The Nation Newspaper

Category: Sunday

  • Witty women

    Witty women

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read Also: Akpabio vs Natasha: Letter to women politicians

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (IX)

    I hope that those of my readers who have been following this series faithfully have as usual turned to these pages today to satisfy their curiousity about the fascinating subject of the continuous rise and rise of capitalism. If you have done so as usual, I am sorry to disappoint you and must confess that I have kept to the usual title only as a means of using it as a decoy. The truth is that so many things have been taking place recently that frankly, it would be carrying on something at least close to journalistic irresponsibility if one were to ignore them or even appear to ignore them in favour of rabbiting on this week about the Berlin conference or colonialism as I was committed to doing before common sense laid to waste all my well laid out plans for this week’s subject.

    Having decided to pivot away from capitalism this week, the problem I must solve is which of the interesting subjects facing our world needs to be tackled first. And it is at this point that I am beginning to regret that I have not overcome the temptation to stick to the narrow path that I have been treading for some ten weeks now. After thoughtful, if not painful consideration however, I have decided to stay at home and talk about as some would say, the book which contrary to the nature of books has over the course of a few days exploded onto these shores with what could be described as the force of a powerful bomb. Since the book is from a military source however, it is quite appropriate to persist with the bomb analogy especially since a great deal of damage was done to persons and structures by the publication of this book in particular. On second thought, it is probably not the publication of this book that was responsible for the damage caused by the book. I must confess that I have not only not set eyes on the book but have no intention of spending or perhaps ever waste any time on reading it any time soon. And that is saying a great deal because being retired, time is a commodity I have plenty of to spend or waste as I please. Like me, the author of the book is also retired and like me, has a great deal of time on his hands. Still, I wonder why he has decided to spend so much time and energy which on the face of things he has little of,  to gather all those words together to form a book. On the other hand, there are some who will say and I wonder why they would say that the book is long awaited or overdue. Now that the book has made its long awaited arrival, one can only wonder if the arrival is worth the wait. But then the publication of the book is not so much the publication but its launching, the planning and execution of which must have been a logistical nightmare of gigantic proportions.

    For a start, the only living former head of our state who was absent  was fully expected to be absent as his presence would have been awkward to say the least. After all, there is enough bad blood between those two officers and gentlemen to drown an army of crocodiles. Still, the presence of so many former heads of state, not to talk of the current tenant of Aso Rock in such a confined space was enough trouble to keep an inordinately large number of security details inordinately busy. At the end of it all, one cannot help but wonder what all the fuss was all about.

    To be fair, that book for all it is worth may have promised much more than if was able to deliver but there is no denying the riot of colours associated with the author. No other head of our state living or dead can hold a candle next to him in this respect. Even in the prime of his career as a fully certified warrior his avuncular good looks was a perfect disguise for the sternness of his inclination and profession. But then, it is quite true that there is no art to find the mind’s construction in the face but it is even more difficult if that face is more often smiling than not because of the sharp contrast of those smiles to some of his physical reactions to some issues. For eight long years he held sway as head of state catching as many flies with honey as with vinegar. For many Nigerians even now, thirty-two years after ‘stepping aside’ he inexplicably remains their head of state, the commander in chief who is still quite capable of commanding that last salute. How they will come to terms with their chief’s abject abdication of his responsibility as head of state or the only self-styled military president the world has ever seen can only be guessed at. But there are many more people who are in no mood to forgive that lapse in judgement or courage which has only just admitted and for the first time that MKO Abiola was indeed the winner of what Nigerians continue to describe as the freest of fairest elections Nigeria has ever had as if there has ever been any free or fair election in the history of our country. The launching of the book went off like a bomb but the book itself lacked the power of ordnance to cause a detonation. Now, we have at least on the surface, a large sum of money with which to build a Presidential Library for a president who has neither been voted for nor voted out of office but then in Nigeria, there are no contradictions that cannot be resolved at some all-night rendezvous so beloved of our leaders. We simply live with everything no matter the absurdity we have to invest in.

    Read Also:The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (VIII)

    For the benefit of my sons who were born in the eighties but did not really grow up in what has turned out to be the most turbulent period in our history, a brief discussion of those days is pertinent. The eighties started with the long awaited return to civil rule after fourteen torrid years of military rule marked by bloodshed and general discomfort. Unfortunately, the civilians only came to power with their own version of mayhem. Blatantly rigged elections after four disastrous years persuaded us to jump from the frying pan of civil rule back into the fire of another round of military rule characterised as was the first round by rounds of fatal gunfire. This time, civilian casualties were limited but in 1985 after a coup against a military government, we fell into the clutches of a military president who proceeded to paint the country in his own colourful, some would say, lurid image. First, we were told that some officers had planned a coup against the government and they were duly executed to prove it. This was followed by a massive devaluation of the Naira and the institution of something called the Structural Adjustment Programme which turned the country’s economy upside down and pauperised a large section of wage earners. We were told at the time that this was going to lead to prosperity. We are still waiting in vain for that prosperity to arrive and even now with the removal of fuel subsidies and another massive devaluation of the Naira, we are still in the process of structural readjustment. Another promise was that the military was going to go back to their barracks by 1990. This promise was not kept until 1999 by which time we simply dressed a former military head of state in civilian clothes and pretended that we had transitioned successfully into democratic rule. Twenty-six years later, we are still coming to terms with the intricacies of democracy. You are not likely to remember that the importation of wheat and a whole lot of other commodities was banned and we substituted the reality of imported wheat for the fiction of producing wheat and other commodities in places where such production is very difficult if not impossible. But we were nothing if not determined and we showed our persistence by ploughing a great deal of money into our reluctant soil. In the meantime, we dissolved commodity boards and crippled the production of cocoa, palm oil and groundnuts. Our educational institutions, especially our universities which up till the eighties attracted scholars from all over the world began to wind down perceptibly and our doctors began to relocate to Saudi Arabia in search of American greenbacks which were commanding top premium. Our list of failures began to lengthen even as we embarked on the promotion of the cult of a flood of political appointments.  Special Assistants to political assistants began to proliferate along our corridors of power even as real power slipped from our nerveless hands. We diverted our energies and resources into a never ending transition to civil rule and only ended up in producing a cohort of politicians who are only fit for politics and nothing else. Our dependence on crude oil increased even as people from all unlikely works of life were turned into instant dollar multi millionaires through the allocation of oil blocks for undisclosed services rendered.  Now, we are turning our hands to the writing and launching of memoirs of frankly dubious value, both in terms of content and style. It is not unlikely that given the fun affair associated with last week’s book launch, many other people are waking up to writing their memoirs in their turn. Many more book launchings complete with the flaunting of donations are in the offing.

    Now to something completely different. Three short months ago, the people of the United States went to the polls to choose their president and commander in chief. They have been doing this for more than two hundred years, actually, for two hundred and thirty-six years  and in that time only forty-five men (not a single woman) have been elected President of the United States. This shows just how coveted this position has been. Given this fact, it is not a position for mean men. It is only available for men with sterling qualities. The bar to it is, at least in theory set so high that only men of integrity, extraordinary intelligence and iron  clad morality need apply. Having said that however, it is on record that some of the men who have at one time or the other occupied this post have been thorough going scoundrels who have misbehaved badly whilst in office. One such person, at least in modern times was Richard Nixon, a man of so many contradictions that he was not only impeached for high crimes and misdemeanours but was forced to resign from office, the only man to have suffered that indignity. In addition, he would have served time in jail but for the pardon he received from his successor, Gerry Ford. Another modern president, Bill Clinton was impeached allegedly for seducing a young White House intern, Monica Lewinsky but escaped being tufted out on his ear by the skin of his teeth. Then came Donald Trump, the man who would be president, not once but twice just as he has been twice impeached, indicted for thirty-four felonies related to paying hush money to a porn star who claimed to have had sex with him and accused of formenting an insurrection against the very country he was aspiring to lead. Against many odds, he was elected president for the second time, only the second man in history to pull off this feat. I cannot see Donald Trump ever sitting down to write a book but if he did, who would want to read it. Some would say that he once wrote as best selling book, the art of the deal. As with virtually everything about this character, he actually got someone else to write the book.

    • I promise to stick to the subject of capitalism next week.
  • Osun LG poll, Adeleke and OSIEC

    Osun LG poll, Adeleke and OSIEC

    As predicted, the controversial Chairman of the State Independent Electoral Commission (OSIEC), Hashim Abioye, announced the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) candidates as winners of last week’s Osun State local government poll. Though Mr Abioye claimed that 18 political parties contested the poll, and that the PDP won all 30 chairmanship seats and 332 councillor seats, the reality is that the PDP largely contested against itself. The leading opposition party in the state, the All Progressives Congress (APC), boycotted the poll, citing the February 10 Court of Appeal judgement which validated the 2022 LG elections won by the APC. In the eyes of the opposition, there was no vacancy in the LGs, and the tenure of its elected LG officials would not end until October.

    In January 2024, the APC had taken Governor Ademola Adeleke to court for appointing Mr Abioye, alleged to be a PDP card-carrying member, as OSIEC chairman. Though the respondent claimed to have resigned his appointment last year, the complainants insisted he was still a PDP member in November 2023 when he was appointed. He was until his appointment the governor’s special adviser on legal matters. He did not resign his party membership until a few months ago. But while the case was still meandering its way through the judicial mill, the LG election was conducted against all legal advice and against the February Court of Appeal judgement. It is curious that commentators split generally across partisan lines in drawing their conclusions based on their partisan preferences. Thus, haters of the APC insist the 2022 elected LG officials were impostors, and their ‘forceful’ takeover of the LG secretariats undemocratic. On the other hand, loathers of Mr Adeleke and his party also insist the governor is a serial abuser of constitutional rule.

    Mr Adeleke has preemptively asked the ‘newly elected’ LG officials not to assume duty at the LG secretariats. He knows that there is no way he can get the law enforcement agencies to defend or protect the new chairmen when in the eyes of the law and according to the legal advice of the Attorney General of the Federation (AGF) no vacancies exist at the LGs. It is not certain whether the LGs have delinked their accounts from that of the state, whether, as the law provides, they have really become self-accounting. If they are yet to finalise that process, and if the federal government is still timid at withholding the funds of governors playing chicaneries with LGs, the Osun APC LG officials will have taken over the LG secretariats in vain. Worse, the illegal LG elections held last week and overwhelmingly ‘won’ by the PDP would stand by default. The federal government developed cold feet in the Rivers State LG poll before the Supreme Court restored sanity late last week; it would be a disaster and a setback for democracy to feign indifference in the controversial Osun LG poll case.

    Last Saturday’s Osun LG poll was a reflection of Mr Adeleke’s political desperation. His reelection is not due until around the middle of 2026, and the tenure of the current LG office holders will expire in October 2025. He will still be governor by the time the next legitimate LG poll is called, and he will probably still put up a good showing, that is if he does not win outright. Osun voters have not proved to be very discriminating or avid pursuers of enlightened self-interest. They routinely cut their nose to spite their face, and would as soon commit regicide as embark on political hara-kiri. That Mr Adeleke has not been spectacular in office, nor shown any remarkable capacity to innovate and embark on futuristic developmental projects does not mean he would not get enough impressionable Osun people to ignore his dancing jamborees to vote for him or his candidates. Had he let the LG poll to hold as it should later this year, he would probably still have won, but maybe not by the absurdly huge margin Nigerians have resigned themselves to accommodating in the states.

    Read Also: Six shot in Osun community as Adeleke’s aide allegedly leads gunmen

    The problem with last Saturday’s Osun LG poll is not the already litigated PDP membership of the OSIEC chairman, Mr Abioye, or the Court of Appeal judgement indicating that the 2022 elected LG officials were legitimate, or even the firm and unambiguous opinion of the AGF on the controversial new LG poll. The real problem is that Mr Adeleke, citing the constitution and mouthing democratic principles, went ahead to defy reason and conduct a poll certain to be discredited in the eyes of the law. His main ambition, it seems, is to first win reelection by any means possible and then try to clear the legal mess and complication the latest LG poll might bring. He may be fixated on dancing, even in inappropriate circumstances, but he is not slow in understanding the country’s political dynamics. He knows that fellow governors riding the storms in their states manage to do so by defying everything about the constitution and the rule of law. And he thinks that if he does not play truancy with the system, in the most aggressive and reckless way possible, he could be brushed aside.

    OSIEC chairman Mr Abioye will eventually be judicially declared illegitimate, and last Saturday’s LG poll will not stand. But the impunity in Osun, like in some other states, will remain pervasive in direct correlation to the federal government’s reluctance to defend the rule of law. It is not clear how long the feds will keep yielding inches and yards and miles to malfeasant politicians in the name of democracy, but if the government does not draw a red line in the sand, perhaps starting from Osun, if it does not financially empower the 2022 elected LG officials with statutory allocation, then it would in fact be complicit in the weakening and corrosion of Nigerian democracy. The feds should take a stand rather than continue to genuflect.

  • Beyond the apocalypse

    Beyond the apocalypse

    General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, a master in the dark art and metaphysics of annulment, whether physical, democratic or national,  was on hand again penultimate Thursday to impose himself on and dominate the Nigerian environment once again thirty two years after surrendering power in dismal and distraught circumstances. In an autobiography that has since gone viral, the Minna-born general tried to absolve himself of complicity in the greatest democratic tragedy that has befallen the nation since independence and to plead for mercy and understanding from his compatriots. In the process, he has triggered off a trail of abuse, recriminations and shrill denunciation the type normally reserved for historical scoundrels. It is as if many Nigerians have been waiting for an opportunity to pounce on IBB.

     As it is said in the book of Job(31.35), “mine desire is that my enemy hath write a book”, it is obvious that thirty two years after, Nigerians are still traumatized by the ignoble drama surrounding the abrogation of the democratic will of the nation by a group of military officers, a development which they trace, directly or indirectly, to their current economic distress and political woes. If few Nigerians outside the loop of power understood what was going on in those days of utter confusion and political perplexity leading to and after the summary dismissal of the electoral sovereignty of the nation, fewer still do after reading Babangida’s mea culpa which has been dismissed as a litany of lies, misinformation and disinformation by irate Nigerians.

    General Babangida has touched some raw nerves. It is curious that Babangida who claimed ignorance of the poorly worded unsigned document announcing the annulment while he was still a sitting military ruler and all-powerful president was on hand to endorse the annulment two days after. Not only that, a few days after formally ceding power, the general  still had the daring and temerity to be announcing new military postings from his Minna redoubt through Chief Duro Onabule his veritable mouthpiece, a development which was swiftly countermanded by the duo of Abacha and Diya in the name of “service expediency”. Perhaps it was only then that the general finally roused from his trance and political somnambulism. As Arthur Nzeribe, his closet collaborator, wickedly and disdainfully put it, the general lost command.

      Yours sincerely was in Abuja penultimate Thursday to witness the historic spectacle. As one of the severest critics of the general when it became obvious that the transition was a grand charade, namely: The Transition As Transfiction; Alternatives to National Suicide, The Game is Up, At the Barricades, The Lonely Long Distance Runner, The Birth of Tragedy, Bridge Over Interim Waters, Remember Rueben etc, General Ibrahim Babangida remains a figure of deep historical fascination for this writer. There is an odd, deeply psychic entwinement between artist of power and the power-artist beyond abuse and vulgar recriminations. Perhaps as Gbolabo Ogunsanwo famously intuited, there is a Babangida in every one of us. The story of Babangida is also the story of Nigeria. One is deeply enthralled by how a deeply endowed and politically resourceful man could lead the nation and himself to such a cul de sac  from which it has never recovered. It speaks to some satanic foibles and deeply malign misconfiguration which are at the heart of the Nigerian Conundrum and which also makes the struggle for power and ascendancy in the nation far from being a beauty pageant.

      So when the opportunity to witness this historic gathering of the Nigerian consortium arose, it was too good to be passed over. But due to some distractions, the party missed the deadline and by the time we arrived at the venue, the gates were firmly locked with all vehicular movements prohibited as a result of the presence of the incumbent president and Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, Senator Bola Ahmed Tinubu. In the event, rather than being well-seated inside the hall, we found ourselves outside among a crowd of berserk humanity pulling at everything and violently pushing and shoving everybody in a journey that ended in a brick wall of fierce looking security people who avoided direct eye contact so as not to be seen committing a heinous breach of protocol. After a lull, we were approached by a new set of security personnel who led us through a private door that suddenly opened into the gallery above the hall where the technical crew were ensconced as they captured the extravaganza for posterity.

      It was indeed a spectacular pabanbari, a historic showstopper straight out of the surreal cinematography that gave us The Cabinet of Dr Caligari. Minus the numerous dead who have paid their death duties to mortality, almost everybody who is anybody in the national eclipse of sixty years since the advent of the military was seated in that gloriously phosphorescent  hall like some alchemists of geo-political perdition. General Gowon did not disappoint anybody. Armed with his usual arsenal of platinum platitudes, amiable and good-natured Jack went on and on about how he owed the restoration of his rank to the celebrant and how earlier, he nearly made the young Major Babangida his aide de camp.

    Without any sense of irony, Gowon went on to assert that Babangida’s regime was the most consequential for the nation.  In the case of General Obasanjo despite having dismissed Babangida’s regime as deficit in honour, credibility and integrity in the heat of his collapsing Transition programme, he went on to shower sedulous praises on his subordinate and political benefactor urging him to take the possible backlash against his autobiography as an example of “bad belle”. The earlier quarrel between the two about who is a fool at seventy has been forgotten but the Nigerian jury has returned an open verdict of misadventure by mutual semantic cancelation.

       It might have been due to the combination of exhaustion and exhilaration but in the trance-like sedation one suddenly felt transported back to early Jacobean period in England watching the remarkable play, Volpone, or the Sly Fox, by Ben Jonson, a merciless satire on lust, cruelty and greed compounded by grand deception. Written around 1605/1606, Ben Jonson could well have had post-independence Nigeria in mind and devious military rule in the country and its unique exemplar in view. The main character, a man known as Volpone, already wealthy from dubious and fraudulent exertions, piled up additional riches duping people by pretending to be on the verge of death. Among his clients were the wealthiest citizens of the land. In the end, manipulated by his own manipulation, his ruse falls apart. He starts out fooling everybody but ends up fooling himself, a fool in fools’ costumes.

      At least the real Volpone, (or is it the fictional Volpone?) receives his just desserts and is punished for his diabolic trickeries. Nigeria’s problem can be traced to serial tragedy without catharsis or the prospects of it. Impunity which is a symptom of lawless anomie and a disordered society reigns supreme. No society can make meaningful progress in such circumstances. Having escaped punishment for abolishing the sovereignty of the Nigerian electorate, General Babangida has come back to demand to be paid for his pains, and he got it handsomely with a seventeen billion pay cheque. It is akin to being rewarded for fouling up the community pool. The Nigerian ruling class is unable and unwilling to purge itself of political and economic miscreants.

    Read Also: August 24 for the third edition of “Beyond Emotions

       It is important to locate the current regime within the continual crisis of the abdication of ethical responsibility given the balance of extant forces by the time the military was forced to return to the barracks. Like all its predecessors in the post-military dispensation, the regime is not a product of a revolutionary momentum or organic radical stirring within the society, despite the upsurge of separatist rumblings in many sections of the country.

    It is a product of a unique conjuncture: a coming together of hitherto countervailing forces, namely a sizeable chunk of the progressive elements from the South West and vital conservative groups from the core north. The occasional creaking of the engine and the clattering of the wheels notwithstanding, if only the coalition can push through some fundamental reforms which are at the heart of  political and economic modernity without coming unstuck, Nigeria would have avoided a situation in which a handful of military officers can act in a way that alters the fundamental trajectory of the nation and a situation in which they condition themselves to confuse their personal destiny with the larger destiny of the nation.

       By the time he was driven from power, Babangida had become a major casualty of his own machinations. As a veteran coup plotter himself, Babangida knew when the odds were overwhelmingly against him. Sani Abacha had so loaded the military dice against him with strategic positioning of his arch-loyalists that he could take him down at any moment. It was the culmination of a power struggle which began the moment Abacha saved him from Major Orkar. In the confusion that followed, Abacha could easily have neutralized Babangida and taken over. But the dark-goggled general from Kano knew that he was such an object of disrespect and ridicule among the officer corps that a momentous bloodbath could have ensued.

    Shortly afterwards, a group of officers wrote to Babangida asking him to remove Abacha as Army Chief to save the army and the nation from further ridicule and disrepute. Afraid of inviting Abacha’s apocalyptic ire, Babangida dithered and vacillated for a while before settling for a compromise. Abacha was kicked upstairs but allowed to keep all the power and appurtenances of army chief including the official residence which he refused to vacate. So riled and miffed was the gentleman-officer who was designated as Chief of Army Staff, the excellent and impeccably conducted General Salisu Ibrahim ,that he exploded on the eve of his retirement that his beloved army had become “an army of anything goes”.

      In the case of Mamman Gulu Vatsa, it was obvious that the much admired poet was a victim of his own professional delusions and political naivete. Despite early youthful bonding and friendship, professional rivalry tore the two future generals and former classmates apart. The outward show of conviviality and camaraderie did not mask the rivalry and rancour. It was said that after General Babangida’s victorious putsch, Sani Abacha had approached him to retire Vatsa but Babangida told him to hold on. Unknown to him, Vatsa had been sent as a decoy to follow Tunde Idiagbon on pilgrimage to Mecca so that he did not constitute himself into a military nuisance when Babangida made his move. This was why he signed on late upon his return to Mecca.

       At the swearing in, Babangida jokingly asked his friend not to sign in Arabic language but Vatsa kept a stern straight face. But after returning to Abuja as minister, Vatsa began jumping and humping around letting everybody know that WAI was still in operation in the federal territory. This was like running a red rag in front of Babangida’s bull, or declaring his own autonomous territory. Shortly afterwards, Babangida gave a speech ominously hinting that those who were trying to cause problems for his regime would be neutralized with incisive professional skill. It was obvious that Vatsa’s goose had been cooked. Shortly thereafter in December 1985, the Gulu-born soldier-poet was arrested and charged with coup-plotting never to regain his freedom.

      It was the beginning of a period of bloodletting and officer-wastage that was unprecedented in the history of the nation culminating in a politically prohibitive annulment of the freest and fairest election in the history of the nation all because of a handful of military officers. If General Ibrahim Babangida seeks restitution and genuine atonement for his infractions against his nation, he should go about it the right way. The obscene spectacle in Abuja penultimate Friday was like putting the wrong foot forward.     

  • Russo-Ukranian war: Trump bullies Ukraine to submission

    Russo-Ukranian war: Trump bullies Ukraine to submission

    Last Thursday’s press conference by President Donald Trump and visiting United Kingdom prime minister Keir Starmer was quite revelatory, particularly on the subject of Ukraine. Firstly, despite the belief in some circles in England that their prime minister was dull and shifty, a part of which manifested during the questions and answers time, it was clear that he was a more prepared leader than his host. His opening remarks delivered in Received Pronunciation, which Mr Trump swooned over, was brilliant, nuanced, somewhat bold, and probably did not disappoint the European Union (EU). Conversely, the initial remarks of President Trump, while a clear improvement over those of President Joe Biden in the closing months of the latter’s presidency, were rambling, provocative, abusive, and coarse in the extreme. He would easily exceed that congenital coarseness in the course of the subsequent press conference, and the next day’s disgraceful ambush of and jousting with Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky.

    Two, during the question time, Mr Starmer appeared more less assured than his brilliant opening remarks indicated, and his mastery of the subjects in discussion was tentative and superficial. It is a revelation, an indication that despite all the years spent preparing for leadership of the UK, his ideas and style have not enjoyed the dialectical thoroughness the prime minister’s office demand. Yet, he was a far better performer than his host. He spoke of aid to Ukraine, not loans, to help fight off the Russian invasion, and he was empathetic to the sufferings of Ukrainians, hoping for a deal, as he put it, that would not leave the victim holding the short end of the stick. For personal and perhaps other more nebulous reasons, Mr Trump couldn’t care less. He was determined to reclaim the funds ‘loaned’ Ukraine in the ongoing war, and he condemned Ukrainian president Volodymr Zelensky for embarking on a war that should never have been started. More, and unabashedly, he insisted that the United States would secure a rare earth minerals deal from Ukraine that would help repay the loans he unilaterally spoke about. The predatory deal, however, fell through the next day.

    Sadly, the press conference merely reinforced Mr Trump’s realpolitik as well as absolute disdain for Ukraine, a country still at war, and one which his predecessor backed, rightly or wrongly, selfishly or altruistically, with the resources of the US. As far as President Trump is concerned, however, Ukraine can be damned. What matters to him is making America (or US businessmen and contractors) rich, regardless of whose ox is gored. While obsessing over Ukraine’s rare earth minerals, a deal first mooted by Ukraine to tantalise the American president, he promised nothing in return. He would not give any security guarantees to Ukraine, would not help police any peace deal he was determined to fashion even in the absence of Ukraine from the negotiating table, and was prepared to take the issue of Ukraine’s Nato membership off the table. After all, as he put it about two weeks ago, though he tried to walk that statement back, Mr Zelensky was both incompetent and dictatorial. In fact during the said press conference, Mr Starmer tried to remind Mr Trump, and was bold enough to put it in his remarks, that Russian aggression should not be rewarded.

    Read Also: Leave me out of Natasha Akpoti’s Affairs, Omokri begs Nigerians

    After the euphoria of the past three years fighting a brutal, bloody and destructive war against a meddlesome Russia, Ukraine found itself abandoned and holding the short end of the stick because Mr Zelensky failed to pander to the whims of the oversensitive and pampered US president. Mr Trump was, before the Friday diplomatic catastrophe, pressuring Ukraine to accept a peace deal whose terms had not been fully disclosed. But enough had been disclosed to let Ukraine know that all it has fought for could end up in smoke. It would not recover most, if not all, the land it lost to Russia; it would not get Nato membership; if care is not taken it could become isolated, deprived of Nato and EU membership; and in many insidious ways it faces the grim prospect of being subjugated either by force or circumstances under Russian influence. To boot, its cities and infrastructure lie in ruins, not to talk of the hundreds of thousands killed or injured. The Trump peace deal is probably the most galling ever, a deal that rewards the aggressor and punishes the victim, a deal which traumatises whole generations for many lifetimes. While peace is admittedly always desirable, Mr Trump has, however, made it both transactional and a zero-sum game.

    Mr Trump has done very little to pressure Russia into anything, into even making the smallest of concessions. Indeed, the Russian president, Vladimir Putin, has become more emboldened to rule out any concession whatsoever to Ukraine. For him, with the help of Mr Trump casting him as the winner of the war, that winner must ineluctably take all. And he is determined to take all. And, as many European nations fear, like Adolf Hitler projecting the policy of Lebensraum, the Russian president will not be satisfied or placated. They fear that for the next four years, and for reasons they cannot quite fathom, Mr Putin will be Mr Trump’s kryptonite. Not only did the US unprecedentedly side with Russia in the United Nations (UN) resolution condemning the invasion of Ukraine, Mr Trump appears bent on demystifying the EU, dividing them by singling out the UK for trade deals while imposing tariffs on the others, and indirectly furthering Russia’s global agenda. Eastern Europe and the Baltic States will now live on pins and needles, unsure of their fate as Mr Trump shatters, or at least shows his utmost disinterest in, the Transatlantic Alliance that had served America well and helped the world stave off another world war.

    Ukraine may appear to be the only country at the receiving end of Mr Trump’s eccentricities; they are, however, not the only one. It is clear that the world will become less safe and unpredictable, and dictatorships everywhere will flower as long as they can flatter the US president and stay out of his way. But sooner or later, countries which call Mr Trump’s bluff will discover that his bark is far more than his bite, despite America’s military power; and that, worse, there is no method to his madness. The world is also about to discover that Mr Trump and the US are not invincible. Because America is wealthy and militarily powerful, it has turned on its friends and allies who had sided with it since World War I, while lionising dictators and those secretly plotting the collapse of America. The Soviet Union collapsed in December 1991 without a shot being fired, literally; why should America not also collapse from within? US enemies muse.

    What the world may be witnessing in Mr Trump and the US is the difficult, entangled dynamics of leadership. The American presidential system has been fortunate to produce some excellent and visionary leaders like George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Franklin Roosevelt and a few others who both exemplified and embodied not just what America stands for but also what America should stand for. America’s raison d’etre was not always intrinsic to its founding; it was partly epiphanic, with some of their great leaders experiencing eureka moments and inspiring and imbuing their country with great domestic and international ideals. On its own, the presidential system does not possess the innate quality to guarantee the emergence of great leaders. In fact, the British parliamentary system has had better luck in producing great leaders than the American system, despite the brilliance of the US constitution. As the dysfunctional Mr Trump has shown by his actions, in the hands of a political vagrant, that brilliant constitution can be bastardised. The Chinese system cobbled under the leadership of Deng Xiaoping (Paramount leader between 1978 and 1989) has performed far better in producing competent leaders than both the presidential and parliamentary systems year-on-year. Yet, even the Chinese system, as President Xi Jinping has shown by his 2018 constitutional amendments to remove term limits, is not immutable or infallible.

    A leadership and character portrait of Mr Trump shows that American voters and the rest of the world are dealing with an unusual but greatly flawed personality unable to anchor his policies on great principles. He prefers ad hocism, transactional policies, and sentiments. This explains why Ukraine is in a quandary as it struggles to convince Mr Trump to recognise Mr Putin as the most pressing danger to American values and system in this century. The turmoil is not explained just by the incompetence of Mr Trump, but also by his lack of finesse and ideological mooring. As far as competence is concerned, no leadership institution mentored or apprenticed him, unlike France’s Emmanuel Macron who virtually humiliated him during last week’s visit to the White House. The US president’s private businesses have been products of bluff and bluster, record falsifications, and tax evasions. His first term in office (2016-2020) witnessed horrendous turnover of aides and cabinet members to the point that today many of them still speak ill of his capacity as a leader. It is curious that America elected into office for a second term a man whose ability his extended family and cabinet dismissed with brutal candour. Ukraine may have made many mistakes in its war with Russia, but that war was not always inevitable, despite the turbulence of the preceding years, Russia’s political voyeurism, and the mismanagement of the war of words with an equally deluded Mr Putin who still longs for the years of empire. Mr Biden and the EU recognised that the war might become drawn-out, for after all, there have been wars that lasted for more than four, five, six or even 100 years until a victor emerged. Therefore, seeking peace at the price of humiliating Ukraine and ceding land to an insatiable and rapacious Mr Putin may not help that peace to last.

    A peace deal is sorely needed. But it must be one that is based on justice and can endure. Mr Trump’s lack of capacity, however, complicates the search for peace. His lack of leadership character, shortsightedness, mercantilist approach to politics, and almost total repudiation of Western values and rules-based system present analysts with an irresoluble dilemma of how societies produce one great leader after another? Are great constitutions and brilliant political structures/systems enough to guarantee stability, greatness, and longevity? Every empire from antiquity has had to grapple with that dilemma, whether it was the Chaldeans, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, Romans, or the Ottomans. There are never any guarantees, as the Chinese also exemplify by sustaining term limits over only four leadership successions. It was always taken for granted in the US that having produced presidents like Washington, Lincoln, and Roosevelt, no utter incompetent could ever emerge, at least not someone like Mr Trump. They have been proved wrong.

    Like all fallen empires, the US is also exposing its Achilles heel through a president who repudiates alliances, despises friendships, courts dictators, elevates personal interest above national interest, and displays a shocking and disgraceful lack of understanding of the consequences of the choices and statements he makes, whether regarding Ukraine, the EU, or tariffs. In the Russo-Ukranian war, Mr Trump has indifferently tied Ukraine’s hands behind their back, causing them to groan in private over the enormous losses they have sustained. If Mr Zelensky cannot dissuade Mr Trump from backing Russia and Mr Putin, Ukraine will be left with the choice of either surrendering to American wishes or committing suicide by defying the US president’s wishes. Neither choice is palatable. But the forces being unleashed by Mr Trump, both domestically and foreign, will not only haunt the US for decades to come, it may determine the fate of the American Century.  

  • The Trump and Zelensky televised debacle

    The Trump and Zelensky televised debacle

     The unprecedented diplomatic meltdown between United States president Donald Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenski last Friday before the press, obviously at the instigation of the pitiless US vice president J.D Vance, himself a notable Ukraine and European Union hater, will have lasting consequences for Europe and America. Immediately Vice President Vance, as if cued, described Mr Zelensky as disrespectful and ungrateful during a heated televised exchange on Friday at the White House in Washington, the Ukrainian leader unfortunately took the bait by entering into a shouting match with the US president and his vice, losing his patience just when he needed it the most. As a result, the US has called off any deal with Ukraine, jeopardised further military help for the beleaguered nation, mocked them for being powerless in the face of Russian attacks, and signaled that they would not mind the Ukrainian president stepping down. The very public and uncensored falling out on live television played into the hands of President Vladimir Putin who had plotted for decades to drive a wedge between Europe and the US, sunder the Transatlantic Alliance, and regain imperialistic control of Ukraine.

    It is shocking that the US administration has no clue what the implication of a defeated Ukraine would mean to Europe and America. Before the eyes of this generation, the world witnessed the dissolution of the Soviet Empire. Now the same eyes are also witnessing the dismantling of the Western Alliance, inspired by the unwise US president, his truculent vice president, and the ingratiating and sniveling Republican Party. The world should simply brace for unprecedented turbulence in the near term. Talking about healing the rift between President Trump and President Zelensky glosses over the dismal fact that the US president and his deputy are fundamentally opposed to Ukraine for different reasons, much of it inexplicable, inscrutable and private. There was little the Ukrainian leader could have done to get the security guarantees his country needed to proceed with a ceasefire or peace deal. Mr Trump had alluded to this impossibility even before he succumbed to France’s pressures to meet with Mr Zelensky.

    Read Also: Nigeria should be the most developed, says Tinubu

    Perhaps there is something European leaders can still do to reset the relationship between an increasingly insular US and a bedraggled Ukraine. In reality, however, Europe is now alone to face the hordes from the East. They will have to reconceptualise their foreign and security policies doctrine. It is not clear how long Ukraine can hold out against a clearly exultant and emboldened Russia buoyed by feuding Western Alliance leaders, but it is now at least obvious that America is returning to isolationism or predatory foreign policy, Europe will begin the process of rearming, thus triggering a new arms race, while powerful dictatorships will begin to give in to temptations to embark on dangerous expansionism.

    In World War II, both US president Franklin Roosevelt and United Kingdom prime minister never liked France’s Charles de Gaulle, leader of the Free French Army, whom they described as supercilious. But they had their eyes on the greater goal and good of checkmating German expansionism, and were willing more than anything to bury their differences. And they did, and won the war. But President Trump and Mr Vance, who have both strangely and effectively become stooges of dictatorships, sadly cite their minor differences with President Zelensky to renege on everything America had stood for. Will the US ever recover from this abysmal new low of its leaders’ appalling personal biases, not to talk of using the ‘shouting match’ at the White House as a pretext to imperil their collective security? Mr Trump does not also have the capacity to understand that the annexations of countries he so glibly speaks about could indirectly legitimise the annexations China and Russia have in the pipeline. The US has its flaws, but it was for a long time the only sound mind superpower not greedy about territories. Now, the world has become a more dangerous place, and Mr Trump is the new and ugly public face of that madness, a trivial man for whom the manners of President Zelensky obviously means so much more than the strategic interest of his country and the sometimes stabilising influence of the Western Alliance.

  • Nasir-el-Rufai unloved by so many

    Nasir-el-Rufai unloved by so many

    Former Kaduna State governor Nasir el-Rufai is a naturally defiant and cantankerous politician who does not discriminate between friend and foe. Worse, for him the dividing line between friend and foe has over the decades become much thinner, with the former governor nevertheless retaining the capacity to transit seamlessly between the two extremes. It is puzzling why he does not seem to appreciate the depth of animosity many people feel towards him, why they resent his unpredictability, despair over his amorphous idea of loyalty, and scorn his boastful iconoclasm and self-importance. But despite his grandstanding, his defiance in fact masks both his insecurity and lack of judgement.

    Last week was especially turbulent for him. He sleepwalked into engaging some of his ‘former’ friends, including National Security Adviser (NSA) Nuhu Ribadu, Shehu Sani, and Governor Uba Sani, his successor, in ugly debates about their fidelity to truth, about their supposed conspiracies to undermine him, and about his now disavowed plan to defect to another party, particularly the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP). He spared none of them; after all, everyone knows he gives as much as he takes. But his latest foes did not spare him either. Speaking on television last week, Mallam el-Rufai had imperiously lyricised: “Look, Uba Sani has been my friend for many years, but he is not my friend anymore. For me, the word friendship is a very important concept. God gave us our relatives. He chose our relatives for us, we have no choice; but thank God, we can choose our friends. A friend is someone that has some fidelity, some ethical and moral standards, and will be there for you when you need him, not when there is time to party or enjoy. Those that are my friends know that I will be there for them when they need me, and I will rise and defend them. That’s what I call friend. Uba Sani is not my friend, (Nuhu) Ribadu is not my friend. They were my friends at some point, but not anymore.”

    It is not known why he does not seem to realise that his supposed enemies have become indifferent to his opinions. They acknowledge his brilliance, but they know how badly that single virtue left in him has been attenuated by his vexatious posturing and poor choices as well as his eagerness to grovel before any mentor or boss. So spontaneous were the responses of some of his critics that they wasted no time in resorting to social media to denounce what they alleged was his fake altruism and patriotism. Activist and lawyer, Deji Adeyanju, dismissed Mallam el-Rufai as a noisemaker, saying , “Nigerian politicians can only fool idiots, not me. All the noise-making and anger of el-rufai is because Tinubu denied him a ministerial position. They don’t love Nigeria, it’s about self and nothing else.”

    Read Also: NASENI holds workshop to promote made-in-Nigeria products

    Former presidential spokesman, Reno Omokri, blasted him as a sellout who rewarded murderous foreign herdsmen to stop killing Nigerians. He added: “Nasir el-Rufai’s government was indicted in the Zaria Shiite massacre of Saturday, December 12, 2015, where 438 Shiite men, women, children and infants were slaughtered in one of Africa’s worst human rights violations. Additionally, Mr. el-Rufai was specifically cited for demolishing the homes of his political opponents in Kaduna. Finally, his reckless utterances against Christians, whereby on Saturday, January 27, 2013, he insulted Jesus Christ, and on Friday, January 18, 2019, when he said, ‘Even if I bring the Pope, Christians will never vote for me’”. Shehu Sani, activist and senator, was no less scathing in delivering the coup de grâce. Deriding Mallam el-Rufai, he scoffed: “No Nigerian President in his right senses will ever closely embrace or trust a man who repeatedly celebrated and gloated about sending President Yar’adua to his grave. It’s a case of ‘if you can do this and say this about your own brother what about me?’ No one will ever admit a man into his house who came with a sword stained with the blood of his brother.”

    These are just a few samples. Until Mallam el-Rufai polishes his style, retunes his behavior, and acquires some depth in political judgement commensurate with his book knowledge, his inconsistencies will always impair his ambition and expose him to ridicule in a way no amount of grandstanding and eloquence can ever ameliorate. The former Kaduna governor is boxing himself into a corner by his character shortfall, and his choices are getting fewer. A few days ago he said he could not be caught dead in the PDP, a reflection of the depredation that has befallen that party. No one believes him. He often explodes in sanctimonious rage; but sadly for him, his fickleness, acerbity, and volubility have combined to lower his political stock and perhaps make his time as governor the apogee of his career with no further room at the top. Much worse, soon, he may have no friends left.

  • IBB’s confession

    IBB’s confession

    • June 12, like 20-year pounded yam, is still steaming hot, 32 years after

    At last, at long last, Nigeria’s former self-styled President, General Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida, has released his long-awaited autobiography. The book, ‘A Journey In Service,’ was launched at the Transcorp Hilton Hotel  in Abuja on Thursday.

    Babangida was Nigeria’s head of state from August 27, 1985 to August 26, 1993, when he was forced to ‘step aside’, following his government’s annulment of the June 12, 1993 presidential election.

    Babangida’s tenure as military president witnessed several controversies, the most prominent being the June 12, 1993 election. Babangida and his colleagues apparently underrated the likely consequences of the annulment of that election’s result. He admitted that much in his book.

    Anyway, belated or timely, I congratulate Babangida for the courage he eventually summoned to own up on June 12, even if, as many people have observed, he said nothing new. After all, President Muhammadu Buhari had in 2018 posthumously awarded Bashorun Moshood Kashimawo Abiola, the acclaimed winner of the election, the highest national honour for heads of state or presidents in Nigeria, the Grand Commander of the Federal Republic; an affirmation of sort, of Abiola’s victory in the election.

     Indeed, IBB described the annulment of the election as an “accident of history.”

    The truth of the matter is that in governments all over the world there are several dark deeds or ‘accidents of history’. Many things happened in government that the people only got clues to years after the occurrences, or sometimes long after the dramatis personae have passed on. Perhaps June 12 has joined the league of such events in Nigeria.

    IBB’s affirmation of Abiola’s victory is key because he was at the saddle at the time the election was held. Perhaps the only new dimension that Babangida introduced in his book is to mention General Sani Abacha as a critical factor in the annulment.

    “Unfortunately, the forces gathered against him after the June 12 elections were so formidable that I was convinced that if he became President, he would be quickly eliminated by the same very forces who pretended to be his friends,” IBB said.

    Read Also: IBB comes clean, but is far from cleansed

    He added: “Although I am on record to have stated after the election that Abiola may not have won the election, upon deeper reflection and a closer examination of all the available facts, particularly the detailed election results…there was no doubt that MKO Abiola won the June 12 election.”

    Not done, Babangida continued: “Upon closer examination of the original collated figures from the 110,000 polling booths nationwide, it was clear that he satisfied the two main constitutional requirements for winning the presidential elections, mainly majority votes and geographical spread, having obtained 8,128,720 votes against Tofa’s 5,848,247 votes and securing the mandatory one-third of the votes cast in 28 states of the federation, including Abuja.”

    While the more than N17 billion that was realised at the occasion was also significant, I think the fact that he has been able to empty his mind of the heavy burden of his involvement in the annulment of the result of the election  would be more significant to him than the billions.  I want to believe that, by now, Babangida would have realised, like King Solomon in the Bible, that “vanity upon vanity, all is vanity.” That no position is permanent.

     Before his confession, I had always remembered with awe the existence of God Almighty whenever people visited Babangida in his Minna mansion and the man could only receive them sitting down.

     This was the same IBB that radiculopathy did not condemn to a wheel chair. The Babangida that once told Nigerians that they were not only in government, they were also in power. The same Babangida that was bouncing on his legs when he was justifying the annulment of the election on national television a few days after, as if he was on something on that occasion.

    Alhamdulillahi indeed.

    As ‘A Journey In Service’  was being launched on Thursday, I remembered a book that myself and some of my friends were supposed to write on Babangida some years back. If my memory is not failing me, I think the title  was ‘IBB: The one they all call Oga’. There was also a documentary side that was supposed to be handled by another team. Somehow, the idea died. Even if that book had been written, it wouldn’t have carried the same weight as something on June 12 coming straight from the horse’s mouth.

    But I was the first person to opt out of the arrangement. I could not imagine  working for Babangida, the man who proscribed ‘The Punch’ where at a point during the June 12 struggle I was editor. Between Babangida and Abacha, ‘The Punch’ and two other prominent national dailies were proscribed for about 15 months!

    So, on the first day of our formal meeting on the book project at a friend’s office here in Lagos, I announced to the other team members — Olu Awogbemila, Bolade Opaleye and the team leader (name withheld), I think we were just four; that I was not interested in the project. It was as if we had planned it. But we are all long-time friends and what happened after I opted out was not surprising. Awogbemila and Opaleye too said they had thought it over and again and came to the conclusion that they could also not participate. Apparently on June 12 we all stood.

    Apparently too, the team leader, as the main man, could not ‘chicken out’ and he eventually went to Minna, Niger State, to meet Babangida in connection with the project. We were supposed to go together. I remember him saying the man would really have loved to meet me when he told him that a former editor of ‘The Punch’ was in the team. Trust IBB, he was generous to a fault. But if he had ‘settled’ me for the pains of proscription then, how would that have affected the other workers that went on forced holiday without pay as a result of the proscription? I said all of these in my tribute to Maryam Babangida, IBB’s wife when she died in December 2009.

    It is auspicious at a time like this to recount some of these incidents so that some other people who felt IBB’s apology is belated would know that many other people had their own pangs during the June 12 struggle and even after. Yet, they have moved on, knowing the best they could get from Babangida was the apology.

    I was picked up from the sick bed at Holy Trinity Hospital in Ikeja, Lagos, straight to the State Security Service’s (SSS) office in Shangisha, Lagos, over June 12. I also had some days with the police. My predecessor, Bola Bolawole, was detained in his office for about five days. I can’t remember the number of times I had to tuck out my shirt and throw my tie away just to evade arrest right on our premises. Anything could have happened in those days when soldiers could kill and go. Even if we had died somewhere along the other mines we had to tread at the time, it would not have changed anything whether our relatives decide to forgive Babangida or not, now that he has apologised. If multitudes die on Saturday, Christians who go to church on Sunday would still sing songs of praise and thanksgiving to God.

    But this is not to say that critics who feel Babangida’s apology is not enough do not have a point. The price we paid for this democracy. The price! The price!!

    Here, one remembers the pan-Yoruba socio-political organisation, Afenifere. I won’t be surprised if the National Democratic Coalition (NADECO) that was formed to fight the military out of power express the same sentiment.

    Indeed, I agree with Afenifere that “However, this long-overdue confession cannot exonerate Babangida and his associates from the monumental betrayal inflicted upon the nation.” And that “It does not restore the lives lost, nor does it atone for the enduring scars of oppression, bloodshed, and the suppression of democracy. The consequences of that reckless annulment remain irreversible.”

    But nothing can.

    Indeed, for me, this is the most crucial aspect of it all. If something is irreversible, what then do we expect the person behind it all to do? Generals these days no longer commit suicide over such matters.

    It is important to note that, before now, many of us have been asking Babangida to say something on June 12, he has not only said something now, he has admitted that he made mistakes and apologised.

    Regrettable as all of the unintended consequences of June 12 were, we just have to accept the irreversibility of certain actions and take life in its strides. As one of my friends would say: eni k’ole sa, o sa; e ni k’o ju t’owo e sile, o ju sile; ki lo tun ku? (You asked a thief to run, he ran; you asked him to drop what he has stolen, he dropped it. Yet, you keep on pursuing him)!

    Nobody can deny the fact that one of the people who fought for this democracy is President Bola Ahmed Tinubu. Yet, the tone of his speech at the book launch does not convey that pain or bitterness of harassment, up to the point of being hounded into exile. You may say then it was ‘Sad Asiwaju’; today, as president, he is ‘Happy Asiwaju’! May be.

    But, honestly, I think rather than keep sulking over Babangida’s regret or apology, it is the country’s current leaders who have lessons to learn from the IBB episode. Ours is a country where local government chairmen are kings, governors are emperors and presidents are like next-of-kin to God almighty. Babangida had made a grievous mistake in his handling of the June 12 election. We are not in a position to judge whether he is truly repentant or not. We can only assume he is.

    It is our current leaders that we have to hold accountable more for their actions so they too would not wake up sometimes tomorrow to offer belated apologies for their actions or inactions in government.

    Babangida operated in a military era. Despite that, we gave them close marking. We no longer do that and that is why people that we purportedly elected are getting more brazen with all manner of irresponsible behaviours.

     I want to believe that one of the reasons God has spared IBB’s life till this time is to enable him make some  restitution. Nothing can be done to bring back Abiola or those that were mauled down by soldiers for insisting on the de-annulment of the election from the grave; just as nothing can be done to undo the annulment of the election that Abiola worked hard to win such that he could reclaim his mandate. The apology should do

    What is more? Babangida had said that “The June 12 elections were the most challenging of my life. If I have to do it all over again, I’ll do it differently”. Unfortunately, in such circumstance, there is no second chance. At 83, we can only leave him to his conscience.

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

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (VIII)

    The men who led the world into the age of the Industrial revolution were hard headed men who held no truck with niceties of any kind. They kept their eyes on the bottom line and exalted gold to the level of a deity. They saw all human beings only through the prism of profit and every single thing they did was towards the enhancement of their bank balance. They seized every opportunity that came their way and turned it into a tidy profit. Everything considered, there was no point in appealing to their humanity because they had none to speak of but to them had fallen the responsibility of  building an enduring global order. Or, have they, could they?

    It was no coincidence that the industrial revolution took off in England. To start with, England had profited most from the slave trade and therefore had more money in private pockets than any other country including the United States whose economy was based primarily on the production of agricultural products using slave labour. It was becoming clear by the turn of the eighteenth century by which time the industrial revolution had arrived in the Northern states of the Union that the slave economy of the southern states was no longer tenable. However, it took more than sixty years before the debate over slavery was to be resolved on the battle fields of the American civil war. The North, with her almost limitless industrial capacity, at least compared to the South, was of course no match for those hill billies from the South. If they had a little gumption, they would have known that they had no chance against the North but how could anyone tell them that they were swimming against the currents of history and that sooner or later, they would be pulled under the waves. As General Sherman said as he rampaged through the South on his thirty-seven day march from Atlanta to Savannah on the sea, war was hell and Sherman made sure that the Confederates appreciated the meaning of hell as he destroyed all infrastructure in his path and bagged all the food in his path to ensure that his men were well fed and if such food was lost by the rebels, that was good for the Northern cause. He was able to carry out an expedition that has been described as the first action that could be described as modern warfare because of the Industrial base behind him and the lack of modern industry in the South. By the time Sherman reached the sea, it had become clear that the war was over bar the shouting. But I get beyond myself and it would be necessary to go back some seventy years to tell the story of how the USA was dragged into the industrial age.

    Read Also: The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (VII)

    England is said to have set off the Industrial revolution by the middle of the eighteenth century and maintained a monopoly of industrial processes which made sure that English industrialists were much richer than the elites in other European countries and of course the USA which for much of that period was still fighting to gain her independence from the British. The situation changed in 1789 when Samuel Slater migrated to the USA from Derby in the English Midlands carrying in his head the industrial method of producing textiles. He had to memorise this process because there was a law preventing the transfer of this technology to any place outside England and having been able to achieve this transfer, Slater became known as a traitor by the English. By 1807, two brothers, William and John Cocktreil also moved the industrial production process to Belgium and it was not long before the Industrial revolution spread right throughout Europe except Russia which at that time was too backward to appreciate large scale industrial enterprises. It was not until 1865 that serfdom, a form of slavery was abolished in Russia and as was the case in the West Indies and the southern states of the USA, any form of slavery is incompatible with the industrial production of goods.

    It has to be said that apart from the riches from the slave trade which had set up England to be the seat of the industrial revolution, geography was also kind to England in that all the materials and conditions needed for the take-off of the industrial revolution were present. In the first place, coal was found in considerable abundance in several parts of  Britain and this made it possible to switch to steam power as soon as versions of the steam engine were available. Indeed, the first use of the steam engine was in pumping out water from  damp mines before it was adapted to providing power to make the first power looms work to produce textiles on an industrial scale. Apart from the production of textiles perhaps the greatest  boost to the industrial revolution was the invention of the railways which were not only a marvel of engineering in themselves, they also made it possible for goods to be transported cheaply over long distances. Another advantage that England had was the presence of navigable rivers over which raw materials could be transported. In addition to this, the presence of these rivers made it possible for canals which were an additional aid to the movement of goods all around the country to be possible. By this time also all types of raw materials especially cotton were flowing into England from India and parts of China to be used in those early industries. It is also pertinent to add that the financial institutions needed by those early industrialists; banks, joint stock companies, insurance companies, not to talk of a huge merchant navy were at the disposal of those early English industrialists.

    From the beginning of the nineteenth century, the industrial revolution was spreading through Europe with varying degrees of success from one country to another but nowhere was the British success fully replicated. Engineers were required to service the engines used in the new factories and the best engineers were British (and this is one area where the Scots came into their own) and they could be found all over Europe tending to the machines which were driving the industrial revolution. In what could be described as the second stage of the industrial revolution, British engineers could be found all over Europe supervising the laying of railway tracks and servicing the locomotives which hauled the rolling stock. Everywhere they went, the British also took with them their love of football which they spread together with the railroads they were building so that some of the most famous European football teams such as AC Milan and Juventus have some relationship with one Englishman or the other. AC Milan actually started life as Milan Football and Cricket Club! Both Spanish giants Real Madrid and Barcelona  also have considerable English background to their illustrious history.

    This reference to football clubs is actually prelude to something much more serious. It was clear quite early in the industrial revolution that the most successful industrial countries were those that had areas of influence from where they had a guaranteed supply of raw materials and to which they could sell the cheap products from their factories. After all, for all the success of British industry, the most important raw material for textile production was cotton, a material which had to be imported from India and the USA. On the other hand the factories were churning out so many yards of cheap textiles that the local population especially with their low wages could never hope to consume more than a small fraction of the materials produced. The solution to this problem was a secure overseas market. In other words colonies or areas of influence were a prerequisite for industrial success. And once again, Britain with her long association with slave traders in Africa and control of most parts of the Indian sub-continent and China was in pole position in the race for the commercial domination of the world. The industrialised countries of Europe including Britain, France and Germany became locked in the race to acquire colonies wherever they could. They competed furiously against each other in Africa, fought wars against each other in India but cooperated with each other in China where they presented a united front agonist the Chinese emperor. All these manoeuvrings signified the end of the beginning industrialisation and the beginning of colonialism or as Lenin so elegantly put it, the age of imperialism which marked the highest state of capitalism. The point to be made here is that as soon as capitalism enters the stage of imperialism in which capitalists are able to carve out areas of interest abroad, there is great danger to the welfare of the workers in both capitalist countries and those in the periphery to come under lash of the oligarchs which working through giant finance corporations control everything and everyone. The current global situation suggests that we are now entering the period of imperialism bringing out the purest form of capitalism but again I am getting ahead of my narrative and must revert to a discussion on colonialism.

    There is no doubt that Britain was well ahead of other industrializing countries of Europe right up to 1849, the year that The  Communist Manifesto was published and the warning about the spectre of communism haunting Europe delivered. Thereafter however, other countries especially France and the German Empire which was about to be put together by Otto von Bismarck now known to the world as the Iron Chancellor began to catch up with the British. This was competition which was not welcome by the British especially in the case of the German Empire sitting as she was right in the middle of Europe.

    The Germans came late to the party and although they tried to make up for this crippling disadvantage by developing superb engineering skills and inserting themselves into small territories which for one reason or the other had been overlooked by either the French or the British in Africa. They were thus restricted to small territories; Togoland and parts of Cameroon in West Africa, an awful lot of sand in the  practically uninhabitable desert in South West Africa as well as Rwanda, Burundi and Tanganyika in East Africa.

    This situation had the potential of causing a lot of trouble in Europe, trouble which was quite capable of toppling the balance of power in Europe which had been devised to prevent any war in Europe after the turbulent Napoleonic wars which had come close to bringing every European empire to her knees. This arrangement which came to be known as the Concert of Europe had succeeded in preventing any major war in Europe save the Crimean war which was fought in the Crimean peninsular, an area which was not really part of Europe. The war between the newly unified Germany and France was over so quickly that it did not disturb the Concert but it gave warning of the danger to the peace of Europe if disputes were not resolved before armies were mobilised and shots fired. By 1884, it had become clear that the squabbling over Africa had the potential to profoundly disturbing peace in Europe. This formed the impetus for Otto von Bismarck to invite fourteen countries including the USA to Berlin in 1884 for what has come to be known as the Berlin Conference.

  • Is Atiku Abubakar a glutton for punishment the way he keeps running to Obasanjo

    Is Atiku Abubakar a glutton for punishment the way he keeps running to Obasanjo

    What I did not know, which came glaringly later, was his parental background which was somewhat shadowy, his propensity to corruption, his tendency to disloyalty, his inability to say and stick to the truth all the time, a propensity for poor judgement, his belief and reliance on marabouts, his lack of transparency, his trust in money to buy his way out of all issues and his readiness to sacrifice morality, integrity, propriety, truth, and national interest for self and selfish interest” – President Obasanjo on his one – time Vice, Waziri Atiku Abubakar, in his book “MY WATCH”.

    In my part of the country, anybody so literally incinerated, would never remember that the person who so vaporised him exists, ever again.

    It is part of our Omoluabi ethos.

    But regrettably, the Waziri Adamawa is not cut from that cloth.

    He, therefore, goes forth and back to former President Segun Obasanjo like he had been told the latter is his sole access to the Nigerian presidency.

    Atiku Abubakar’s persistent pursuit of the presidency, despite facing numerous setbacks, has led many to wonder if he’s a glutton for punishment, just naive or too driven by the now hackneyed prediction of those marabouts Obasanjo was first to reveal.

    Or why, after seeing his many  visits to  Obasanjo, once with two bishops in tow, collapse like a pack of cards, would he again head to Ota, this time with mere mortals like Senator Abdul Ningi, former Cross River governor, Liyel Imoke, former Sokoto State Governor, Aminu Tambuwal and, to really have Obasanjo’s ears, Otunba Oyewole Fasawe, Obasanjo’s one time very close associate.

    Atiku’s convoluted relationship with  President Olusegun Obasanjo is particularly intriguing, galling in fact, given their complicated history.

    Read Also: NNPC, Oando and Atiku Abubakar’s attacks, by Temitope Ajayi

    His determination to seek Obasanjo’s support, despite the latter’s apparent reluctance, raises questions about his motivations. Is he driven by a genuine desire to lead the country, or is it a personal vendetta? To understand this dynamic, it is essential to examine the genesis of the Obasanjo-Atiku controversy.

    The feud had began on the eve of the 2003 PDP primaries, when Atiku was pressured to leave Obasanjo’s side and contest the presidency. That Atiku succumbed to that pressure sparked Obasanjo’s ire, setting the stage for a protracted and tumultuous relationship.

    Fast-forward then  to the present, and Atiku’s actions seem to be driven by a desire invigorated by the marabouts’ say so.

    To properly contextualise matters, long before Atiku became anything outside of Nigerian customs, that is politically, marabouts had told him he would be elected governor of his state, never rule as such, but become the President after a brief time as Vice- President.

    Pity, he never escaped that entrapment.

    His repeated overtures to Obasanjo, despite the latter’s obvious disinterest, and continuous denigration of the supplicant, suggest a deep-seated, unalterable ambition. This behavior is perplexing, given Atiku’s extensive experience, popularity and  undeniable accomplishments both in politics and business.

    His critics argue that his actions are motivated by a sense of entitlement, rather than a genuine desire to serve the country.

    His recent criticisms of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s administration, for instance, have been characterised as “harebrained propositions devoid of realistic alternatives” but aimed majorly at being in the limelight, especially as, rightly or wrongly, Peter Obi of the Labour party, considers himself  head of the opposition.

    Moreover, Atiku’s economic proposals have been serially dismissed as efette and lacking in substance. For instance,  his suggestion to privatise the four government-owned refineries has been criticised as a rehash of old ideas.

    Nigerians have also not forgotten the mess he made of the Privatisation programme of the Obasanjo government, as the man in charge, when between him,  Obasanjo and El Rufai, they sold about 147 enterprises worth around N100B, to cronies, for not even a fifth of that amount.

    Nor can we forget the PTDF cesspit.

    In the light of all these, it is reasonable to ask whether Atiku’s persistence is driven by a desire to prove himself or a genuine commitment to public service. His actions seem to be motivated by a need for validation, rather than a desire to address the country’s pressing challenges.

    This view is further reinforced by his visit to former President Ibahim Babangida this past week.

    Apparently to sell a dummy to Nigerians he visited former President Ibrahim Babangida in Minna, calling it a courtesy call ahead of the former’s  book launch of Thursday, 20 February, a bare 48 hours or so away.

    The  Waziri very easily gives himself away. If he would meet IBB a mere 48 hours or less away, why this rush, if not in furtherance of his subterranean 2027 ambitions?

    But, indeed, why visit Obasanjo or IBB anyway? When last did the candidates supported by these two titans last win any election?

    Atiku just loves to be in the limelight even if such would come to naught. What a pity for a once glamorous, and respected, politician until he demonstrated what a selfish politician he is; angling  so audaciously to see himself, a Northerner, succeed President Muhammadu Buhari, another Northerner,  who had just completed two terms of 8 years on the platform of a political party, PDP, which has zoning enshrined in its constitution.

    Ultimately, Atiku’s decision to continue seeking Obasanjo’s support, despite the latter’s apparent reluctance, raises questions about his judgment and motivations. Is he a glutton for punishment, driven by a desire for validation and acceptance? Or is he a genuine leader, committed to serving the country?

    Like a child running after lolly, Atiku continues to run to a man who not only serially rubbishes him, but had the temerity to insinuate his parental background into what, essentially, was nothing more than a political contestation.

    What insult will Atiku not take in his millennial pursuit of Aso Villa residency?

    If he didn’t know at that time, hasn’t he been privileged to read the highly respected Awujale’s views on Obasanjo?

    I can understand a  Peter Obi tying himself to Obasanjo’s apron strings, not an experienced Atiku, who would soon be 80 years on terra firma.

    Meanwhile he continues to further deepen the hostilities tearing the PDP, his only legitimate route to the Presidency, apart. He obviously would have acted differently, if only he had realised that come 2027, no amount of money will shake off the young turks now angling for the party”s leadership, if it manages to survive its current duel unto death. 

    All said, Wazirin Abubakar appears like his own worst enemy, not only by his political gallivanting, but more because he has never shown the inclination to help deepen, and get firmly rooted, any party to which he belongs, knowing full well he hasn’t the qualities to found one, yet always fighting to the death to emerge the Presidential candidate.

    Nigerians are waiting with bated breath, for that day when he would see himself as an elder statesman.