioner of Police in-charge of Community Policing, stated that the establishment of State Police was a political decision, and that if the decision was taken by the political leadership to establish it, the Nigerian Police Force would key in. Commandant Charles K. Opara also commended the efforts of the P-BAT Academics and Professionals and noted that the NSCDC has established an Agro-Rangers unit which would, among other functions, address the incessant farmers-herders’ conflicts.   

    Understandably what was of paramount importance to Her Imperial Majesty Olori Ambassador (Dr.) Omolola Adeyeye Enitan Ogunwusi was the steady erosion of our culture, a culture which ironically is increasingly gaining patronage outside Nigeria. She said she hoped that the nation would not have cause in future to have to buy back these cultural assets at a huge price.

    Dr. Ademola Rabiu, Ex-Officio Member and Organising Secretary of the Management Team of the P-BAT Academics and Professionals, who is also the MD/CEO of Africa Rays Consulting in Bellville, Cape Town, South Africa, was full of gratitude to the distinguished personalities and all who contributed to the huge success that the summit was. According to him, the summit was a response to President Tinubu’s appeal that all hands must be on deck to steer the ship of the Nigerian State ashore. Referring to the Honourable Minister Atiku Bagudu’s observation that spending on education in the Nordic countries was exemplary, Dr. Rabiu noted that it was important for Nigeria to adopt, as far as practicable, what was working in those countries whether it be in education or the economy.

    It is remarkable that while the P-BAT Academics and Professionals summit was going on, President Tinubu was meeting with state governors to review the current difficulties Nigerians have been facing and take coordinated steps to bring about relief. This is important, because many Nigerians have criticised the majority of state governors who appear to have been largely unconcerned about the pains being suffered by citizens and inhabitants of their states in spite of the significantly increased financial allocations from the Federation Account. The moral burden which governors bear in this regard is placed in bold relief by the deliberate emasculation of Local Governments by many state governments, thereby aggravating the despondency of the citizenry. 

    The pains Nigerians are currently suffering have also been attributed to deliberate efforts to undermine the Tinubu administration. Those who are deliberately sabotaging the policies of the current administration should realise that government is a continuum and that if such saboteurs continue in their perverse ways, by the time the people they like get into power, the problems of the nation may have mutated so much that their darling administration may not be able to effectively solve them.

  • Obasanjo’s state ofdemocracy address

    Obasanjo’s state ofdemocracy address

    On 20 November, 2023, at a high-level consultation on “Rethinking Western Liberal Democracy in Africa”, held at the Olusegun Obasanjo Presidential Library, Abeokuta, Ogun State, former President Olusegun Obasanjo delivered what may be referred to as his ‘State of Democracy Address’. In the widely reported speech, he made the following claims: (1) that Western liberal democracy is a “government of a few people over all the people or population … in which the majority of the people are wittingly or unwittingly kept out”; and, rather contradictorily, that “for those who define it as the rule of the majority, should the minority be ignored, neglected, and excluded?”; (2) that Western liberal democracy “is not working for us”; and (3) that “we should have ‘Afro-democracy’” in its place.

    Understandably, in reaction to the speech, many Nigerians have expressed righteous indignation, believing that the former President was insulting the citizens’ intelligence. As captured in Yoruba wit, in relation to the challenges of democracy in Africa, a crying person, Ajala, was asked, “Àjàlá, tàn nà ó?” Ó ní, “Èyin náà kóun.” (‘Ajala, “Who beat you?” He replied, “Who else but you?”’) This raises the following questions: (1) Do Chief Olusegun Obasanjo’s political experience and skills qualify him to make the democratic postulations in question? (2) Does he have the democratic temperament to justify his democratic preachments? (3) Is his pessimism about Western liberal democracy consistent with contemporary political realities?

    Regarding the first question, one of the unassailable credentials of iconic politicians is that they have demonstrated skills and verifiable experience in creating and nurturing political parties. Examples of such epochal politicians in Nigeria include Obafemi Awolowo, Ahmadu Bello, Nnamdi Azikiwe, Aminu Kano, Waziri Ibrahim, Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, Alex Ekwueme, Bola Ige, Bola Ahmed Tinubu, Muhammadu Buhari and Odumegwu Ojukwu. In the case of Obafemi Awolowo, he has set his experience, ideas and vision out in a series of books which continue to be reference points on politics, democracy and governance. It would be difficult to number Olusegun Obasanjo among that distinguished list.

    As it concerns the ongoing Fourth Republic, Obasanjo was in prison in 1998 when the political parties were being formed. He was released from prison on 15 June, 1998 and the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was formed on 28 July, 1998. One of the resolutions reached at the founding of the party was “To work together under the umbrella of the party for the speedy restoration of democracy, the achievement of national reconciliation, economic and social reconstruction and respect for human rights and the rule of law.”

    Given his incarceration, General Olusegun Obasanjo (rtd.) could not have been a major player in the hard, emotionally-tasking and highly risky preliminary work that went into the formation of the party under the General Sanni Abacha autocracy. That Chief Obasanjo was chosen as the presidential candidate of the party at the first PDP presidential primary in Jos on 15 February, 1999 was therefore something like what, in his 1985 studio album, Fela Anikulapo Kuti called “Army Arrangement”.

    That was probably why Obasanjo seemed not to have made much emotional investment into the party and why he had not been able to sustainably nurture the PDP that gifted him the presidential seat. This may have been the reason why he seemed to have had no qualms about ordering his PDP membership card to be torn to pieces cavalierly on 16 February, 2015. As our people say, Eni tí ò fé k’óyún ó sé kò lè fé kómo ó kú. (‘One who did not wish a pregnancy aborted would not want the baby to die.’) However, the person who did not know what it took to conceive, may not be capable of exercising the emotional restraint required to keep the baby alive.

    Read Also: Obasanjo, Jonathan, Sanwo-Olu, others hail Uzochukwu over luxury brand launch

    Even in the Second Republic, when he was the incumbent Head of State midwifing the return to civil rule in 1979, he was essentially an onlooker with respect to party formation, organisation and sustenance. Moreover, in 1992, the country had what could be called ‘bureaucratic parties’ – the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC) – which were set up and largely financed by the Ibrahim Babangida military administration. That political milieu could therefore not have provided Obasanjo with the opportunity to acquire or hone significant political or democratic skills.

    Obasanjo’s lack of requisite skills or experience in forming or nurturing political parties may have doomed even his attempts to prop up new-breed or Third Force political parties as options to the major parties like the All Progressives Congress (APC) and the PDP. One of such parties associated with him and which failed to mount an effective challenge to the major parties is the African Democratic Congress (ADC). Considering this fact and the related points made above, Obasanjo could not by any stretch of the imagination be classified as a path-charting politician who could make unassailable claims about Western liberal democracy, as he did in his Abeokuta speech.

    Let us now look at the second question pertaining to Obasanjo’s Abeokuta delivery. Does he have the democratic temperament and antecedents that could confer respectability and credibility on his public declarations on democracy? Key features of the democratic temperament include, among others, non-abrogation of the freedom to choose, staying within clearly defined limits within political relations, and respecting the rule of law.

    Obasanjo does not have a shining record with respect to these manifestations of the democratic temperament. As an incumbent President in 2007, he declared that that year’s elections were going to be a “do-or-die” affair for him and his party; and many people were reported to have died from the violence unleashed in those elections. He ordered President Muhammadu Buhari not to seek a second term in office in 2019. In his open letter of 27 February, 2023, Obasanjo went beyond his remit as a voter to ordering the Independent National Electoral Commission (INEC) to terminate the collation of the results of the presidential election of 25 February, 2023, and unilaterally fixed 4 March, 2023 for a rerun of “all the elections that do not pass the credibility and transparency test”. He further ordered that officials in charge of the BVAS and Server should be changed. In addition, in aluta fashion, he declared, “no BVAS, no result to be acceptable; and no uploading through Server, no result to be acceptable.” He made these declarations in disregard of what the relevant laws said about the acceptability of results.

    It appeared as if, on 27 February, 2023, Obasanjo was exasperated by the impending victory of his political nightmare, Asiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu, a man with the political Midas torch; and on 20 November, 2023, he was dazed by the fact that, against heavy odds, the President Tinubu administration was steadily finding its foot locally and internationally and was on the way to establishing itself as a truly transformational government.

    Now, let us look at the third question raised above in relation to Obasanjo’s democratic prognostications. Is Western liberal democracy working in Africa? Yes, it is. That was why he was rejected, at the polls, by his Yoruba kin in 1999 when he contested the presidential election, in exercise of their freedom to choose. That was why the Southwestern states fraudulently declared as won by his PDP in 2003 were returned to the Alliance for Democracy (AD) which the electorate in those states really voted in. That was why the purported impeachment of then-Governor Rashidi Ladoja of Oyo State was reversed by the court. That was why the third term agenda, Obasanjo’s attempt to elongate his tenure beyond the constitutionally prescribed two-term limit, was voted down by the Senate in 2006. That was why President Muhammadu Buhari ignored him, contested for a second term in 2019, and won. That was why open presidential primaries were conducted by APC from 6 to 7 June, 2022 in preference to the handpicking of the party’s candidate.

    Ironically, Obasanjo’s 20 November, 2023 claim that Western liberal democracy was not working came a few days after incumbent President George Weah conceded victory to opposition candidate Joseph Boakai in Liberia on 17 November, 2023. The Liberian democratic success came after incumbent President Goodluck Jonathan conceded victory to opposition candidate Muhammadu Buhari in Nigeria on 31 March, 2015. It also came after John Mahama, the incumbent President of Ghana, conceded victory to opposition candidate Nana Akufo-Addo on 9 December, 2016, even before the electoral commission announced the result. These, along with shining examples as in Botswana, show that Western liberal democracy is working in Africa.

    Yet, in its place, Obasanjo proposed ‘Afro-democracy’. But he did not define it. This leaves room for conjecture. Within ‘Afro-democracy’, given the huge emotional investment that Obasanjo had made into the aspiration of Peter Obi and given Obasanjo’s penchant for battering democracy, the Labour Party (LP) candidate would probably not have needed to win at the ballot to be declared President-Elect. And Prof. Mahmood Yakubu would probably have been successfully arm-twisted to terminate the result collation and rerun the election. Within ‘Afro-democracy’, Tinubu, who has consistently been Obasanjo’s nemesis, would then probably have been schemed out of his almost certain victory. Would ‘Afro-democracy’ not therefore cast the nation and the continent anew into the throes of democratic intemperance and electoral malfeasance?

    All said, Yoruba wisdom counsels that, Eni t’ó bá ma d’áso fún ni, t’orùn rè làá kó wò. (‘If a person promises you clothes, first look at the one they’re wearing to see whether they can truly fulfill the promise, and to see what you would look like in their kind of clothes.’) Obasanjo is not capable of giving Nigerians democratic apparel, because he is not wearing one. But if we must stretch charity enough to grant that he has some democratic clothes on, they are not the kind you would want to wear.

    Some have enjoined Obasanjo’s critics to focus on the message and not the messenger. But, could the seemingly good message not be weaponised by a bad messenger? Could the message not be a mere booby trap? The Collins Dictionary defines a booby trap as “something such as a bomb which is hidden or disguised and which causes death or injury when it is touched.” This implies that the harmless-looking message could, in fact, be worse than the messenger. Meanwhile, remember that booby traps are military devices, and Obasanjo is a retired General. Remember also the saying, “Once a soldier always a soldier.”

    In an earlier intervention in the Obasanjo democracy controversy, I asked that he be advised to speak less. I then remembered the observation that talking is therapeutic for the elderly. And former President Olusegun Obasanjo has a lot to tell the nation. But he should steer clear of pontifications on democracy.