The Nation Newspaper

Category: Sunday

  • Malcolm X’s moral dilemmas

    Malcolm X’s moral dilemmas

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Tinubu’s wake-up call to Africa: Time to build, not beg

    Tinubu’s wake-up call to Africa: Time to build, not beg

    There is something deeply symbolic about the way history repeats itself—offering lessons to those willing to learn and issuing stark warnings to those who refuse to listen. President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s recent remarks at the presentation of former Military President Ibrahim Badamasi Babangida’s autobiography and the launch of his presidential library carried one such warning, not just for Nigeria, but for Africa as a whole.

    At a time when Africans, including Nigerians, are facing increasingly hostile receptions in the West—turned back at sea, subjected to dehumanizing treatment, and, most recently, deported in shackles from the United States—Tinubu made it clear: these indignities should not just be condemned; they should be received as a wake-up call.

    His message was blunt but necessary: Africa must stop looking outward for solutions to problems that must be solved from within. The recent wave of deportations, particularly under U.S. President Donald Trump’s administration, is not just about immigration policy; it is a stark reminder of how Africa is perceived on the global stage. If we do not fix our own house, the world will continue to treat us as tenants with no place to belong.

    In the past decade, images of Africans crammed into boats, risking their lives in the Mediterranean, have become all too familiar. Many never make it. Those who do often arrive in countries that do not want them, treated as burdens rather than as people seeking a better life. The desperation behind these journeys tells a painful truth: many Africans, especially young people, have lost faith in their governments’ ability to provide them with opportunities at home.

    Tinubu’s words at the Abuja gathering reflected an urgent realization—if African leaders do not act decisively, the continent will continue to export its human capital in search of hope elsewhere. “It’s telling us to wake up, to make Africa a better place, particularly this country, Nigeria”, he said. This was not just a political statement; it was a direct challenge to his own administration and those of his counterparts across Africa.

    It is easy for leaders to call for change; it is much harder to take the painful steps required to make that change happen. Tinubu acknowledged this, vowing to make the difficult, but necessary decisions to reposition Nigeria for a better future.

    Read Also: Tinubu: It’s time to implement strict local government autonomy

    “All I can promise, as the President, is to strive to do the best, put the best forward, take decisions—no matter how difficult they are—in the interest of the country”, he said.

    This is where the real test lies. The reality is that transforming Nigeria—or any African nation—into a place where people no longer feel compelled to leave will demand radical reforms. It will mean confronting entrenched interests, uprooting corruption, and making investments that may not yield immediate political gains.

    It will also require a shift in mindset—not just from leaders, but from citizens as well. For too long, Africa has been treated as a charity case by the West. The expectation that foreign aid, debt relief, or economic partnerships will somehow solve the continent’s problems has only delayed the hard work that must be done at home.

    Tinubu’s praise of Babangida’s economic policies, particularly the liberalization of Nigeria’s banking sector, serves as a reminder that bold leadership can change the course of a nation. When Babangida issued licenses to new-generation banks, it fundamentally altered Nigeria’s financial landscape. Today, Nigeria boasts some of the strongest banks in Africa.

    If similar boldness is applied to other sectors—particularly agriculture, infrastructure, and industrialization—Nigeria can create jobs, retain its brightest minds, and become a nation that attracts talent rather than loses it.

    Tinubu’s reference to South Korea is particularly instructive. In the 1960s, South Korea was one of the poorest countries in the world. Through strategic government intervention, including targeted investments in industry and technology, it transformed itself into a global economic powerhouse.

    Africa has the potential to do the same. Nigeria, with its vast resources and young population, should be leading this charge. But potential alone is not enough—it must be matched with action.

    Beyond economics, this is about dignity. A nation that cannot provide for its people will always find them knocking on the doors of others, often to be turned away. A continent that does not take itself seriously will never be taken seriously by others.

    President Tinubu has made a promise. He has acknowledged the challenges and vowed to take decisive action. Now, Nigerians will be watching closely to see if these words translate into policies that will make a real difference.

    The deportations, the hostility, and the rejection that many Africans face abroad should not just make us angry; they should make us act. The future of Africa cannot be built on pleas for acceptance from the West. It must be built on a foundation of self-reliance, strong institutions, and a commitment to creating opportunities at home.

    If Tinubu and his fellow African leaders truly heed this wake-up call, perhaps one day, the only migration we will see is that of Africans returning home—not because they are forced to, but because they want to.

    Tinubu’s Week: Mourning Leaders, Strengthening Institutions

    The week was not just about the Babangida outing for the President, there were Sunday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday before the former Military President assembled the crème of the Nigerian political and business classes for his special occasion. After Thursday, there were Friday and yesterday, Saturday, days he dedicated to other relevat events and activities.

    Leadership, at its core, is about presence—being there in moments of triumph and loss, making tough decisions, and ensuring the ship of state stays steady. President Tinubu demonstrated that this past week, like he has consistently done since he assumed office, navigating diplomacy, governance, and national mourning with the balance of a leader keenly aware of his responsibilities.

    Fresh from Addis Ababa, where he attended the 38th Ordinary Session of the African Union (AU) Heads of State and Government, Tinubu returned to Nigeria on Monday and immediately turned his attention to matters at home. His first order of business was addressing the loss of two towering figures in Nigeria’s socio-political landscape: Chief Ayo Adebanjo and Chief Edwin Clark.

    Adebanjo, the Afenifere chieftain, passed away at 96 in Lagos, while Clark, the revered leader of the Pan-Niger Delta Forum (PANDEF), died at 97. Tinubu, in a deeply personal move, penned heartfelt tributes to both men, recognizing their unwavering commitment to their people and the country. These weren’t just perfunctory condolence messages; they were reflections of a leader who understood the weight of their legacies and the vacuum their departure left behind.

    In an era where leaders often communicate through official channels, Tinubu’s choice to write these tributes himself was telling. It was a gesture that underscored respect—not just for the men, but for what they stood for. Adebanjo and Clark were not always on the same political wavelength as Tinubu, yet he acknowledged their impact on Nigeria’s democratic journey. That’s the mark of a leader, secure in his role: one who honours adversaries and allies alike.

    But governance does not pause for grief. By Tuesday, Tinubu was back to the grind, holding private meetings with Senate President Godswill Akpabio at the Presidential Villa. While details of their discussions remain undisclosed, their repeated engagements suggest deliberations on key legislative matters. The Executive-Legislative relationship is the backbone of any administration’s success, and Tinubu’s proactive engagement with Akpabio signals a government keen on coordination rather than confrontation.

    Then came the appointments. On Wednesday, Tinubu named Dr. Danjuma Adamu as Rector and Chief Executive Officer of the Nigerian College of Aviation Technology (NCAT), Zaria. Aviation is a crucial sector, and NCAT, as the nation’s premier aviation training institution, plays a pivotal role in producing skilled professionals. The appointment of Adamu, an aviation expert, indicates a focus on merit—a welcome trend in Nigerian public service appointments.

    On Thursday, Tinubu also appointed Dr. Saviour Enyiekere as Chairman of the National Assembly Service Commission (NASC), along with twelve commissioners from across the six geopolitical zones. The NASC, responsible for managing legislative staff and ensuring the smooth running of the National Assembly, is a key institution in Nigeria’s democracy. By filling these positions, Tinubu reaffirmed his commitment to institutional stability.

    During the week, the President juggled diplomacy, national grief, governance, and appointments with characteristic resolve. It was a reminder that leadership is not about doing one thing at a time, but managing multiple priorities—each demanding, each essential.

    As the new week starts, we should expect to see lots of activities, as usual, many of them not done before the camera, keeping the values of such activities as pristine as what is a surprise. Hang on.

  • Netherlands and the Benin Bronzes

    Netherlands and the Benin Bronzes

    Last Tuesday, The Netherlands signed an agreement with Nigeria to return some 119 Benin Bronzes looted in 1897 when the British sacked the Kingdom of Benin in present day Nigeria. Some of the artefacts – figurines, tusks, sculptures of Benin’s rulers, and an ivory mask made between the 15th and 19th Centuries – ended up in Dutch Museums. In the agreement signed to return the over 100 items, there was no reference to their being stolen. It is, however, reassuring that after more than a century, the priceless materials are being returned to Nigeria. About three years ago, Germany became the first European country to return some 20 looted Benin Bronzes to Nigeria.

    Britain has over 900 looted Nigerian artefacts it has continued to retain, citing some unjustifiable excuses. It is shocking how any country in the 21st century, let alone Britain, can defend stealing under any guise, whether by Empire or by pirates and soldiers of fortune. They may fear that the artefacts will not be treated with the same sophistication and aplomb they are capable of, but nothing justifies the crime of looting or rationalises the argument that the original owners could not be trusted to handle such priceless items with care? Indeed, inexplicably, Britain last April returned some 20 artefacts looted from Ghana in 1874 and 1896 on the condition that the deal would be a long-term loan to Ghana, the original owners. Nigeria will not agree to any such loan deal should it ever be contemplated.

    Read Also: Netherlands to return 119 looted Benin bronzes to Nigeria

    By returning looted artefacts, Netherlands and Germany are coming to terms with their dark colonial past. Until Britain is named and shamed, they will continue to hide behind a nebulous British Museum Act of 1963 that forbids the return of stolen artefacts except in special circumstances to perpetuate centuries-old crime. It is time Nigeria pressed harder to get its looted artefacts back. There is no justification for any country to hold on to property stolen from another country. Had the shoe been on the other foot, Britain would have raised hell to get its property back.

  • Tinubu on el-Rufai at 65

    Tinubu on el-Rufai at 65

    There will be no immediate thaw in the strained relationship between President Bola Tinubu and All Progressives Congress (APC) chieftain and former Kaduna State governor, Nasir el-Rufai. Both seem to have crossed the Rubicon when the latter was unable to pin down a place in the federal executive council in 2023. He had been promised a role in government even before the campaigns began, and despite his denial, he looked forward to holding a cabinet position. The rather open manner he seemed to have been rebuffed has led him to the conclusion that they offered him a sword rather than a dove. He has since taken up the gauntlet.

    Last week Mallam el-Rufai turned 65. He is a lucky man, for he is still strong and mentally sharp. He has been in public service since 1998, culminating in the governorship of Kaduna State in 2015, serving two terms. Falling out with the president, of course over his cabinet position rejection, has not prevented his being recognised as a patriot. In the birthday tribute authorised by President Tinubu, presidential spokesman Bayo Onanuga said: “Mallam El-Rufai is an administrator, scholar, and politician. He is a founding member of the All Progressives Congress (APC) and highly regarded for his resourcefulness and brilliance. He served as governor of Kaduna State for eight years, and prior to elective office, he had served as Director-General of the Bureau of Public Enterprises, and Minister of the Federal Capital Territory (FCT) from 2003 to 2007. President Tinubu celebrates Mallam El-Rufai on this occasion and commends his endeavours for democracy; his meritorious service to the nation, and mentorship of the younger generation. The President acknowledges Mallam El-Rufai’s role in the dialogues leading up to the formation of the APC and his contributions to the success of the party in the three consecutive elections of 2015, 2019, and 2023.”

    There was nothing the president said about Mallam el-Rufai that was unmerited. The former Kaduna governor’s character may often fail him, especially as he dissembles in the face of repeated challenges and provocations, but his intellect as a first-class scholar remains intact. He may not be adept at building consensuses or standing firm on principles, and may sometimes abridge rules and regulations with the fanaticism of an entitled man and politician, but no assignment has mystified him or proved too much for his comprehension. He has problem with the concept of loyalty, but there is no question that when he is with whoever is his leader at any point in time, he gives his all. His fickleness does not vitiate his humongous capacity for hard work. Once you understand him and accommodate his strengths and limitations, you can always get him to give his best, and that best can be very satisfying to all parties involved.

    In the past few months, shorn of the friendship of political associates and thirsty for the warmth of praise and recognition by notable political leaders, Mallam el-Rufai sallied back into the camp of former vice president Atiku Abubakar. A few days ago, he was in company with the 2023 Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) presidential candidate and others when they paid a condolence visit to the family of Edwin Clark, statesman and former Information minister and Ijaw leader, in Abuja. Making prefatory remarks during the visit, Mallam el-Rufai jumped unbelievably to the defence of the former vice president, whom he rhapsodised as a misunderstood leader. “Nobody gives Vice President Atiku Abubakar the credit for leading economic policy-making under the Obasanjo administration. Many of the things that we did…were under his leadership,” said the former governor. It is unclear why he had to make that rhetorical detour at a condolence visit, but that is vintage Mallam el-Rufai. He has begun a new round of blandishments whose end no can guess.

    Read Also: Tinubu flags-off reconstruction of Lagos-Ibadan-Sagamu Expressway

    It is, however, remarkable that whether the former Kaduna governor feels estranged or not, the president’s opinion of his co-labourer in the founding of the APC has not been substantially affected by any political misunderstanding. In addition to attesting to the competence of political foes and allies, hopefully, the day will also come when sitting presidents will publicly, routinely and positively attest to the character of a political ally or political enemy. Nigerians may have settled for the humdrum of applauding politicians’ work and experience, as their elite did at the launch of Ibrahim Babangida’s autobiography ‘A journey in Service’ last week. The country may, however, be yearning for radical change. After all, as everybody knows, and going by the hypocrisy that attends public functions, no one who gives a tribute will take the liberty of denouncing the character of the host.

  • IBB comes clean, but is far from cleansed

    IBB comes clean, but is far from cleansed

    And whilst still talking about a sense of an ending and the perfect symmetry of historical occurrences, let us for now say one or two things about the gathering of Nigeria’s postcolonial and post-civil war ogbologbo that swarmed inside the capacious bowel of the nation’s premier hotel in Abuja this past Thursday. It was a beautiful mid-February morning. It was a year short of the fiftieth anniversary of the assassination of Murtala Mohammed, the man who willed Abuja into existence from a primeval forest bristling with hard rocks. Virtually, all the surviving military titans from that era were there directly or by proxy, one or two of them now leglessly infirm. Fifty years after they seized power from General Yakubu Gowon, their winning combination was still in place and in power so to speak. The very foundation of Abuja shook with new money and new power. There was hardly any space left for private planes to park.

       There is always something surreal and unnerving about the calm, placid serenity of Abuja. Like an ancient mythical mine, you know that this is a scene of crime. But you also know that it is a site of stupendous and spectacular riches.  Only the deeply criminal can speak to the deeply criminal. Like its Paris counterpart which is known to warehouse about six million dead souls, the Abuja catacomb houses legions of political, economic and military casualties. The survivors go on to lap at the sweet candies of plutocratic wealth and its fragrant bars of pure honey. If a child refuses to die, he must taste bearded meat.

    Read Also: IBB’s ‘Journey in Service’

      This morning, they all thronged the hall to honour and pay compliments to the man who is arguably the most consequential soldier to have ruled post-civil war Nigeria either for good or bad. General Babangida’s charisma, his capacity to attract people and his mesmerizing gifts remain unmatched in Nigeria’s post-civil war political firmament despite being hobbled by old age and sundry ailments. It is hard to imagine the all-powerful Maradona in this state as he came clean and contrite before his abjured compatriots. But judging from some of the scathing and scalding rejoinders, it is obvious that coming clean is not about to cleanse IBB and absolve him of historic responsibility in the conspiracy against Nigeria. It all speaks to the ephemerality of power and its appurtenances. When you have it, use it for the greatest good of the greatest number. Or the infraction against the greatest collection of black souls anywhere in the world will haunt you forever.

  • The time of their time

    The time of their time

    There is a dramatic and faintly mystical quality to their final exit. Elders who have been mumbling and sighing for over a decade that they have arrived at the Departure Lounge and were merely waiting for their boarding passes received the summons to board. Within a week, Nigeria has lost two of her most prominent political gladiators and Old Testament pathfinders, Chief Ayo Adebanjo and Pa Edwin Clark. They were no doubt avatars of the colonial and postcolonial coliseum, that blood-splattered site of agonistic contention. They no doubt hid their bruises and wounds very well, crying in the rain and relentlessly seeking combat and confrontation as if their life depended on the punishing schedule.

    Given their gladiators’ regimen, it is a miracle and a great riddle that they lived for so long and to ripe old age, exceeding their makers allotted timeline of  three scores and ten years by over two decades. When they departed this past week, it began to feel like the end of an era. Perhaps we are beginning to see the final working out of what began sixty three years earlier with the implosion of the fabled Action Group, the subsequent collapse of the First Republic and the seizure of the dominion by the military faction of the ruling group, a seismic development whose ripple effects continue to be felt in the nation’s political firmament.

      Consequently, this piece cannot be a critique of political praxis but a celebration and eulogy of the life and time of four of Nigeria’s greatest sons and daughters ever. These personages were no doubt titans of Nigeria’s modern history. The two aforementioned political giants were severely flawed human-beings and conflicted individuals. But the criticism of their politics can wait until they have been properly interred. It is the time to roll out the gongs and drums of celebration and ululations rather than the whistle of disapproval and disapprobation. Let us enjoy the vignettes, cameos, mementoes, bits and tidbits of their rich, colourful if occasionally controversial life and see if we can come up with tropes of redemption about their storied exertions, their heroic disavowal, their memorable derring-do and their willingness to tempt fate and martyrdom in the pursuit of their ideal of a just and egalitarian society.

      If we are to maintain a fidelity to historical accuracy, it will not be accurate to maintain that the two titans were the first to sign off. Shortly before them, there were two other notable departures, but simply because the other two were not political luminaries, their death has been less heralded. Yet in a curious and mysterious sense, their own departure now seem to complement and reinforce the feeling that an age of giants was winding down and we may just be lucky to capture the last snapshot for posterity. Bidding us a final goodbye a few months short of his ninetieth birthday was the man who wrote the cheques, Chief Olabode Emanuel, the old Gregorian, a vastly successful international businessman and publisher with octopoidal reach and range. There was a ferocious focus and steely armature about him which suggested a man not to be lightly crossed if you are not a feckless yokel from the provinces. On the few occasions one had the honour and privilege of sitting close to him, he came across as a man of immense refinement, cultivation and culture; a citizen of the globe. On those few occasions, the two of us often exchanged wary and cagey glances with each wondering just how much the other knew without letting on. He was a money man for the ages without any hint of extravagance or fiscal incontinence. 

      The last titan and the first to depart a few weeks back is a woman. By the time she departed, Khadijat Adebisi Edionsere had already passed into legend and folklore as a woman of Croesus-like wealth and riches. If you are wondering what a mere woman is doing among a conclave of elders, then you are wrong, dead wrong and you do not understand Yoruba culture. The Yoruba people appreciate the power of power and the means of immense means which they believe is a transgender affair. Certain women become “unsexed”, cultural monument as a result of their wealth and power. As Ebenezer Obey sang sonorously and suggestively: “Agba loto Oro lo o hun niti Iyalode Egba”. A powerful woman can no longer be excluded from the conclave of the Oro cult.

      It was said that in the late sixties, bank officials who were mystified and pleasantly bewildered by the daily haulage of raw cash coming into her accounts promptly nicknamed her as the “cash woman”. It is a golden tradition that harks back to the glorious era of Madam Efunroye Tinubu, Efunsetan Aniwura, Humani Alaga, Bisoye Tejuoso, Janet Alatede, Abibatu Mogaji and some other female figures of remote antiquity such as Moremi and Oya. Last week’s Friday a grateful Egba nation sent off one of its greatest daughters and it was a   carnival-like procession throughout the city ending up in a punishing traffic snarl right up to the main venue of Abeokuta Sports Club. As a frail and autumnal master crooner Ebenezer Obey dished out memorable lyrics from his extraordinary musical tribute to the late magnate, the crowd swooned and applauded.

     At a point, a lithe and winsome lady appeared on stage swinging methodically and aristocratically to Obey’s beat. She was a dead ringer for her late illustrious mother. Many of the state dignitaries that converged on the stage would have been in their infancy when Ebenezer’s Obey’s classic rendition came out at the tail end of 1971. It all goes to show that life   goes on and must go on. Life may often appear like a cruel continuous punishment, or just one damned thing after the other, as an English cynic dismissed it. But it depends on the meaning you give it. This is what makes life bearable, despite its wicked absurdities and brutal contingencies.

    Read Also: Clark: Time to commit to true federalism, says Afenifere

     There are times in life when fate seems to conjoin you with certain colourful and larger than life personalities who can only make meaning out of life by subjecting it to their own eccentric interpretation and idiosyncratic narrative no matter how odd and unhelpful such narratives have become in the light of new developments. Chief Ayo Adebanjo was one of such titanic personages and you always sensed where you stood with him whether he was wearing a benign scowl or his trademark boyish grin. It is fair to conclude that in the in the closing phase of his political career we were in the same book but not on the same page.

    This was to lead to some awkward moments and a particularly nasty public spat at the Tola Adeniyi book launch where this columnist was forced to give the late chief some candid roasting. Moments later, a well-known public intellectual who was not well known to the columnist at that point in time, accosted one and said that he had never imagined that anybody could engage the master pugilist in a toe to toe contention and in public purview, too. But a few weeks after this encounter, the old Action Group stalwart was smiling and winking conspiratorially at his former blue-eyed boy as one sat under the canopy at his  Ijebu Ogbogbo homestead to honour him on his ninetieth birthday. As far as he was concerned, it was all in a day’s work.

    The circumstances of our first meeting were no less awkward but far more heroic and cheering. At one of the exploratory meetings preparatory to the convening of an All Politicians’ Summit in 1995, I was assigned to the task of manning the gates to prevent any embarrassing infiltration or the customary state shenanigans. It was the brainchild of a group of patriots including some top journalists, well-heeled Yoruba tycoons and some topnotch technocrats from the middle belt. After the annulment of the June 12 presidential election, the incarceration of MKO Abiola and the brutal hammering of the political class by General Sani Abacha, this group of patriots came to the conclusion that the military juggernaut was the greatest threat to the civilian class irrespective of whether they were from the north or the south. If they didn’t hang together, they were going to hang separately.

    That night, Chief Adebanjo sauntered into the expansive lobby of the hotel with his friend and constant companion, Chief Olaniwun Ajayi. A cherubic smile of faint disapproval hovered around Adebanjo’s face as he sized one up while Ajayi remained his calm, urbane and diplomatic self. As one ushered them to the hall, Adebanjo cleared his throat. “So tiri awon ara ile ee?” he grunted to his friend. “Have you seen your friends? They say they want friendship and reconciliation and yet they have brought a Fulani boy to come and man the gates here in Lagos. What type of rubbish is this?”  Ajayi merely chuckled diplomatically. Later on as the proceedings got underway, Chief Adebanjo began tirelessly complaining about a briefcase under the table that was getting in his way. Somebody then told him about the owner of the briefcase and that he was the person who had ushered them in. Upon realizing their error, the two old men burst into prolonged laughter that resonated around the hall.

      Let us leave our readers with an incident which showcases Chief Adebanjo’s remarkable sense of irony and his biting humour. After delivering the eighty fifth anniversary lecture of the Yoruba Tennis Club in September, 2001, yours sincerely was hosted to dinner by Yoruba grandees and leaders of business in the vast lobby of the hall. As Chief Adebanjo who had earlier survived a major health scare was about to tuck into a glass of wine, he was cautioned in a low tone by his friend that somebody was around and was indeed approaching. “Ara ile e ti mbo”. It was obviously his doctor. “I am not doing what you asked me not to do oo” Chief Adebanjo mumbled like a child caught in familiar pranks. “Ti e loju”, the doctor observed with a frown and then disappeared. Almost two decades later, yours sincerely inquired about the doctor from his patient. “Ha, you see, he has since gone to join his maker”, the old Action Grouper responded with mischievous solemnity. Papa was one hell of a fellow. May his great soul rest in peace.

  • SNAPSONG 245

    SNAPSONG 245

    • State-of-the-Nation Snaps  {Part 1)

    Do you know what it means

         To sleep every night

    With HUNGER in your stomach

         And wake up the day after

    Dizzy and utterly drained

    Do you know what it means

         To faint, then fall

    In crowded paniative* queues

         Staggering back home three days later

    With empty bowls in your trembling hands

    Do you know what it means

    Read Also: Tinubu pledges support for fintech sector

         To sicken, then die

    From the mildest ailment

         As the caring doctor weeps over your woes

    And the needed drugs dance beyond your reach

    Do you know what it means

         To acquire your ignorance

    In bookless schools and roofless classrooms

         Where Mediocrity reigns as absolute monarch

    And Platitude counts its coins in a gilded palace

    Do you know what it means

         When the university no longer has its universe

    And Gown strikes a perfect rhyme with clown

         When the compost bed of ideas

    Has become the graveyard of dreams

    Do you know what it means

         To exist and not to live

    To bear each day like a heavy yoke

         To count on a plethora of prayers

    And phantom miracles behind the clouds

    * A Yoruba-derived pun on the word ‘palliative’. The two Yoruba syllables, ‘pani’, at the beginning of the word means, literally, ‘kill person’.

  • IBB’s ‘Journey in Service’

    IBB’s ‘Journey in Service’

    Last Thursday’s public presentation of former military leader Ibrahim Babangida’s over 400 pages autobiographical book, ‘A Journey in Service’ unprecedentedly brought together all living Nigerian heads of state and presidents, except Muhammadu Buhari. Given how controversial the author’s reign was, it was thought he would never write his biography, despite promising to damn the consequences and publishing it. In the end, Nigerians waited for about 32 years to get the chance to read him, his thoughts, leadership, controversies, and justifications. No book has been so awaited, and no gathering in the past one or two decades has been so striking. There were many suppositions about him and his time in power; now, nearly all those suppositions have been dispelled. What is left, as the pages of the book unfurl before its readers, may not exactly meet the high expectations of a long wait.

    Other than the reviewer, former vice president Yemi Osinbajo, a professor of law, no one was sure on Thursday that any other person had read the book. In the next few weeks, thousands of people will have direct access to the book, and probably read it, for the author as well as the publishers, Bookcraft, have not gone to any length to restrict access to the book. It is widely available online. The purpose of writing the book was, therefore, obviously not to make money from its sales; it was to get as many people as possible to read it. It will be read in millions of homes, if not for its stylistic elegance, then perhaps for its revelations; or if not for what it reveals or fails to reveal, then perhaps to accentuate the displeasure millions of sceptics who wrote the former military leader off more than 30 years ago have felt for a long time.

    Former president Olusegun Obasanjo warned Gen. Babangida to expect harsh criticisms and blowback over the book. There would be tonnes of blunt, scathing and unflattering dismissals, he said languidly, in contrast to the jaunty steps with which he mounted the platform to give his goodwill remarks. All past and present leaders who said a few things about the author (whether he ghosted the work or not) had been mostly laudatory, whether anecdotes, wisecracks, or allusions. It is in the nature of tributes, either at birthdays or book launches, to be giddy and lyrical about the subject, sometimes saying things the speaker himself would find shocking to his practiced modesty. Prof Osinbajo tried valiantly to balance his review by appointing his allusions to do the work of giving the ‘on the other hand’. But his witticisms seemed more expiatory of the former military leader’s misrule than serve as a harmless and even rhetorical counterpoise. On his own, Chief Obasanjo, who has studiously refrained from speaking about MKO Abiola and June 12, took refuge in his warnings to the author to expect the worst. In the process, he masked and coded his displeasure behind his reservations, and generally sounded unenthusiastic about either his presence in the hall or what the book managed to reveal or hint.

    So many commentators have excoriated Gen. Babangida based on newspaper and social media snippets as well as the author’s brief remarks. They dismiss him, all over again as they did in the past, as overrated, both as a military general who displayed lack of courage in the face of his subordinate’s mutinous manoeuvres, and as a head of state who saturated the country with futile social and political experiments without deeply, positively and fundamentally effecting the fortunes of the country. He touched a number of individuals, mostly businessmen and jobholders, and they have remained eternally grateful; but he did little else. Indeed, of all those who have commented so far on the book outside the launch venue, there does not seem to be any who thought him a hero or a role model. They wish he had not written the book. Great reviews of the book will perhaps come in the weeks ahead, as soon as readers overcome the shock of what took place at the Transcorp Hilton venue. But the reviews are unlikely to be salutary or sympathetic to a man, general and leader who is at once stoical and Machiavellian.

    Read Also: Tinubu pledges support for fintech sector

    Gen. Babangida is also unlikely to care about the hostile and trenchant reviews, for he is too smart and sensitive not to know that he is robustly reviled in many parts of the country, especially in the South and Middle Belt. If he couldn’t be bothered by the unlawful dissemination of the book online, why would he wince at scurrilous attacks against his person or his leadership? For the nine years or so he was in office, and despite his best efforts to curry approval and heroic worship, he received bucketfuls of abuse and hostility. Yet, he bore everything with perfect equanimity. He is now in his twilight years, and he senses without saying it that the verdict of posterity is already sealed, and has in fact been sealed since 1993, regardless of whatever private exculpations he got from his supporters. At this point, therefore, the smooth-spoken and pretentiously genial general has lost all sense of caring. Given the platitudes reportedly redolent in his book, instead of honest admission of truths and uncomfortable facts and revelations, not to say the many reiterations of his presumptions and justifications, he obviously does not hope the book would deodorise his image. He meant the book for other purposes.

    That purpose was contained in the unveiling of his presidential library prototype, a concomitant of the book launch. The complex will cost billions of naira, N17bn or so of which was publicly raised last Thursday. It spoke to his popularity among a class of wealthy people, and the enduring fascination foes and friends alike still have for him, that when he called for donations, they overwhelmed him with cash. As they lathered him with donations and pledges, they also spoke fondly and wistfully of his time in office. He may not be able to explain his talismanic hold on this class of supporters, but he has an instinctive grasp of what he continues to mean to millions of Nigerians, particularly from the North. However, Southerners are so pissed off with him that they loath his book launch and describe as it as gratuitous insult to the sensibilities of ‘Nigerians’. Some of them are in fact so angry with him over how tragically his 1993 betrayal set the country back by many decades, that they do not trust him to tell the truth about his time in office or imagine he could ever be so altruistic as to care what fate befell the country.

    Yes, many people will take the trouble of reading his book in the weeks and months ahead, not because they care about him or think he has the capacity to analyse the country’s existential issues beyond his jaded philosophies and simplistic exonerations, but because they want to satisfy their curiosities, to find out whether he is not much worse than they had imagined. They will want to read for themselves whether they can find any context in the book to explain the widely presumed dichotomy between his regrets or acceptance of responsibility, which he offered fulsomely, and apologies for the poll annulment and execution of Gen. Mamman Vatsa, which he didn’t give explicitly. Many authors wracked by conscience often hide behind lexical facades; readers will want to peruse the book for themselves to see whether they could detect any stirring in his enfeebled gait, let alone his conscience.

  • Obasa opts for litigation

    Obasa opts for litigation

    Some 10 days ago, former Lagos State House of Assembly speaker Mudashiru Obasa went to court to challenge his removal last month while on vacation. He rested his application on nine grounds. His resort to the courts followed his realisation that civil action, which hundreds of his supporters embarked upon in the weeks following his removal, cut no ice. It is, however, within his rights to litigate his removal, especially as political interventions seemed slow and stalemated.

    Read Also: Tinubu flags-off reconstruction of Lagos-Ibadan-Sagamu Expressway

    But if political intervention appears long-drawn-out, why does he think court action will give him the quick relief he desires so badly? He has had a long spell as speaker, but he has not matched it with experience and quick-wittedness. He seems persuaded that his colleagues are so fickle-minded that should he be restored in office, he could worm his way back into their confidences. Nothing is impossible. But given the manner they repudiated him weeks ago, their true selves appeared to have been on display. They will continue to loath his leadership. If at his age and more than 10 years of his leadership he could not hone his leadership acumen, where does he think his new self would come from?

    Strangely, both the state All Progressives Congress and the Governance Advisory Council (GAC) seem numbed. They should regain their composure and take remedies that won’t cost them dearly in the future, or become pyrrhic. They should take the wind. Whatever solutions they embrace that end up alienating the nearly three dozen lawmakers who kicked out Hon. Obasa will do more harm than good to the party’s fabric. Surely, they must know that the courts won’t give the party and Hon Obasa the respite they seek.

  • Osun conjures electoral crisis, stalemate

    Osun conjures electoral crisis, stalemate

    There is nothing in the Osun State local government election crisis to merit the term ‘crisis’. Absolutely nothing. Shortly before former governor Gboyega Oyetola left office in 2022, he conducted the local government election of October 15, 2022. The All Progressives Congress (APC) won handily. The conduct of the poll was, however, challenged by both the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP), to which incumbent governor Ademola Adeleke belongs, and the Action Peoples Party (APP). On November 25 and November 30, both the PDP and APP got judgements against the APC, ordering the sacking of the elected LG chairmen. The APC appealed the November 25 judgement, but reports suggest they did not appeal the November 30 judgement. The controversy centres on whether the Court of Appeal judgement against the sacking of the elected LG officials based on the PDP suit does not in fact vitiate the judgement on the same matter in respect of the APP case.

    As far as the APC is concerned, the Court of Appeal judgement trumps anything in whatever way it was argued or brought up in the lower courts. It is obviously a case that turns juridical logic on its head. But clever by half, the PDP ignores its own defeat at the appellate court and instead latches on to the allegedly uncontested APP case to sustain the dissolution of the elected chairmen and councillors produced by the 2022 LG poll as well as pursue the conduct of another LG election yesterday. Governor Adeleke and the PDP have, however, not convincingly argued how the previous LG election could be annulled by a lower court judgement when the appellate court judgement continues to sustain that same (not a different) election. It appears to be a conundrum; but in fact it is not. The case is much simpler and unequivocal than the governor and the Osun State electoral commission have made it.

    In Nigeria, contrived legal conundrums remain a threat to democracy, especially when mischievously and persistently exploited by the political elite. There is no reason for Osun to be embroiled in any electoral crisis, let alone be exposed to the spectre of violence such as was triggered last week when the APC LG chairmen, acting on the judgement of the Court of Appeal, enforced their own return to office. They did so because their tenure would run out in October. Worse, completely ignoring the Court of Appeal judgement and instead electing to uphold a lower court judgement using legal subterfuge, Osun announced its determination to hold a new election thereby presenting the current LG chairmen with a fait accompli. They knew that even if the LG chairmen hypothetically get a future judgement against OSIEC and the state government, the trial judges would deem the outcome an ‘academic exercise’. To forestall double jeopardy, the recognised LG chairmen simply took matters into their own hands. If they didn’t, no one would help them.

    Read Also: Tinubu pledges support for fintech sector

    The unfortunate Osun stalemate is a worrisome indication of how readily Nigerian political leaders engage in brinkmanship. They provoked the collapse of the First and Second Republics, and nearly triggered the collapse of the Fourth Republic after the last presidential poll when they called for military takeover. But they are not alone in their excesses. They have in addition managed to secure the buy-in of some judges and lawyers, and have been encouraged by some political parties and sore losers to flout common sense. There is in short little altruism anywhere. But this is where the federal government comes in, particularly the nation’s chief law officer, the Attorney General of the Federation. They must see reining in political extremists masquerading as governors and political leaders as an obligation that must not be shirked for whatever treason.

    It took some time before the Justice minister Lateef Fagbemi rose up to the occasion in the Osun case. But when he did, he offered sound legal and interpretative opinions. He recognised that Osun State was unwilling and perhaps uninterested in getting a superior court to explicate the import of the Court of Appeal judgement. The state’s officials probably feared that if they went for interpretation and the case did not favour them, it would spell disaster. So they latched on to the APP case, not their own suit, interpreted it the way they liked, and proceeded to dig their heels in, threatening fire and brimstone, and issuing dire warnings to anyone, federal or state, present or former state officials, bent on destabilising the state. Mr Fagbemi shunned their threats and insisted that Osun was irrevocably wrong. In any case, he wondered aloud, another LG election was due in October, still under the governorship of the incumbent – so, why the unholy rush? Only Mr Adeleke can solve that puzzle.

    Mr Fagbemi had been wary of rising to the challenge in some other states where the rule of law had been baited and defied, especially in the convoluted case of Rivers State where suits after suits have exposed the soft underbelly of Nigerian politics and judiciary. The Justice minister can no longer shrug his shoulders. It is reassuring that in the case of Osun, he has not equivocated. But he must go beyond offering firm and unimpeachable opinions; he must now take the fight to the ‘enemy’. He needs to light a fire and put it under the feet of the sometimes wary National Judicial Council (NJC) and the Chief Justice of Nigeria (CJN). Too many judges, either due to incompetence or collusion, or even because they are beholden to political officials, have betrayed their oaths and perverted the cause of justice, and had given egregiously fallible judgements. They need to be shipped out. They have persisted in messing up scores of cases in Rivers; now they are ridiculing themselves in Osun.

    It is also time Mr Fagbemi took the fight to governors who in the name of the constitution are enacting farcical dictatorships in their states, thereby undermining the same constitution. He needs to give the federal government, and particularly the president, legal advice as to how to tackle errant governors determined to sabotage democracy. Voters in many states have not always shown gumption in picking their leaders, often voting for politicians for totally wrong reasons. Their indifference has populated State Houses with self-absorbed leaders. It is, therefore, necessary for the nation’s chief law officer to maintain vigilance in the face of excitable political and judicial officers unfazed by the spirit and the letter of the law.