The Nation Newspaper

Category: Sunday

  • The week of rewriting Nigeria’s social contract, refocusing ECOWAS

    The week of rewriting Nigeria’s social contract, refocusing ECOWAS

    If ever there was a moment when the promise of a better Nigeria took a bold, decisive step toward fulfillment, it was on Thursday, June 26, 2025, when President Bola Ahmed Tinubu signed four landmark tax reform bills into law. In one quiet stroke of the presidential pen, Nigeria embraced a historic shift — a pro-poor, pro-growth, and pro-justice fiscal reset that may well be remembered as the defining moment of this administration.

    For too long, the Nigerian tax system was a relic of a bygone era — complex, burdensome, and unjustly skewed against the poor and the struggling. With outdated legislation, the system had become a jungle of over 70 fragmented levies, confusing obligations, and overlapping authorities. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s reforms have changed that narrative. And not just changed — rewritten it.

    “These reforms go beyond streamlining tax codes,” the President said in a personal message shared via his verified X handle, @officialABAT. “They deliver the first major, pro-people tax cuts in a generation… targeted relief for low-income earners, small businesses, and families working hard to make ends meet.”

    Indeed, the scope and spirit of the new laws — the Nigeria Tax Reform Act, Nigeria Tax Administration Act, Nigeria Revenue Service (Establishment) Act, and the Joint Revenue Board (Establishment) Act — signal nothing less than a rebalancing of the Nigerian economy in favour of its most vulnerable citizens. This is what governance with empathy looks like.

    According to Taiwo Oyedele, Chairman of the Presidential Fiscal Policy and Tax Reforms Committee, over one-third of Nigerian workers in both the public and private sectors will now be fully exempt from paying personnel income tax. In a country where millions live on less than the equivalent of $2 a day, this is not just policy — it is justice. More than 90 percent of small, micro, and nano businesses will also no longer need to worry about taxes such as VAT, withholding tax, or corporate income tax. This is a massive reprieve for Nigeria’s informal economy and the backbone of its entrepreneurial spirit.

    READ ALSO: My biggest challenges in office, by Dapo Abiodun

    Even more heartening is the new wave of exemptions in critical areas such as food, housing, healthcare, education, and transport. Oyedele announced that all traces of VAT in these sectors have now been erased. With food inflation biting hard, especially among low-income households, this is a welcome breath of relief.

    Let us be clear: these are not cosmetic reforms. They are surgical interventions aimed at restoring fairness and correcting historical imbalances. President Tinubu himself described the reforms as a “reimagining of Nigeria’s fiscal culture,” one that rewards enterprise without punishing the poor.

    “We are not just signing tax bills,” he declared, “we are rewriting the social contract.”

    This bold language underscores the scope of vision driving the Tinubu administration — one that sees governance not merely as an exercise in policy drafting but as a deliberate covenant between leadership and the led. It is the embodiment of his Renewed Hope Agenda: a Nigeria of tomorrow being built right now, with the people at the centre.

    Zacch Adedeji, the Executive Chairman of the newly established Nigeria Revenue Service (NRS), put it succinctly when he explained the six-month lead time before implementation — the laws take effect January 1, 2026 — as a window for planning, sensitisation, and fiscal coherence. In this thoughtful approach lies another message: this administration is not in a hurry to score points; it is here to do things properly, with sustainability and inclusiveness at the core.

    It bears repeating that these reforms introduce no new taxes. Instead, they eliminate duplication, reduce corruption-prone layers, and enhance efficiency. They harmonise federal and state tax administrations under a more accountable system. This is not expansion of the tax net for exploitation; it is expansion for fairness and trust-building.

    The economic implications are profound. Investors, long wary of Nigeria’s inconsistent fiscal policies, now have clarity, predictability, and a unified system to engage with. For businesses, particularly start-ups and MSMEs, it is an open door to thrive. For the average Nigerian, it is less burden, more opportunities, and — crucially — a government finally speaking the language of equity.

    As Senate President Godswill Akpabio noted during the bill signing, “You have harmonized the entire tax system in this country… You are changing Nigeria’s future.” It’s not hyperbole. With improved revenue collection mechanisms and fiscal discipline, the state can now afford to serve better — from quality education and universal healthcare to resilient infrastructure and job creation.

    It is the beginning of a new era — not just for tax administration, but for social development in Nigeria.

    Yet, while Thursday’s tax reforms marked the economic high point of the week, last Sunday’s 67th Ordinary Session of the Authority of ECOWAS Heads of State and Government in Abuja offered another perspective on the weight of leadership — regional and historical.

    President Tinubu, having led ECOWAS for two consecutive terms, handed over the baton of leadership to Sierra Leone’s President Julius Maada Bio with a deep sense of fulfillment. But it wasn’t just ceremonial; it was a moment steeped in legacy and aspiration.

    During his tenure as ECOWAS Chairman, President Tinubu navigated some of the region’s most volatile episodes — military coups in Niger, Mali, and Burkina Faso, mounting insecurity, political instability, and economic dislocations worsened by global shocks. He stood firm on the pillars of democratic governance and constitutional order, insisting that regional integration cannot be achieved on shaky political foundations.

    “Our organization must continue to strike a fine balance between its core regional mandate of economic integration and the complex political, security and governance challenges,” Tinubu said at the closing ceremony. “Economic integration cannot be superimposed on an untenable political environment.”

    This candid truth — that growth must go hand-in-hand with good governance — was at the heart of Tinubu’s leadership style both in Nigeria and across West Africa. He did not shy away from tough calls. He led the ECOWAS condemnation of military regimes while maintaining open channels for dialogue. He kept the dream of regional solidarity alive even amid disagreements, emphasizing diplomacy over force when necessary.

    In handing over to President Bio, Tinubu left a clear mandate: continue the pursuit of peace, inclusivity, and prosperity for all West Africans, particularly women, youth, and vulnerable groups. It was a timely and necessary charge.

    And yet, there is hope — grounded in action. As Tinubu said, ECOWAS must evolve into a “people-centered vehicle for peace, inclusion and opportunity.” That hope lives in his two-term legacy and the baton now passed.

    Week of Action – A Leadership Symphony in Motion

    The just-concluded week, for President Tinubu, stood out for its unrelenting pace, weight of impact, and wide-ranging resonance. From economic reformation to regional diplomacy, infrastructure development, national security, and civil service reforms, the President executed a master-class in governance as both action and vision. The standout event—the signing into law of four tax reform bills—was emblematic of a broader motif: a new Nigeria, not as a hope deferred, but a future taking root in real time.

    But the week began with a solemn assertion of presidential authority on Sunday, as Tinubu reacted swiftly to two violent tragedies: the murder of 12 wedding guests in Plateau State and a suicide bombing in Konduga, Borno State. He ordered security agencies to bring the perpetrators to justice and reaffirmed his administration’s zero-tolerance stance on lawlessness. In a single breath, the President also mourned victims of an industrial explosion in Kano, calling for safety reforms—an indication that his government’s gaze extends beyond headlines to the corners where lives are often forgotten.

    On Monday, Tinubu returned to the domestic front with developmental gusto. In Kwali, he commissioned a 15-kilometre Pai Town Road, reinforcing his commitment to balanced infrastructure that uplifts rural communities. The FCT Minister, Nyesom Wike, credited Tinubu with supporting over 150 kilometres of rural roads across Abuja’s area councils—a silent but transformative push toward national integration.

    But it was in agriculture that the President unveiled a truly forward-looking chapter. The commissioning of 2,000 tractors under the Renewed Hope Mechanisation Programme signalled the dawn of an agricultural revolution. “We are just beginning”, Tinubu said—yet the symbolism was potent. It was a concrete investment in the same rural Nigeria that feeds the nation but has long lacked support. Now, with mechanised farming, the pathway to food security, job creation, and export viability looks clearer than ever.

    By Tuesday, Tinubu was hosting Queen Mary of Denmark, exploring partnerships in livestock and education. Hours later, he welcomed Brazilian Vice President Geraldo Alckmin to the State House, discussing the $1 billion Green Imperative Programme—an agricultural overhaul effort driven by tech and bilateral ambition. In both meetings, Tinubu positioned Nigeria not just as a recipient of goodwill, but as a co-architect of global development.

    Midweek tributes revealed another layer of the President: the statesman with memory. He celebrated Lagos State Governor Babajide Sanwo-Olu and his Chief of Staff, Femi Gbajabiamila, praising their roles in deepening governance and Lagos development. He paid homage to the late Chief Cornelius Adebayo as a “true statesman,” reminding Nigerians that legacy matters in the story of national progress.

    On Thursday, besides the signing of the landmark tax reform laws, he authorised a full audit of the federal civil service, a move geared toward aligning public institutions with modern data-driven governance. And late into the night, he chaired a high-stakes reconciliation meeting to ease the political crisis in Rivers State—arguably his most successful behind-the-scenes intervention to date.

    On Friday, the pace didn’t slow. He received President Brice Nguema of Gabon, reaffirming Nigeria’s South-South diplomatic pivot. That same day, he appointed Barrister Ismael Ahmed to head the Presidential Compressed Natural Gas Initiative, a pivotal post in his post-subsidy transition strategy.

    And on Saturday, he departed Abuja on a two-nation trip to Saint Lucia and Brazil—concluding a week that married action with diplomacy, home affairs with global outreach.

    In the end, whether through domestic tax reform or regional diplomacy, President Tinubu is sending a consistent message: leadership is service, not slogan. Governance is empathy, not ego. The Nigeria he envisions — prosperous, fair, inclusive — is one that starts from the ground up. With these landmark reforms and regional achievements, he has laid down another cornerstone in that vision.

    Indeed, the future may not be evenly distributed yet, but under Tinubu’s direction, it is steadily arriving — policy by policy, reform by reform. And for once, it feels like the Nigerian people are not being left behind.

    In seven days, President Tinubu governed with an energy befitting seven weeks—issuing a clarion call that Nigeria’s future isn’t an abstract ideal. It is being built, decisively and daily.

  • Iran had it coming

    Iran had it coming

    Twelve days after Israel began its air offensive against Iran, the war ended as suddenly as it began, almost without notice. In Israel, apart from the 28 persons who died as a result of Iran’s missile barrage, scores of apartments lie in ruins mainly in Haifa and Tel Aviv. In Iran, apart from the shocking degradation of its top security brass that saw the killing of 30 high-ranking security personnel and three senior commanders, not to say surrendering to total and embarrassing Israeli air dominance, its nuclear and missile facilities were badly damaged. For the United States, whose president Donald Trump continues to hanker after a Nobel Peace prize, it displayed air razzmatazz that led to the bombing of three Iranian nuclear facilities in Fordow, Natanz, and Isfahan using 30,000-pound GBU-57 bunker-buster bombs of disputed efficacy. The war ended because all sides to the conflict declared victory and ceased hostilities.

    The US was the quickest to declare victory after bombing the nuclear facilities, particularly Fordow, and announcing the facilities’ obliteration. Israel also declared that it had achieved nearly all its military and psychological operation objectives. After decapitating Iran’s proxy militias in Labanon (Hezbollah) and Gaza (Hamas), in the recent war, it instantly controlled and dominated Iranian air space unchallenged, eliminated senior Iranian military commanders by a combination of commando raids and stunning espionage operations undertaken by their spy agency, MOSSAD, did not lose one combat aircraft, and set Iran’s development of a nuclear bomb back by an undetermined number of years. But Iran was also quick to declare victory despite suffering more than 600 military and civilian casualties by pointing at the apocalyptic photographs of ruined buildings in some Israeli cities, and boasting about the efficacy of its ballistic missiles and drones capacity to the delight of Iranians who took to the streets to celebrate Israeli citizens cowering in bomb shelters. The readiness with which Israel and Iran embraced ceasefire was, however, probably due more to US bullying tactics than anything else. Because of national pride, neither Israel nor Iran had seemed eager or able to stop hostilities.

    Other than the speed with which Israel exposed the vulnerabilities of Iran, the country of less than 10 million people also exposed the illusion of those who seemed convinced that the Israel-Iran conflict was, broadly speaking, a religious or racial war. The conflict may be couched in religious terms, but the way it was fought, its antecedents, and how the supporters’ clubs were arrayed showed that it was more than anything else a regional power play. Some analysts may be taken in by Iran’s reasons for seizing upon the Palestinian cause to project power, but it is significant that Arab countries raised only a feeble voice against Israeli aggression. The latter understood what the whole war was all about. They understand that Iran is strictly speaking not Arab, and had for decades been bellicose towards its neighbours. Hardly any country in the region escaped Iran’s intrusions, whether Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Saudi Arabia or the Gulf states. They view Iran’s proxy militias as a ploy to undermine and subjugate them. And they know that unlike Iran, Israel has no territorial ambition beyond its biblical enclave. They, therefore, pined for a military power capable of stifling the reincarnation of Persian hegemony, and they saw in Israel an equalizer. There was no time in those 12 humbling days the war lasted that any Arab country robustly denounced Israel’s attacks. The message was clear: they distrust Iran more than they despise Israel. For them it was all politics, not religion.

    Read Also: Joining APC was to align with centre for greater benefits — Delta Govt

    Arab states have legitimate concerns about the rising profile of Iran under the rule of the Ayatollahs. But sensing a regional power vacuum after the humiliation and deposition of former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, and with no Arab country willing to bravely shoulder the Palestinian cause in the aggressive and proactive manner former Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser had done, the Ayatollahs presumed to represent both the Arab and Islamic causes as well as make both causes one and the same. This fundamentally harked back to the theocratic basis of their rule: to deploy religion as a governing tool and imbue it with a combative and resonating regional ambition. The Iranian regional ambition is not an accident. But after the humiliation of the 12-Day war, that ambition may be in danger, if not in tatters. The US bombs may not have ‘obliterated’ what many tagged the ‘Islamic bomb’, but they have probably set Iran’s nuclear bomb project back by a few years. There are suggestions among Iran’s many regional supporters that the US-Israeli attacks may paradoxically stiffen the Middle Eastern country’s resolve to build a bomb, having enriched Uranium to weapons grade years earlier. Unquestionably, however, Iran will have to re-imagine its’ Persian empire’ dreams, modify or temper its rhetoric, carefully consider whether anchoring its political and regional ambitions on theocratic foundations as it has done successfully for many decades is as tenable in this century as it was considered normal in the distant past.

    Iran’s aggressiveness and meddlesomeness in international relations led to the US and Israel, both nuclear powers themselves, swearing to ensure that Iran does not have the bomb. It may be arrogant and inequitable, but that oath probably reassures Iran’s regional competitors and tangentially dampens the morale of Palestinian freedom fighters. After the 12-Day war, Iranian proxies are unlikely to be revived on the scale they were before the punishing campaigns of the last few months. In the near future, the heavily degraded Hezbollah may be unable to recover its strength or relevance in the region, or in Lebanon in particular. Hamas, having observed the dissonance between Iran’s hype and its shocking performance in the 12-Day war, may enter into a face-saving deal in Gaza or allow itself to go down noisily. Whatever hppens, Iran’s imperial (Persian) dream may take much longer to revive, especially seeing how religion has been either incapable of driving that dream or ennobling it, as the Ayatollahs have started to suspect during the drafting of the ceasefire deal when they were sidelined. The Six-Day war of 1967 changed the face of the Middle East in a substantial way that has lasted till today; the 12-Day war that ended early last week may also fundamentally redefine power relations in the region.

    Iran’s supporters are reluctant to acknowledge the real reason for its expansionary ambitions, a fact keenly understood by its neighbours, thus accounting for their indifference to its plight and humiliation. Iran’s religious leaders, it is obvious, are trapped in the past and have failed to learn lessons from the failure of Islamic State (or ISIL) and the caliphate Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi attempted to establish after the collapse of Saddam Hussein and the chaos that enveloped Iraq. Leaders have a responsibility to study history and draw the right lessons in respect of ideologies, time, policies and associations. Few in the turbulent region saw Iran’s pursuit of the Palestinian cause as a strong reason for the creation and arming of proxy militias. All they saw was an attempt to create an empire or carve a large sphere of influence comparable in ideology and geographical scope to the Sunni Umayyad Caliphate (661-750 CE), the second caliphate after Prophet Muhammad. But the Umayyads presided over a large multiethnic and multicultural population, majority of whom were Christians. Iran under the mullahs exemplifies intolerance, irrational rhetoric, and genocidal fantasies, and does not even structurally and ideologically resemble their kindred Shi’a Abbasid Caliphate (750-1258). The Abbasids, who formed the third caliphate of the Islamic empire, were ironically more Sunni than they publicly acknowledged, but were destroyed by the Mongols in 1258. During their rule, they downplayed Arabism, espoused internationalism, and ensured that the caliphate was more political than Islamic. But once they ensured that religion no longer formed the core of their unity, the empire began to crack.

    It is not clear why some of Iran’s fanatical supporters appear ready to singe the feathers of critics, especially citing religious reasons. Iranian mullahs have a clearer sense of history and understanding of power politics than their many impressionable supporters. Iran knows it is posturing in the Middle East and that war with Israel is all about politics and power. The Ayatollahs also know that it cannot sustain a repressive rule without deploying religion and military adventurism as tools and ideological propellant. Iran’s neighbours also know the name of the game, and are equally adamant about sustaining their independence and spurning subordination. They remember that the last person to attempt expansionism, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, came to grief in 2006 during the Second Gulf War (2003-2011). Saddam also seized upon the Palestinian cause to fire some 42 Scud missiles in 1991 into the same cities of Tel Aviv and Haifa which the Iranians attacked in the recent 12-Day war. Saddam had earlier rolled his army into Kuwait in August 1990. The regional power playbook is not new, except to those ignorant of history. Admittedly, there is nothing morally offensive about expansionism, or the deployment of Islamic ideology to birth or promote empire building. Equally, if Israel deploys its military to counter Iran’s imperial appetite, receives help from the US, and benefits from the connivance of Arab countries suspicious of Iranian expansionism, it is fair game. The combatants know the name of the game. More, they know the rules of the game.

    For now, much more than Israel and US deflting Iran’s nuclear development programme, and regardless of the beleaguered country’s bluff and bluster, it knows that its imperial ambitions have become comatose. Having spent billions, if not trillions, of dollars on its nuclear programme and the funding of proxy militias, Iran’s mullahs must now contend with angry and hungry but repressed populace thinking warily of challenging their rulers. It is a prospect far more galling to the clerics than the humiliation it received in the hands of the combined forces that pummeled its nuclear and missile facilities. Whether Iran emerges from this humiliation or not will depend not on the choreographed street demonstrations carried out in support of the regime, but on how smartly the ambitious mullahs can rediscover Iran’s Persian roots and learn the appropriate lessons from the rise and fall of previous caliphates. There is, however, little to suggest they can, just like the incompetent and anachronistic Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi of Islamic State who died at the age of 48 fantasising about the past. The Iranian mullahs lack the capacity, tact, tolerance and guile to appreciate the political and ideological nuances of their region. Indeed, under the mullahs, Iran has begun to resemble the Abbasids in their encounters with the Seljuqs in 1050, and, more apocalyptically, before the Mongol invasion of 1258.

  • Again, the Fubara-Wike rapprochement

    Again, the Fubara-Wike rapprochement

    Last Friday, President Bola Tinubu brokered another peace deal between Rivers State governor Siminalayi Fubara and Federal Capital Territory (FCT) minister Nyesom Wike. The deal, which some of the governor’s supporters have described as wholesale capitulation, appeared potent enough to restore the state to some normality. Mr Wike described the deal as one designed to favour everybody, that is, everybody gains something and everybody loses something, with neither side unduly favoured. He is entitled to his opinion. On the other hand Mr Fubara described the deal as a divine intervention. He promised to do everything in his power to sustain it. He is also entitled to his optimism. The peace meeting was reportedly inspired by the president, but he left the combatants to hammer out a deal by themselves, untrammeled by his office. After the first round, in which the elements of the deal were chiseled without the involvement of the president, a second stage was convened in the presence of the president for ratification.

    One of the key elements of the deal is that the governor would not go for a second term, probably one of the terms that drove the governor’s supporters to suggest that he had been had. Without doubt, that term seems imperious and inequitable. But if that was what they decided, for reasons best known to the combatants, who can begrudge them? It is suspected that the governor accepted that provision to enable his opponents endure him for a little longer until the next poll. It could also be because the governor’s determination to return to office after his suspension in March trumps the surrender some of his supporters accused him of. Nevertheless, from all indications, the combatants appear ready to let the deal work. Regardless of what he has had to sacrifice in order to provoke an end to the state of emergency declared in the state more than three months ago, the state needs peace.

    After the president has had to facilitate two peace meetings on the Rivers imbroglio, with the first repudiated after the governor returned to Rivers and regained his wits, it is doubtful whether any of the combatants will let this latest deal go to waste, particularly when the second deal has been entirely at the behest of the combatants. Mr Fubra will have a number of misgivings, but he will do his best to uphold the integrity of the process that culminated in the deal. Clearly, he desperately wants his office back. And though he seems perfectly suited to reneging on agreements, giving the way he lets himself soar at public events, he now appears eager to bridle his tongue. Since he has invoked God into the deal, and he has repeatedly sworn to fear God, he might approach subsequent quarrels in the months ahead more maturely. He didn’t say it directly, but his somber look last Friday seems to be that of a man cornered and fearing for his future.

    Read Also: Top five African Central Banks with largest gold reserves in Q1 2025

    Mr Wike on the other hand has spoken more expansively and enthusiastically about the deal, suggesting that he got much of what he wanted. He will be unenthusiastic in provoking the president into fury by again fanning the embers of war. Reasons for disagreement will persist, but with a little more effort, all the combatants should be able to paper over the cracks. No one expects them to return to perfect normality, or to reset relationships in such a manner that the frictions between the governor and his opponents would automatically disappear. But as both sides to the conflict have said, they would do their best to uphold the integrity of the deal. Nigerians wish them good luck.

    Sceptics, however, have reasons to doubt the capacity of the two sides to sustain and nurture the new peace they have just fashioned. First is that the terms of the deal seem eerily reminiscent of the June 28, 1919 Treaty of Versailles. While Mr Fubara might wish to return to his mild-mannered ways and ignore the scabrous feel of the deal, it is unlikely his supporters will be so accommodating. They would wonder, like the Germans did after World War I, whether they really lost the war or were to blame for the conflict in the first instance. However, unlike before, President Tinubu wisely stayed out of the way of the Rivers peacemakers until they reached a deal. He only lent his imprimatur to it after it was concluded. And the second is that neither Mr Fubara nor Mr Wike is fundamentally amenable to peace or even have an impeccable understanding of what the concept means.

    There is nothing the governor has done or said since the conflict started that gives the impression he possesses enough leadership capacity in all its nuances to appreciate the magnitude of what he faces. His consolation must, however, be that Mr Wike himself has no clue what noblesse oblige means. The FCT minister has seized upon two or three provocations he alleged Mr Fubara was guilty of, including ingratitude to his mentor and disloyalty to the party structure, to justify his opposition. But he forgets he is dealing with a whole state. Worse, he forgets that he foisted the governor on the state impervious to the qualities his successor should possess to merit the governorship. But since both of them have promised to keep the peace and work together, Nigerians must take them at their word, keep their fingers crossed, and hope that their scepticism would not be proved right.

  • Israel, Iran: the changing face of warfare

    Israel, Iran: the changing face of warfare

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Mrs Abacha as inventive historiographer

    Mrs Abacha as inventive historiographer

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

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

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

  • SNAPSONG 259

    SNAPSONG 259

    Here once again

    The golden era

    Of the Emperor, bold, loud,

    And triumphantly heedless  

    In every Ivory Tower

    A statue for Nescience

    To every beacon of Vision

    A shroud of dreadful darkness

    Let Silence ring

    From the classroom to the newsroom

    Let retributive venom unsettle the wind

     From the marketplace to the lawyers den

    Oderint dum metuant*

    For this is another season

    Of fear and silence; of anxious tongues

    Hanging limp from the trembling mouth

    Read Also: Genuine friendship scarce in Nigeria’s music industry – Ruger

    Shibboleth hunters at the national gate

    Immigrant-catchers are on the prowl

    Those cat-eating, dog-chewing strangers

    Are cargoed back to their native  holes

    Promise made, promise kept

    Nothing makes one country greater

    Than a brutal diminution of other countries

    The era of liberal kindness is long done and gone  

  • The omitted heroes

    The omitted heroes

    It is impossible to remember all the June 12 heroes once; but those left out today should be honoured later

    That it took the Bola Ahmed Tinubu presidency to honour the men and women who fought for the democracy that we are all enjoying today should not come as a surprise. Indeed, what should have surprised us is for President Tinubu to, like three of his predecessors, forget the source from where his presidency came.

    Tinubu was himself in the vanguard of the June 12 struggle. As they say, “he who wears the shoe knows where it pinches”. As a leading light in the pro-democracy days, he knows what it means to fight such a battle, especially with soldiers that the allure of political offices had made to forget their natural calling, and so wanted to stay perpetually in power, whether as military president, or transmute into civilian president, without going through the rigours of a free and fair election.

    For the benefit of many of our youths who may not know what June 12 is all about, a brief recap.

    Nigeria held a presidential election on June 12, 1993, which was won by the late Moshood Kashimawo Olawale Abiola. But the Ibrahim Babangida regime annulled the election, regarded as the freest and fairest in the country’s history, for no tenable reason.  Following the annulment, several prominent Nigerians spoke and worked vociferously against the annulment. Some of them were killed, some incarcerated under frivolous charges, while others went on exile for fear of being hounded. The activities were largely coordinated by the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO).

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

    To cut a long story short, the country only managed to get out of the quagmire after a prolonged political crisis, and on May 29, 1999, six years after the election was annulled, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo was sworn in as president.

    It was in recognition of the invaluable contributions of the men and women who fought the military to a standstill after the annulment, until they handed over in 1999, that President Tinubu gave national honours to many of them on June 12, 2025.

    Much as it is better late than never, it is nonetheless sad that the nation had to wait for 26 years, and until one of their own is in office before the honours came. There had been at least four presidents before Tinubu; namely Chief Obasanjo, who took over on May 29, 1999, and served till May 29, 2007; President Umaru Musa Yar’Adua of the ‘Umoru, they say you are dead’ fame (May 2007 to May 2010); President Goodluck Jonathan (May 2010 to May 2015), President Muhammadu Buhari (May 2015 to May 2023), and now, President Tinubu.

    We can understand General Obasanjo pretending throughout his eight years as if June 12 did not exist. Apart from the fact that he may not want to publicly identify with the reality that his kith and kin in khaki were returned to their barracks so ingloriously, even though that was self-inflicted, because they would have saved the country the upheavals that followed their desire to remain perpetually in government if they had remained honest to the exit date they set for themselves to gloriously quit the stage. 

    We may also excuse the late former President Yar’Adua.  Although he was in power for three years, he was bogged down by a debilitating illness that made it impossible for him to govern with the required presence of mind, until he died.

    But if we can excuse Yar’Adua for not honouring the June 12 heroes, what of former President Jonathan on whose laps the country’s presidency was literally placed, on a platter? He too in his entire five years in office did nothing about the heroes.

    It was not until June 12, 2018, that President Buhari conferred the winner of that election, Bashorun Abiola, with the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic (GCFR). He also honoured Babagana Kingibe, his running mate,

    as well as declared June 12 as new Democracy Day, in place of the previous May 29.

    We should give kudos to Buhari for this. Abiola, no doubt, was the symbol of June 12. But a tree can never make a forest. As Abiola himself often acknowledged in his lifetime, “you cannot clap with one hand”. If many of these other people did not complement Abiola’s efforts, June 12 would never have been a reality. Mercifully, Tinubu has made up for whatever Buhari did not do in this regard.

    We should also berate the Nigeria Governors Forum (NGF) for not deeming it worthwhile all these years to lift a finger for these real patriots whose struggles paved the way for many of them to become governors. Yes, we might say they do not have any direct power to do much on the matter, but they wield enough clout to influence decision on it, if only they believe it is something worth clamouring for. They always have a way of getting things done if they want to.

    Not to talk of the National Assembly. The people making laws for good governance in the country.  But this should not be surprising considering that some of them in the hallowed chambers even sat or spat on June 12, by supporting the sit-tight military dictators.

    All those who were in a position to remember these great heroes but forgot or simply ignored to do it didn’t do well at all, especially if they have been part of the political class since then. These heroes were not soldiers in the Nigerian Armed Forces. They did not sign that they would die for the country, yet many of them put their lives on the line for us to have the democracy that we are enjoying today, no matter how imperfect.

    Forgetting the heroes is like a river that forgot its source. It is akin to wanting to build something on nothing, which we all know is impossible.

    I commend the president for remembering those he has honoured. I also appreciate the concern shown in several quarters that the list is incomplete. The truth of the matter is that, given the scope of the June 12 crisis, it is almost impossible for all the actors to be remembered in

    one fell swoop. I guess those left out would be honoured sooner or later. The president himself alluded to that in his speech at the joint session of the National Assembly where he announced the names of the honorees on June 12.

    Bashorun Abiola’s wife, Alhaja Kudirat Abiola, and the late Gen. Shehu Musa Yar’Adua, were posthumously honoured.

    Others in no particular order: ‘The Nation’s  Editorial Adviser Prof Olatunji Dare; Chairman of The Nation Journalism Foundation and columnist Prof. Adebayo Williams, board member Mr Olawale Osun and ex-columnist Prof. Segun Gbadegesin.

    Other living recipients are Nobel Laureate Prof. Wole Soyinka (GCON), publisher of Vanguard, Sam Amuka-Pemu (CON), Kunle Ajibade (OON), Nosa Igiebor (OON), Seye Kehinde (OON), Kayode Komolafe (OON), Dapo Olorunyomi (OON) and Bayo Onanuga (CON).

    Also honoured are: Ayo Obe (OON), Bishop Matthew Hassan Kukah (CON), Senator Shehu Sani (CON), Governor Uba Sani (CON), Femi Falana, SAN (CON), Abdul Oroh (OON) and Odia Ofeimun (CON).

    The rest are Felix Morka (CON), Ledum Mitee (CON), Dr. Amos Akingba (CON), Prof. Julius Ihonvbere (CON), Dr. Edwin Madunagu (CON), Pa Reuben Fasoranti (CFR), Prof. Bolaji Akinyemi (CFR), Sen. Abu Ibrahim (CFR), and Sen. Ameh Ebute (CFR).

    Prominent among those missing on the list is Late Chief Frank Kokori, the former Secretary-General of the National Union of Petroleum and Natural Gas Workers (NUPENG), a man that the military dictators would never forget because of his role of ensuring fuel scarcity at crucial times of the struggle.

    Others left out include the Late Mr Walter Carrington, the U.S. ambassador to Nigeria from 1993 to 1997. Meaning he was around in the thick of the June 12 crisis and his voice as to where he stood on the matter was loud and clear enough. Some have argued that his support for the struggle was influenced by his marriage to a Nigerian (Dr. Arese Carrington), and his having lived in three Nigerian cities since the late 1960s. I don’t know. What we know for sure is that he fitted the bill.

    I remember a speech he gave at (I think) a cocktail party during the crisis and after he had spoken, myself and some of my colleagues at the event were afraid for his life, even though he should enjoy immunity as a diplomat; America’s envoy for that matter. But that was an era where anything could have happened without the country’s then head of state (Gen. Sani Abacha) understanding the implications. That apart, any of his goons could have done what occurred to him as the needful (like they did to some pro-democracy activists) before they would realise the implications.

    I remember too that I was looking left, right and centre at the end of the programme until I got to wherever I chose to sleep for the night (because I went to the event in my branded official car as editor of ‘The Punch’ at some point during that struggle, a thing I later felt I should not have done, given the safety and security implications at the time.

     ‘The Punch’ was one of the influential daily newspapers in the forefront of the June 12 struggle and it paid hugely for that. What with serial proscriptions, including one for about 15 months, alongside two other national dailies. The story of June 12 cannot be complete without giving due credit to the  newspaper.

    That takes me to the symbol of the newspaper at the time, Chief Ajibola Ogunshola, chairman of its board of directors. As editor of the daily title, I am competent to say that whatever courage we exhibited then on June 12 would not have been possible without the support of ‘The Punch’s’ board of directors, and Ogunshola in particular.

    Incidentally, it was only a few hours that I discussed Ogunshola’s omission from the list with one of his friends, an erudite professor, that I read in the column of my predecessor, Bola Bolawole, that “Those of us at ‘The Punch’ Newspaper were completely blotted out; yet, we stood and fought for June 12 more than anyone else, even more than the Concord Newspapers owned by MKO Abiola, the symbol of the June 12 struggle. I stand to be corrected because facts and figures back up this claim.”

    That this was Bolawole’s introduction to the piece underscored his disappointment that ‘The Punch’ was conspicuously missing on the honour’s list.

    Many of the other names I could have added have been mentioned elsewhere except that of Mr Soji Omotunde.

    All said, it is good that many of the omitted names are now in the public domain. This should be of tremendous help to the government when compiling the names of the next set of people to honour for their roles in the June 12 struggle.

    There are also many anonymous others who were mauled down by soldiers on the streets during the many protests that defined that struggle in several parts of the country. It would not be a bad idea for the government to construct a befitting monument in their collective memory.

  • The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (XXIV)

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (XXIV)

    It is now difficult to imagine that the United States of America and the Soviet Union were allies during the Second World War. Even if  we view that alliance from the point of view of the enemy of my enemy being my friend. But, the truth is that without that alliance, it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible to contain the Germans on their rampage through Europe. The seeds of the victory of the Allied Powers were planted in the fertile soil of Europe, especially in Mother Russia. Had the Germans taken the trouble to learn from history, they would have found that Russia was a graveyard for ambitious would be conquerors and would have been a lot less cavalier in their attitudes towards coveting the Russian land mass.

    Just over two hundred years before Hitler unilaterally broke his infamous non-aggression pact, the Molotov – Ribbentrop pact to give it its correct diplomatic title, Carl Gustav of Sweden had invaded Russia. He had attacked Russia with the intention of incorporating her vast lands into the Swedish empire. Instead, he came up against the pitiless Russian weather and the remnants of his army was finished off at the battle of Poltava in present day Ukraine in 1709. That marked the end of the Swedish empire which was once dominant in the area around the Baltic sea. Today, Sweden is no more or less than a middle level power which was famous for car building (Volvo), her home-grown socialism, which is fading rather badly as well as the faded ABBA pop group. She is still paying for that blunder at Poltava.

    One hundred years on from the battle of Poltava, in 1812, Napoleon, emperor of the French and dictator of the rest of Europe, mobilised the largest army that Europe had ever seen. It was made up in total of 600,000 troops or more and matched them into Russia. There, the Russians making skilful use of the vagaries of the brutal Russian weather completely destroyed Napoleon’s Grand Amée almost without firing any shots in anger and in doing so, brought his up till then glittering military career to an abrupt end. He never won any battle worth talking about after his Russian debacle and by 1815, all his ambitions were buried and sealed in the little Belgian village of Waterloo, now a byword for terminal failure. A little over a hundred years later, another ambitious fool was digging his grave on Russian soil.

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

    On June 21 1941, Adolf Hitler ordered the German army to attack Russia. The attack had been meticulously planned in such secrecy over several months that when it came, it took the Soviets completely by surprise. So much so that the Red army was caught on its haunches, unable to make any effective response to what by that time was a typical German blietzegrieg; a massive and rapid coordinated attack with tanks, motorised infantry and a large number of aircraft, all acting in concert to cause terror and utter confusion in enemy ranks. The nature of the attack on Russia was in tune with the principle of total war, designed to obliterate an entire civilisation in the shortest time possible. Hitler’s orders were for total war. A war that went far beyond the limits of imperial ambition. It was a war which was designed to clear the land of its indigenous population in preparation for its occupation by Germans. In other words, it was genocide on steroids. No prisoners were to be taken as SS troopers followed in the wake of the regular army to execute all survivors, military and civilian of any attack. The victims of these mop-up operations were men, women and children of all ages. In addition, millions were quite deliberately starved to death. This was not war but genocide to be committed by any means necessary. Moreover, it was all out war against communism, the competing ideology with capitalism. In time honoured tradition Hitler was trying to use the medium of war to extend the reach of the German brand of capitalism. Like any European colonialist in the heart of Africa, Hitler wanted very much to claim all the natural resources found in Russia for himself.

    The codename of this operation, Barbarossa was deliberately chosen to send a message. Frederick known as Barbarossa for his red beard was the leader of the third crusade who incidentally did not make it on his second visit to Palestine to fight the Muslims occupying Jerusalem but drowned on the way. It should not be forgotten that the Crusaders went to Palestine with nothing but murder in their heart. What is often forgotten was that each crusade started with pogroms committed against Jews in Europe before those so called soldiers of Christ went on their murderous journey to Palestine. Ironically, Barbarossa protected the Jews against the customary violence which was their usual lot at the beginning of any crusade. This irony was however lost on Hitler as he unleashed his forces against Russia. As with the crusades, Jews in Eastern Europe bore the brunt of Hitler’s crusade to Russia. The extermination camps which the Germans built and operated in Poland are some of the bloody footprints left behind by Operation Barbarossa.

    Operation Barbarossa deserves a separate treatment but this is beyond the scope of the present discussion of the rise and rise of capitalism. The Soviet response to Operation Barbarossa may have been slower than expected but when it came, it was extremely vigorous and uncompromising even if it was not as effective as it could have been. It however slowed the German advance long enough to keep the armies in the field as winter arrived. The Germans had given a great deal of consideration to the approach of winter. After all, they had the example of Napoleon to guide them. The reality of it however was still as unexpected as it was devastating as their awesome machine failed to cope with the demand imposed on it by sub-zero temperatures, broken roads, virtually non-existent modern infrastructure as well as the lack of human comfort. The Russians had retreated to the east at the approach of Napoleon and Hitler thought that history was going to be repeated. Surprisingly, the Soviets were resolved to dispute every inch of their territory with the invaders. After all, they had the capacity to send millions of men into the field. In addition to their capacity to produce the armaments required for the fight, the Americans set up a steady stream of the supply of tanks, aircraft, tractors, food and clothing to their unlikely allies who were fighting for their very existence.

    Determined to make history, the Germans had committed vast resources to Operation Barbarossa. They sent in no less than three million men, armed to the teeth into the fight. By that time, the Western front had been stabilised, France had been knocked out of the fight and the British were fighting desperately to prevent an invasion across the English Channel. All the Germans needed to do was to subdue the East but it was easier said than done. Twenty seven million men, women and children were wasted on the Eastern front but the survivors held firm. In the end, the Soviets pushed the Germans back all the way to Berlin and forced Hitler down into his bunker where he dosed both himself and new bride with cyanide before putting a bullet into his own brain to make doubly sure that he was not captured by vengeful soldiers of the Red Army.

    The Allies had a tolerably good working relationship even though the Soviets did what could be considered as a disproportionate amount of the heavy lifting. The Germans had sent their best, most experienced troops into the eastern front and those troops were supported with the most effective equipment. For much of the war Stalin made repeated calls on Britain and the USA to open another front in the West but for a long time, his pleas fell on deaf ears as their allies preferred the southern route through North Africa and Italy. It was not until June 1944 that the allies made a frontal attack on German occupied Europe. By this time the Germans were barely hanging on in the East as they tried desperately to stem the Soviet advance on the eastern front. The reality on ground at the time was that the Allied forces who came ashore on the beaches of Normandy were being opposed by a virtually ragtag German army armed partly with refurbished equipment. The flower of German power was at the time being decimated in the East by an energised Red army bristling with confidence as they marched resolutely towards Berlin.

    Every year since the end of the war, veterans (there are virtually none left now) and government delegations from all over the western world gather on the beaches of  Normandy to commemorate the D-day landings. They give the impression that they won the war on their own. Poppycock! Since then Hollywood has glorified those landings and celebrated them with made up stories of super human heroism. Look closely and below all the smoke, you will find evidence of naked propaganda. The decisive battles which led to the liberation of Europe from German occupation were fought thousands of miles from the beaches of Normandy.

  • The importance of struggle

    The importance of struggle

    Struggle or ceaseless contention whether at the personal or impersonal level and whether it is physical, metaphysical or cerebral, is about the most important aspect of human existence. We see it every day either at the nuclear family level, the extended family, the national, the societal, the global, gender and even at the most intensely personal levels. There can be no progress without conflict. No human advancement is possible without struggle; no civilization is feasible without some antagonistic exertions. Throughout recorded history, humanity has always oscillated between peaceful cohabitation and violent confrontation. Under peace humans covet war and during war they court peace. This is one of the most intriguing paradoxes of human existence.

        Penultimate Thursday on the thirty second anniversary of the June 12, 1993 presidential election whose outcome was annulled by a military cabal, President Bola Ahmed Tinubu in his national broadcast unveiled a list of the protagonists of the struggle to rid the country of military despotism. The symbolic import of the moment was lost on many. Following on the protocol established earlier by General Mohammadu Buhari who broke the ice by insisting that Abiola, the winner of the annulled election, was a legitimately elected president of Nigeria, Tinubu’s was a bold and lightning move on the political chessboard which shattered the myth of the old feudal order and prised the lingering limpets of their remaining delusions and tenuous hold on political reality. It was a move which was as disruptive of the last vestigial remnants of the hegemonic coalition which has prevented Nigeria’s emergence as a modern nation as it was redolent of the possibility of a new beginning for Nigeria.

        President Tinubu must have struggled with himself and the list, judging by subsequent disclosures. It is no easy task coming up with a list of prodemocracy notables in a nation hobbled by divisions and fractured down the line by intense schisms. There are significant omissions and contradictions galore, apart from one or two curios and political hermaphrodites. For example Ken Saro-Wiwa and his Ogoni nation did not even bother to vote on June 12 1993 as a result of a lingering dispute with the Nigerian state but they are united with the June 12 agitators by their mutual hostility to the authoritarian antics of a harsh, unitarist state. In a paradoxical tribute to the residual powers of the postcolonial state to reorder the life of its citizens some living people were awarded lower honours than the one they already got while others were subject to state vivisection or posthumous retribution.

      But that does not vitiate the integrity of the gesture, nor its symbolic significance. There will be rectifications as the pressure eases. It is important to always retain a sense of the longer perspective or what the French call “la longue duree” in these matters. Nobody would have thought this possible twenty five years earlier as General Obasanjo began a deliberate and systematic roll-back of the gains of demilitarization by substituting brutish autocratic rule for fledgling democratic governance until he met his comeuppance in the hands of a resurgent senate led by Ken Nnamani. But here we are with the guns of hilly redoubts funereally silent. The cunning of history cannot be more cunning.

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

      What is even more important is to retain a sense of struggle as the constant and permanent imperative of human existence. Without struggle, nothing can be gained and all will be lost. Without struggle, a society resembles a stagnant pool with foul and fetid odour oozing from its dark disabled mass totally lacking in restorative energy and dynamism. A stagnant pool cannot move itself forward, not to talk of its contents therein which are trapped in terminal inertia and progressive decay. It is useful to recall that before the whole concept of jihad became militarized and weaponized as an instrument of relentless conquest spearheaded by the Muslim conquerors of modern Turkey, it meant “self-striving” or self-struggle, that is constant self-improvement at the physical, intellectual and spiritual level. But the idea of the jihad as unrelenting siege against “unbelievers” helped the Ottoman warriors to steamroll an enormous swathe of Europe until it met its peril outside the gates of Vienna in 1683. Thereafter, a rapidly industrializing Western Europe infused with the dynamism of new technological advancement and philosophical enlightenment took over the reins of power and began to inflict serial humiliation on the Islamic world, a development which reached its apogee this past week with the remarkable blitzing of Iran by America and Israel.

      As we have seen with the June 12 campaign, the struggle for the democratic emancipation of a society is often spearheaded by the most articulate and enlightened segment of the society. But its bounties and dividends do not exclude or exempt any section of the society. The most recalcitrant and vociferous elements who were in support of the annulment are among the greatest contemporary beneficiaries of a democratic Nigeria. Active saboteurs of the democratic ethos and key members of the annullists’ innermost caucus and those who vowed to shoot Abiola the very moment he was declared president of the Federal Republic of Nigeria have since held down important posts in the post-military Republic including the senate presidency without anybody disturbing them or attempting to annul their election despite the glaring electoral malfeasance. Some of them have continued to strut and preen about as if nothing happened and without any sense of shame or remorse.

       This is the historic burden individuals, groups and sub-nationals at the frontiers of consciousness and human developments are called upon to bear with grace and nobility. In multi-national nations with uneven and even countervailing modes of economic, political and spiritual productions, it is often the most advanced and the most politically conscious segments of the society that are called upon to carry the burden of civilizational advancement on behalf of the rest of the society. If they are lucky, they escape with hideous scars, if not it is genocide and relentless pogroms or structural and systematic exclusion from power.

     The June 12 debacle is illustrative of persistent attempts to undermine or short-circuit Nigeria’s journey to authentic nationhood. In the run up to independence, those who stalled and stonewalled about whether it was the right time for national emancipation from colonial slavery and servitude, those who preferred the unfreedom of medieval peonage to the freedom of postcolonial civilization despite all its troubling shortcomings, were also the first to seize the levers of state power with the active connivance of the colonial powers. Rigged against political, economic and spiritual rationality, it is as if the nation is deliberately programmed to self-destruct. The dire consequences are inevitable. When the risible charade eventuated in pogroms, ethnic insurrections, communal upheavals, military rebellion and a tragic civil war with millions of casualties, it was those who had been discarded whose economic expertise was called upon to rescue the nation from economic collapse.

       With no lesson learnt and nothing forgotten, the wild binge and infantile romance with national suicide continued with the short-lived Second Republic. This time around, it was a man who had famously insisted that he desired to be nothing but a federal lawmaker who was adjudged to be the most qualified for the job. Lack of preparation for the job was the most efficient and effective preparation for the job. It was no more than superintending the most stupendous and mindboggling state larceny and unhinged looting of the national patrimony ever visited on modern humanity. After four years, the Bazaar of Beelzebub was terminated by the military that then proceeded to unleash the most horrendous instance of state aggression on the populace including widespread murder of citizens, state liquidation, mysterious disappearances, ethnic cleansing all culminating in a nasty civil war which claimed over two million citizens.

     When the whole thing ended in tears and predictable tragedy all over again in 1998 with the mysterious demise of General Sani Abacha, the hegemonic forces that have held Nigeria hostage since independence went back to traditional quarters once again to rescue the beleaguered nation. Unfortunately for the nation and his core supporters, General Obasanjo, due to limitations of character and intellect, mistook the sacred mandate to get the nation back on track with a charter of messianic intolerance and autocratic delusions. Mysterious eliminations persisted. Spellbinding corruption resurged.

     With the Owu-born soldier having set the template, Nigeria once again began to list and lurch about like an old ship that had entered uncharted waters and without any certificate of seaworthiness. Such was the unprecedented instances of economic heists and the mismanagement of ethnic, cultural and political diversities that by 2023 Nigeria was facing a seismic implosion. This time around, it appeared as if the nation’s legendary run of luck was about to desert it.

      This was the volatile and combustible conjuncture that threw up President Bola Ahmed Tinubu who is himself a veteran of many of the struggles and an epitome of life at the barricades. This time around, the organic crisis of the state has produced a dangerous power void. The old Selectorate, crippled by loss of credibility and historical legitimacy, were too enfeebled to make any serious move. With their wits scrambled and their perception of reality distorted by historic confusion, the hegemonic rump of the extant power bloc could not bring themselves to directly endorse Tinubu. And since heavens help those who help themselves, particularly in a normless postcolonial coliseum, it was Tinubu himself who made a direct power grab in an election that was as contentious as it was also redolent of the possibility of throwing up the hegemonic hub of a new power formation in the country.

       What Tinubu’s numerous detractors seem to forget is that an angelic leadership cannot evolve from a demonic environment. In the circumstances and in the absence of substantial elite consensus in a nation already split down the line by the misappropriation of its rich heritage of diversities anybody thinking of completely free and fair elections can continue to live in a fools’ paradise. It will not happen. We should stop putting the cart before the horse in this country. Successful elections are the outcome of intricate pacting and strenuous elite negotiations based on a give and take spirit and continuous struggle for self-improvement. This is not decided on election’s day but well before. Elections are routine manifestation of the state of the society itself. This is why countries such as Ghana, Senegal and Tanzania are enjoying a smoother democratic run than Nigeria.

      So far, President Tinubu has managed to contain the economic turbulence arising from the neoliberal prototype he has unleashed on the country with its hints of harsh inequities, brutal neocon social engineering and its Darwinian survival of the fittest. But deep resentments run deep and hunger abides. He has also managed to spring the traps of calculated political blackmail, sustained ethnic baiting and open courting of military intervention emanating from some quarters. Yet apart from the gale of defections which is nothing more than a shuffling of meal tickets among desperate politicians, what looked like the dawn of a new hegemonic power hub appears to have receded into the shadows leaving in its trail a resurgence of inter-ethnic hostilities and murderous confrontations in several northern states. With Benue State foaming in blood, it appears that the old masters of genocidal expansion and lebensraum are back in the game of testing the nerve of the nation to see whether something will give. If they succeed in Benue, they will train their gaze on the South.

       The president should not allow it to be said that the tenuous cord binding Nigeria’s fractious nationalities together finally snapped under his watch. There is little courtesy or accommodation one can extend to people who take delight in shedding the blood of their fellow citizens just to gain political advantage. Taking strong bold steps to preserve the corporeal integrity of the nation cannot be incompatible with vote-harvesting. In any case, those who perpetrate such crimes cannot be interested in elections or democracy for that matter. In 2015 at the inception of the Buhari administration, this column recommended the inauguration of a National Commission for Horizontal and Vertical Integration which works at the level of restoring and maintaining economic, ethnic and religious parity for all Nigerians. Unfortunately, the circumstances have since worsened and the country is being gradually returned to a theatre of massive bloodletting.

       No rational human courts war and disorder. Yet under peace some people desire war just to satisfy their nihilistic neuroses. If they cannot build civilizations they can help to destroy extant ones. With the most agriculturally productive belts of the nation already a prohibited zone thus inducing astronomical rises in the price of staple food, with our highways swarming with murderous marauders crippling inter-state commerce, it is beginning to feel as if the country is being gradually placed on a war-footing. The merchants of occupational terror and expansionist genocide are back on the prowl and Nigeria might have entered another decisive phase in the struggle for the soul of the nation. With the global order fast unravelling, it is a case of every nation for itself. The nation in itself has no chance.

       President Tinubu has shown more than enough political nous and guile not to appreciate the fierce urgency of the moment and how to go about the latest manifestation of the organic crisis of the Nigerian postcolonial state. Let his courage and political pluck not desert him at the appropriate hour. His Gboko Declaration and marching order to security forces will be read as a threat and oblique declaration of war in the appropriate quarters. The president needs to watch his back in the coming months. You can be right and yet be wronged. This is the signal lesson of the June 12 imbroglio.

  • Atiku, el-Rufai, Amaechi and All Democratic Alliance

    Atiku, el-Rufai, Amaechi and All Democratic Alliance

    After waiting for months for the other shoe to drop, the opposition coalition movement has finally proposed a new party altogether in their iron determination to dethrone President Bola Tinubu. He is their main target. Led by the implacable former vice president Atiku Abubakar and seconded by the equally agitated former governors Rotimi Amaechi of Rivers State and Nasir el-Rufai of Kaduna State, what was initially planned as a merger or coalition of parties has become an independent, stand-alone, political organisation, the All Democratic Alliance (ADA). Last month, they had been undecided whether to throw in their lot with an existing party, which would have been less burdensome to their finances and their suspect organisational skills, or to bite the bullet and start afresh, a tantalising but nervy prospect. They toyed with the idea of committing to the Social Democratic Party (SDP), in which the feisty Mallam el-Rufai briefly cavorted and beckoned on his mates to join, or attaching themselves to the African Democratic Congress (ADC), which they saw as less controversial and more amenable to their designs. None seemed to fit the bill, it turned out. And given the fact that they had all along flirted with a Plan B, they have now decided to burn their bridges. It is henceforth forward march into the unknown.

    The main opposition Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) was the natural and special purpose vehicle choice for the brains behind the aborted coalition to execute their 2027 goals. But that former ruling behemoth saw through their schemes and was loth to be turned into an appendage by the footloose Alhaji Atiku. Angry and impatient, Alhaji Atiku and company stormed out and began fishing for new lovers, first trying out the SDP, and then the ADC, before finally berthing at the unregistered ADA. But ADA and its leaders are not in the clear yet. The party will probably be registered, especially going by how toxic the new party’s leaders have turned Nigerian politics and preemptively accused the electoral commission and other agencies of government of bias and conspiracy against the opposition. After registration, the party’s leadership structure will have to be resolved amongst dozens of potential leaders and rhetoricians with large egos. And finally, the leaders must confront and surmount the main hurdle almost certain to shake the party to its core, to wit, the contest to pick the standard-bearers for the next presidential election.

    Read Also: 600 stranded Nigerians expected from Iran

    The new party, when registered, will boast the presence of political heavyweights and flyweights like former Labour Party (LP) presidential candidate and ex-Anambra governor, Peter Obi, former House of Representatives speaker and ex-Sokoto State governor, Aminu Tambuwal; former All Progressives Congress (APC) national chairman and ex-Edo State governor, John Oyegun; former Internal Affairs minister and ex-Osun State governor, Rauf Aregbesola; former Justice minister Abubakar Malami; former Secretary to the Government of the Federation (SGF) Babachir David Lawal; former PDP chairman Uche Secondus; and Osita Chidoka and Nnenna Ukeje. As notable as these gentlemen are, they certainly do not possess the numerical strength or ideological force to win any presidential election. They will of course hope that they could constitute the seed of the party, and that more recognisable names and aggrieved politicians will eventually defect to the party once the coast seems clear. But if at any time they see that ADA seemed to have been conceived only to drive the presidential ambition of Alhaji Atiku, they will think twice. Some defectors may already seem committed to the ADA idea, seeing how much they loath President Tinubu and are willing to sacrifice anything to see the president deposed, but others may become extremely wary of being used as tools to drive Alhaji Atiku’s obsessive agenda. Their reluctance will appear to be well-founded. For, at the moment, the general consensus is that a southerner must contest the next presidential election against President Tinubu, if it came to that, since the election might quickly transform into a North-South struggle in the face of what many fear is the looming imposition of northern hegemony driven partly by herdsmen attacks.

    The new party will also contend with how to determine its financial and administrative fulcrum. If Alhaji Atiku is not convinced beyond a shadow of doubt that he is the potential and undisputed candidate of the party in the next poll, he will be chary of spending as much as is needed to turn the party into an immovable force. Party leaders will then have to decide how to raise funds from external forces, perhaps businessmen with a grudge against the government. But even here, given how some top business leaders miscalculated in the 2023 poll and have gone the extra mile to rectify their errors, few moneymen will be eager to put the wrong foot forward again. If Alhaji Atiku hedges his financial bet, Mr Obi, who is naturally stingy, will do worse. No one of any heft in the new party will be so forward in frittering away his funds on a gamble they cannot quite convince themselves would be worth their while. Alhaji Atiku may have mooted the idea of a joint ticket with Mr Obi, but the new party will face the horrible conundrum of determining whether the vacillating Mr Obi as running mate, assuming he really joins and remains in the party, would pull as much weight as he did in 2023. Despite the reigning permutations centred on Atiku/Obi, the opportunistic duo of Mr Amaechi and Mallam el-Rufai will wait in the wings and hope that circumstances and political exigencies will force ADA to rethink their presidential ticket away from the anticipated serial contender.

    The PDP may have survived the Alhaji Atiku scare, for he had at first seemed determined to once again foist himself on the party’s presidential ticket, with all the attendant drawbacks and unworkable permutations, but it may face the fresh danger of being overtaken in terms of ranking by ADA. The new party will, however, make heavy weather of beating the PDP to the tape, considering that it is neither a coalition nor a merger, and so does not have any state under its control. Mallam el-Rufai may have boasted that the next election is not about which party has the highest number of governors in its kitty, insisting that the poll is about the electorate, but he knows in his heart that he is simply posturing. APC stood a chance of winning in 2015 because it had a number of governors on its side and also attracted a few more before the polls. More, it was truly a coalition of powerful parties and individuals, a prospect ADA can only dream of. It is unlikely that in the months ahead ADA will really become a coalition of parties. Its newness, which is strictly limited to its name and structure and organs, not its old and jaded leaders, will, therefore, be a disadvantage. Worse, if its presidential ticket is what they think it already appears to be, there will be no excitement anywhere, not even among voters.

    In the end, ADA may very well turn out to be a damp squib. It has so many things going against it than for it. It will be delusional to hope it can really compete with the ruling behemoth, or outpace the second ranked and still solid PDP. It can hope to be the new LP in 2027, for the old LP has become a hors de combat; but to aspire to be more when they are encumbered by bitter and vengeful leaders instead of ideological puritans and savvy, altruistic administrators is pure hallucination. ADA is starting on an old and dirty slate; once they are registered as expected, they must produce altruists and ideologues and nationalists capable of rethinking and rebranding Nigeria. So far, the names associated with the party reflect ethnic opportunists and promoters of religious and regional exceptionalism more than anything else. Such an amalgam will not win a presidential election; they will foul it.