The Nation Newspaper

Category: Sunday

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

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (VII)

    I learnt from my exposure to history in the primary school that the abolitionists led by the Right Honourable William Wilberforce, after many years, managed to convince the British parliament to abolish the trans-Atlantic slave trade. It must be said that the bill to abolish slavery was presented to the British parliament no less than eleven times showing the determination of the abolitionists to get the bill over the line and how difficult their job was. As a result of the passage of this bill, not only was the slave trade to be brought to an end in 1807 but that a squadron of ships of the Royal Navy was to be set to patrol along the West African coast to enforce the ban and make sure that the ships of other slaving countries did not continue to carry on making money from the buying and selling of captive Africans. To prove that the ban was effective, we were told the story of Samuel Ajayi Crowther, the slave boy who was rescued by a ship of this squadron and taken to Freetown in Sierra Leone. To complete his story as history, we were also told that he translated the Bible from English into Yoruba and was also consecrated the first African Bishop by the Anglican Church and was received by Queen Victoria in her palace. That is history. It was however vividly brought to life for me when I went to school with two of his great grandchildren. Besides, my school and even class was full of Smiths, Georges, Coles and Williamses whose recent ancestors could have told them their own stories of rescue by ships of that squadron. What our teachers did not tell us was that in spite of that scouring squadron, no less than a million slaves were still taken across the Atlantic to Brazil and Cuba right up until the closing years of the nineteenth century. This period coincided with the years of the Yoruba civil wars and my people, the Ijesas, suffered disproportionately more than others in the period following 1860 when until the end of hostilities at Kiriji they were continuously at war with those ruffians from Ibadan. This is a story for another day but suffice to say that this explains why many of those who returned from slavery in Brazil were ethnic Ijesas. Many thousands of them are still in exile in Brazil and Cuba. They remain out there in the diaspora and will never return home.

    The story of the stoppage of British participation in the slave trade as well as the deployment of the squadron to stop the ships of other European nations from continuing their predatory practice of stealing Africans across the Atlantic was supposed to show the altruistic instincts of the British. Incidentally, the British were our colonial masters at the time this propaganda was being given voice to. We, as a people, were therefore supposed to be grateful to our supposed benefactors who had saved our ancestors from a fate worse than death on the cotton fields of Alabama or the sugar cane plantations of Cuba. As children, some of us would have been beguiled by those fairy tales and made into lovers of Great Britain for life. It is clear to me however that if I had been fooled by those fairy tales I would not be sitting up this early morning when I could be enjoying an early morning snooze to write these lines.

    The truth is that the story we were told as history retained an overpowering smell of good old fashioned bullshit and it did not quite go down my throat as I grew out of childhood. I have since found out that if it smells like bullshit it likely to be bullshit. In fact, it is bullshit.

    Whilst if is true that the abolitionists, together with a fair number of freed slaves fought to bring about the abolition of slavery, slavery was abolished because it was no longer needed to power the British economy as it had done for two  centuries. In other words, slavery had, to use a modern term, come to its sell by date. It had expired and had to go and that for several reasons. But before looking at any of those reasons, it is instructive to look at British involvement in the slave trade.

    The first Briton to participate actively in the slave trade was Sir John Hawkins. In 1662, he sailed down the West African coast starting from Senegal, kidnapping Africans all along the  coast. Using this method, he was able to capture three hundred people. These he took across the Atlantic and sold to the Spanish. His profit was so large that two years later, he was back for a repeat performance and in doing so launched the British involvement in the slave trade. By the time the slave trade was abolished in 1807, 3.1 million Africans had been taken from Africa in  British slave ships. Only the Portuguese had taken more. Throughout that period, the British economy was geared towards the institution of trans-Atlantic slavery. Ship building was skewed towards the building of slave ships and new port cities, notably Liverpool, Bristol and the London docks became famous as centres of the slave trade. For all that however, the slave trade had to be brought to an end because it was standing in the way of the development of something even more profitable, if not any less abhorrent than the slave trade, to wit, the rise of capitalism.

    Making money is all about following a fashion trend but it is even better if you could set the trend. The slave trade was definitely in fashion for three centuries but nothing can be fashionable forever and the British were the first to recognise the need to pivot away from buying and selling human beings as a means of building wealth. They were the first to come to the realisation that investment into using machines as a means of production was infinitely more profitable than using human beings for the same purpose. And so, the slave trade had to be brought to an end. It is instructive that although the slave trade was abolished in 1807, slavery was continued throughout the massive British empire until 1834. After that, the slaves remained bound to their masters until 1840 before they were let go to somehow fend for themselves without any help from anybody. In the meantime, the slave owners were paid reparations for the loss of the services hitherto provided by their slaves.

     The early capitalists used this period to introduce workers to the new machines which were becoming available and set up an industrial machinery which replaced slavery as the predominant means of production.

    The other reason why slavery was more trouble than it was worth was that slaves were getting out of control and the cruelty needed to check them was increasing daily. As the cruelties increased, the incentives for slaves to resist in one way or the other also increased. As the number of slaves increased through the slave trade and natural increase through breeding, the danger of slave insurrections also went up and this was no flight of fancy. What happened in Haiti was a warning to slavers. There, slaves not only rose up against their masters but set up a republic which repulsed all attempts by the French to retake the new republic. It was clear that a great deal of naked force and undisguised terror would be needed to maintain a large number of human beings in the state of slavery.

    Another factor militating against slavery was the availability of machines some of which were quite capable of doing the work of a hundred men and do it even better. Furthermore, there were machines which could be manipulated by  children whose wages were far less than what was paid to grown men which meant that greater profits could accrue to the capitalists. Everything considered therefore, it only made common sense for slavery to be abolished. Even after the American civil war had been fought and won there were a host of dinosaurs in the southern states and indeed in other places who still insisted on the continuation of slavery. So ingrained had this practice become  that Abraham Lincoln, the acclaimed Emancipator had to admit that if he could save the union without freeing a single slave, he would have done so but if he had to free all the slaves in order to save the union, that was what he was going to do. In other words, he freed the slaves because he had to.

    Read Also: Alleged bribery: House remains committed to protecting democratic institutions

    By 1760, the recognised beginning of the Industrial revolution, all the stars were aligned to favour of this process. All the monies which had poured into several European countries especially Britain from the slave trade and related practices had made a cohort of people fabulously wealthy. This made it possible for them to invest in the new fangled machines which the engineers of the day were going and producing. Those machines were doing things which the ordinary man could not imagine in their wildest dreams and it was clear that they could make their owners rich beyond their wildest dreams. In today’s parlance, the industrialists controlled all the means of production.

    In pre-industrial times, artisans did all their work in their own homes or for those who were agricultural workers in the fields. What the industrialists did was to herd them into their factories where they were tied to pieces of machinery for up to sixteen hours, six days a week. The factories were poorly lit, the machines were noisy and gave off so much heat that the factories were hot as hell. Some of the moving parts on the machines were exposed and limbs were frequently caught in the machines sometimes with tragic consequences. The men and women who worked in those factories were so badly paid that they found work for their children as young as five years old to augment family income. The men were paid up to double what the women were paid, a practice that has endured right up to the present in Britain. As for the children, they were paid a pittance but whatever they were paid it was better than nothing and so, they were made to join the work force almost as soon as they could walk.

    Steam was used to power the machines in those early factories and this meant that coal had to be mined to be burnt in furnaces. Conditions inside the mines were even worse than what obtained in the factories. The mines were damp and ran with water in which the miners worked for twelve hours, six days a week for such low pay that it was a wonder that they did not starve. In mining areas, father, mother and five year old children were taken down to the coal face to dig for coal and bring it up to the surface. The people in those areas had no choice. They had to dig for coal or starve to death. The workers had nothing to add to production but their labour and whatever they produced was expropriated lock, stock and barrel by the capitalists for their own private use.

    An objective look at the conditions under which those early industrial labourers worked suggests quite strongly that they were hardly better off than the slaves toiling on the sugar cane fields of Jamaica or the cotton plantations in the deep south of the USA. True, the factory workers, unlike the slaves were free men and women, they were only nominally so. In truth they were slaves to the industrialists. A situation in which a woman is delivered of a baby on the coal face on one day and has to return to work the next day can only be described as a form of slavery. There can be no single altruistic bone in men who operate such a system. If they were as inhuman to their own people as they were, there is no earthly reason why they could have been moved by any human feelings towards black people to want to free them from slavery for any altruistic reason.

  • Controversy: Non – indigenes should be barred from contesting Senate, House of Representatives elections

    Controversy: Non – indigenes should be barred from contesting Senate, House of Representatives elections

    If for the sake of equity amongst Nigerian states and peoples, representation in the senate is set at 3 members per state, and  constituency, which is determined

    on  the basis of the population strength of each state, is the basis for allocating the number of Reps a state can have,  why are non- indigenes allowed to  contest for these positions outside their state of origin?

    I consider this grossly unfair in a country like ours where, in  some states in the Southeast geo- political zone would not tolerate a cleric, (even of the same Igbo ethnic stock) as their clergy if so appointed by the Pope if he comes from outside their own state. This we have seen severally.

    It could, in fact, be far worse, as happened when the entire indigenous peoples of Aba Ngwa not only rose, like one man, in rejecting a non- indgene as the Aba Mayor, but flagrantly dared their state governor, Alex Otti, to dare appoint one. Please see  Vanguard of Oct 19, 2023 for confirmation.

    These are the same people who come loaded with money to try everything  to contest elections, from councillorship to governorship, in the Southwest.

    I could barely hold myself when this past week, on a Seun Okinbaloye television programme, a  respected Muiz Banire, Senior Advocate of Nigeria,  glibly described this practice as signifying political freedom.

    What political freedom? Why should this freedom be applicable to the geese but not apply equally to the gander or where in the East can a Yoruba man, seriously, contest a senate seat?

    Whoever likes may call me an ethnic bigot but where, in all honesty,  has this been allowed to happen in the East?

    During the 2023 elections Peter Obi, not only ensured that Igbos predominated amongst party executives in both the North and the West, many of the party’s candidates for election, Pan – Nigeria, were equally Igbo.

    You can only imagine where, a politician, say from Aboh Mbaise LGA (Imo state), but representing Amuwo -Odofin(Lagos state) in the House of Representatives, will consider first for a  project between Imo and Lagos state.

    If this is truly freedom, then it should apply equally everywhere in the country.

    I, therefore, say enough of this absolute nonsense. The National Assembly must move, with all speed, to abrogate the misnomer.

    It could, in future, be reversed when all Nigerians consider themselves brothers and sisters enough to jettison primordial considerations in all things.

    As things stand today in Nigeria, we are neither Americans nor British in whose countries the phenomenon counts for nothing.

     The fundamental underlying this discussion is the truism that in Nigeria, unlike in the U.S, the UK or the West in general, primary loyalty goes to one’s place of birth, as well as to one’s people, while scant attention is paid, if at all, to people from far fetched areas since place of domicile is accorded any regard, majorly on his/her business. 

    So perfunctory, and ephemeral, is this little concern or attention, as we saw in Ibadan last year, where a sojourner thought nothing of allegedly storing dangerous, and flamable, mining chemicals within his community until it completely incinerated the entire area, causing serious damage to lives and property.

    It is very doubtful if anybody who owes his roots to where he lives would ever conjecture such a dangerous act.

    Read Also: Don’t allow selfish politicians incite us against Tinubu, Hunkuyi tells northerners

    It is the same reason many people, with no relationship to their immediate community, are known to go into very seedy areas of towns and cities to set up factories, manufacturing unsafe water in sathets for human consumption, or adultratrating all manner of alcoholic drinks, believing that the hardworking but overstretched NAFDAC may never be able to catch up with them.

    All these they won’t do in their villages.

    It is important to emphasise these differences so that nobody would come round trying to obfuscate things with the fact that anybody living in any state in the Unitetd States of America can contest elections after satisfying some residence conditionalities.

    If there is any place where the saying: ‘politics is local’, is truest, and should be sacrosanct, it is  Nigeria because,

    what is ours we always hold dearly but believe that we can throw trash to others.

    Therefore, whoever thinks he would not pay taxes in his state of domicile because he could not contest election into seats where his own state of origin has an equal number of seats allocated to it, must know that he cannot, legitimately, do any business in that state.

    That settled, it needs be said that the principle of equal representation in the senate is a cornerstone of federalism, ensuring that each state has an equal voice in the upper chamber. If this is so why allow individuals to contest senate and state elections outside of their own state?

    This will be  a contradiction in terms as it  will undermine the very principle of equal representation.

    To properly understand this issue, it is essential to delve into the history of the US Constitution, which established the framework for the senate and house of representatives.

    The Constitutional Convention of 1787 was a pivotal moment in American history, where delegates debated, and negotiated, the structure of the federal government. The concept of equal representation in the senate was a hard-won compromise, with smaller states insisting on equal representation to prevent larger states from dominating the chamber.

    The framers of the Constitution  established that each state would have two senators, regardless of population. This ensured that smaller states would have an equal voice in the senate, preventing larger states from imposing their will on the chamber.   

    Senators, like Reps are expected to represent the interest of their state, which requires a deep understanding of local issues and concerns.

    By allowing individuals to contest elections outside of their own state, the system risks undermining this principle of local representation. It is essential to strike a balance between allowing individuals, with expertise, to represent a state and ensuring that they have a genuine connection to the community they’re representing.

    Another argument against allowing individuals to contest elections outside of their own state is that it can lead to a lack of accountability. If an individual is elected to represent a state they don’t, in reality, belong to, they may not be accountable to the local community. Why would you wish to represent a people who language and culture you do not have a deep understanding of?This will certainly  lead to a disconnect between the elected representative and his constituents, thus undermining the principles of democracy and representation.

    In conclusion, the controversy surrounding the ability of individuals to contest senate and state elections outside of their own state is a straight forward one that should be resolved against the non – indegene. While the principle of equal representation in the senate is essential to federalism, it is equally important to ensure that elected representatives have a genuine connection to the community they seek to represent.

    Finally, it needs be stressed that the mathematics of representation must be strictly adhered to.

    It is of extreme importance that no non – indegene be allowed to compromise the equality of numbers as structured for senate and as allowed as a function of population in the number of Reps alloted to each state. To put it starkly, a Yoruba man or woman, contesting and winning an election in a non – Yoruba state, unfairly reduces the number of indigenes representing their people, whether in the Red or Green chamber.

    It is a lacuna that must be promptly removed for equity.

  • Nigeria’s economic comeback: Tinubu’s reforms turn the tide

    Nigeria’s economic comeback: Tinubu’s reforms turn the tide

    The past week might not have had so much mention of President Bola Ahmed Tinubu’s activities, it sure much reverberations from the President’s past activities. You must have heard the coinage in recent time; “the economy is turning the corner”, and so much of “the worst is over” in the journey of economic recovery, promising us all to start positioning ourselves harvests from various points of the economy.

    The week exposed the public to a new economic status, which had been announced the week before. The National Orientation Agency (NOA) on Tuesday told Nigerians that the World Bank had revealed that their country has re-occupied the top spot on the table showcasing the size of economies of African countries. The agency posted this on its X handle, amplifying what the World Bank’s Country Director for Nigeria, Dr. Ndiame Diop, said the previous Thursday at an event.  

    Diop, speaking at the Country Private Sector Diagnostic (CPSD) and Stakeholder Engagement in Abuja on Thursday, February 6, had disclosed that less than a year after slipping to fourth place in Africa’s economic rankings, Nigeria has reclaimed its position as the continent’s largest economy by Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and population. This resurgence is a testament to the impact of President Tinubu’s economic reforms and policy interventions.

    Nigeria’s fall from the top spot was a wake-up call. The combination of a fluctuating exchange rate, declining investor confidence, and global economic pressures had created a perfect storm, threatening to undermine the nation’s economic strength. However, rather than accept this downward trend, the Tinubu administration moved swiftly, implementing policies aimed at stabilizing the economy and restoring Nigeria’s rightful place as Africa’s economic powerhouse.

    The first major step in this turnaround was the administration’s decision to unify the foreign exchange market. For years, Nigeria operated multiple exchange rates, creating distortions and making it difficult for investors to navigate the system. By allowing the naira to find its true market value, Tinubu’s administration restored confidence in Nigeria’s monetary policy and increased access to foreign exchange, a key factor in attracting investment.

    This move, though initially painful due to short-term currency volatility, has paid off. The private sector is now seeing improved access to dollars, making it easier to do business. The World Bank has acknowledged that this shift has created a more favorable investment climate, encouraging both local and foreign investors to reconsider Nigeria as a destination for capital.

    Another pillar of Tinubu’s economic strategy has been a focus on removing obstacles to private sector growth. According to Dr. Diop, Nigeria’s economic potential is being held back by unnecessary regulatory bottlenecks. In response, the administration has taken decisive steps to simplify bureaucratic processes, particularly in sectors with high investment potential.

    The Information Communication Technology (ICT) sector, for example, has long been constrained by inconsistent right-of-way fees and unpredictable levies, which add significantly to broadband rollout costs. Tinubu’s government, in collaboration with the National Economic Council, has moved to address these inefficiencies. The result? A projected $4 billion in ICT investments and over 200,000 new jobs.

    Similar reforms are underway in the agribusiness sector, which, if fully leveraged, could unlock $6 billion in investments and create 275,000 jobs. By prioritizing policies that promote food security and agricultural exports, Tinubu is ensuring that Nigeria remains competitive in a sector that has long been a backbone of the economy.

    No economy can thrive without reliable power, and Tinubu has made it clear that energy reform is a priority. Nigeria’s overreliance on fossil fuels has made the country vulnerable to global oil price fluctuations, while the national grid remains unreliable. Recognizing this, the administration has embraced renewable energy, particularly solar power, as a viable alternative.

    Read Also: Alleged bribery: House remains committed to protecting democratic institutions

    The solar photovoltaic (PV) industry alone has the potential to attract $8.5 billion in investment and create more than 129,000 jobs. Tinubu’s government has supported blended finance mechanisms to make off-grid solutions more affordable, bridging the gap between cost and viability. The ongoing Distributed Energy Solutions (DES) project aims to connect 17.5 million households and businesses to solar power, further demonstrating the administration’s commitment to sustainable energy solutions.

    At the same time, the government is working on broader electricity sector reforms to ensure a stable power supply for industrial growth. Without this, the full potential of Nigeria’s economy cannot be realized.

    Despite these efforts, Nigeria still lags behind countries like Indonesia and South Africa in attracting Foreign Direct Investment (FDI). The Tinubu administration understands that investor confidence is built on consistency and predictability in policy implementation. To this end, the government has strengthened institutions responsible for economic governance, improved transparency in public finance management, and fostered an environment where businesses can thrive without unnecessary government interference.

    Tinubu has also embarked on an aggressive diplomatic and economic outreach strategy, personally engaging with global investors and financial institutions to sell Nigeria’s renewed economic agenda. His international engagements have already begun to yield results, with several multinationals expressing interest in expanding their footprint in Nigeria.

    While Nigeria’s return to the top of Africa’s economic rankings is worth celebrating, it is not the final destination. Tinubu’s administration must remain committed to sustaining these reforms and addressing remaining challenges, such as insecurity, inflation, and unemployment.

    The work is far from over, but if the past few months are any indication, Nigeria is on the right track. Tinubu’s hands-on leadership, coupled with a clear vision for economic transformation, is steadily turning the tide.

    Nigeria is not just Africa’s largest economy again—it is a country on the rise. The world is watching, and if these reforms continue, the nation may yet exceed its past economic achievements, setting a new standard for growth and development on the continent.

    As His Vision for a Digitally Empowered Nigeria Continues to Take Shape

    Remember that the President has been out of the country for a private visit to Paris, from where he left late Thursday to attend the 38th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union (AU) Heads State and Government. However, before leaving Paris, precisely on Wednesday, he held a meeting with the Google Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Sundar Pichai, during with a range of new technology issues were discussed. 

    This meeting marks a defining moment in Nigeria’s push toward digital transformation. This is not just another high-profile diplomatic engagement; it is a bold statement of intent—Nigeria is ready to compete on the global tech stage.

    Tinubu’s excitement was evident as he shared insights from the discussions, emphasizing how this partnership aligns seamlessly with his administration’s Renewed Hope Agenda. At the heart of this agenda is economic diversification through industrialization, digitization, and innovation—three pillars that have the potential to reshape Nigeria’s economic landscape.

    The proposed collaboration with Google spans five key areas: enhancing cloud infrastructure, equipping Nigerians with future-ready digital skills, fostering AI innovation and research, driving cloud adoption, and solidifying Nigeria’s reputation as an emerging tech powerhouse. This is a blueprint for sustainable economic growth, one that places Nigeria at the center of Africa’s AI revolution.

    One particularly promising aspect of this initiative is Nigeria’s focus on homegrown AI solutions. The mention of Awarri Technologies, a rising force in Nigeria’s AI ecosystem, underscores the President’s commitment to fostering local talent. The plan to develop AI-driven software infrastructure tailored to Nigeria’s rich cultural and linguistic diversity is a groundbreaking step. With a large language model (LLM) in the works for Nigerian languages, the country is making a strategic move to preserve its linguistic heritage while ensuring that AI solutions cater to the needs of its people.

    Beyond technology, this partnership holds immense economic promise. AI and digital innovation are not just buzzwords; they are powerful tools for job creation, entrepreneurship, and industrial growth. By positioning Nigeria as an AI-driven economy, the Tinubu administration is creating opportunities for young innovators, tech startups, and businesses looking to scale in an increasingly digital world.

    The role of key institutions such as the Federal Ministry of Communications, Innovation, and Digital Economy, as well as the National Information Technology Development Agency (NITDA), will be critical in ensuring that this vision materializes. Strategic oversight and effective implementation will determine whether this collaboration goes beyond policy statements to deliver tangible impact.

    President Tinubu’s parting words were full of confidence: “Nigeria is poised to take the lead in AI and technology—this is merely the start of an exciting journey!” Indeed, with a clear vision, strong partnerships, and an unwavering commitment to innovation, Nigeria is well on its way to becoming a major player in the global digital economy.

    Tinubu had other engagements and interactions during the week. There were also some of his messages taken to different segments of the Nigerian society by his able lieutenants, especially Vice President Kashim Shettima. One of such was the announcement of the takeover of Nok University, Kachia, Kaduna State, by the federal government and its immediate transformation to the Federal University of Applied Science, Kachia. This was delivered as presidential message by Shettima on Tuesday.

    The latter part of his week was devoted to continental and sub-regional issues as he was attending the AU Summit in Addis Ababa.

    As he returns to his desk tomorrow, the hard worker in him will push him to stretch himself further for the country. Having seen that his efforts are bearing the intended fruits, he will beat the hot iron of reform a bit more in order for the forging to be as perfect as possible.

  • Between Trump and Nigeria

    Between Trump and Nigeria

    In less than three weeks, United States President Donald Trump has shown the world how not to take leadership for granted. Often the easier part is electing a new president, especially in the wake of difficult and sometimes convoluted social, political and economic challenges. Ensuring that a country does not shoot itself in the foot or cut its nose to spite its face is most times the harder part. In last year’s November elections, the US managed to both shoot itself in the foot and cut its nose to spite its face. If it were possible to sever any other part of the body, they would have done it to achieve their electoral goals.

    Nigerians used to think they were more adept than most other countries at destroying their metaphorical anatomy to ventilate their political anger. Now, with wry wit, they must begin to appreciate that that folly is fairly universal, and that in fact, Nigeria’s case may not be as bad or hopeless as they had imagined. Yes, in 1966, they broke out in a paroxysm of excitement when they welcomed the military into government in the expectation that order would be restored and peace imposed after the convulsive elections of 1964/1965. There was no way they would know that they were setting themselves up for a civil war barely a year after the coup or for decades of debilitating military dictatorships.

    Most countries seldom learn from history. After the disputed elections of 1983 in the Second Republic, Nigerians widely advocated for a coup d’etat. They got their wish, their noses and feet severed by their foolishness and amnesia. If anyone had told them the coup would produce a succession of devious and incompetent military dictators, culminating in the blood-soaked and extremely larcenous administration of General Sani Abacha, they would have condemned the fantasy as surreal literature. And when they gleefully aborted the electoral victory of Moshood Kashimawo Abiola in 1993, and as some alleged, murdered him, there was certainly no way they would know that the manipulation would engineer the return of the excitable Olusegun Obasanjo, the lethargic Umaru Yar’Adua, the overwhelmed Goodluck Jonathan, and the dour and sulking Muhammadu Buhari who thrice sought electoral absolution for his tragic military administration.

    To reiterate their ownership of the US, white America reelected President Trump, this time with a dominant and unassailable Electoral College and popular vote margins catalysed by dazed Hispanics, myopic Muslims angry over Gaza, impressionable Blacks, evangelicals, countryside yokels, and all manner of voting groups yearning for political and economic anachronisms. But weeks into his presidency, he has all but wiped the grin off the faces of his supporters. They adored his tough rhetoric on tariffs against Mexico, Canada and China, but he has disgracefully walked the policy back, leaving only China. They do not seem to mind his gung-ho determination to take Greenland by force, but they must now contend with the unprecedented opposition of Denmark and France. His hysteria over Panama Canal gratified their prejudices, but he has declared under his breath that he would settle for Panama merely reducing the influence of China in the running of the canal. Much of the Muslim world which privately wondered whether his presidency would not in fact be more tolerable than that of his predecessor, Joe Biden, are now disillusioned hearing his heresy on depopulating and rebuilding Gaza under US control.

    Read Also: Trump signs order barring trans athletes from women’s sports

    In three crazy weeks, Mr Trump has shown that other than technological and military supremacy, the US and indeed nearly all developed countries are as ordinary as they can get. Germany, after all, produced the sociopathic Adolf Hitler in the last century, far more bloodthirsty than Uganda’s Idi Amin. And beside Mr Trump, some of the most vilified African leaders such as Muammer Ghaddafi, Mengistu Haile Mariam, Robert Mugabe, Sani Abacha, Mobutu Sese Seko, Jean Bedel Bokassa are far more predictable, and far less vain and inconsiderate. It must horrify many Americans that their president now suffers the indignity of being compared to Africa’s and Asia’s badly vilified leaders. China’s Mao Zedong and Soviet Union’s Josef Stalin might be sociopathic, but compared with the increasingly fatalistic and unremittingly inconsiderate Mr Trump, they seem blasé, predictable, even intelligent and visionary.

    Before he clocks two or three months in office, Mr Trump will have alienated most of his friends and allies, made a fool of himself, demystified the US, and if left unchecked, plunged the world economy into a crisis, if not another depression. There is simply no sense in him at all, and no method even to his madness. Nigeria’s Gen Abacha might be a thoroughbred thief and a callous leader, but he was sensible enough to let the economy be handled by experts. President Buhari might be insensitive and a closet Fulani irredentist, but he was smart enough to often keep his mouth shut to the point of being reclusive. Gen Badamasi Babangida might be devious and greedy, but he genuinely, if mistakenly, believed his experimentations would birth Utopia under his administration.

    It is a modern tragedy that in the 21st Century, and after more than 250 years of running a democracy anchored on one of the world’s most profound constitutions, the US has produced the mesmerisingly ungifted Mr Trump, a man so destitute of leadership ability that it is baffling a great political party like the Republican Party nominated him, and an even greater country saddled him with the onerous task of ‘leading’ the world. Nigerians, nay Africans, should take consolation in the fact that in no part of their chequered history had they managed to produce a leader so unworthy of the throne, so incapable of elementary reasoning, and so overwrought by emotions.

  • The demolished Anambra ‘hotel’ saga

    The demolished Anambra ‘hotel’ saga

    In late January, the new Anambra State security outfit, Agunechemba, reportedly acting on a tip off, raided Udoka Golden Point Hotel and Suites, more popularly known as La Cruise Hotel, located along the Onitsha-Owerri Road, in Idemili South local government area. The premises allegedly doubled as hospitality facility and kidnappers’ den. It also reportedly contained 30 graves, though, surprisingly, no one in government could say whether corpses were recovered. It was, therefore, not out of place when a resident of the area said the so-called graves were actually partitionings for fish ponds.

    But government sources disclosed that “graves were found on the ground floor of the hotel and some military camouflage and some arms cartridges of guns and so on were also found. Quite a number of incriminating items were also found there.” But another government source said the ‘graves’ were found on the last floor. Apart from the shocking lack of harmonisation of official statements, not to say the confusion over whether the ‘graves’ were found on the ‘last’ or ‘ground’ floor, it is dismaying that the government rushed into demolishing the building simply because the state’s Homeland Security law permits the demolition. Was the demolition ordered by the courts, and were the owners of the premises availed the opportunity of defending themselves?

    Read Also: Anambra 2025: It’s game over for Soludo, APGA -Ganduje, APC NWC

    The hotel sponsors may very well be guilty of what has been publicly alleged against them, but only the courts can say so, and only the courts can sanction demolition. Given the obscene haste with which the discovery and demolition were done, it is unlikely due process was followed. And if due process was followed, then the justice system in Anambra is damned. What is worse is that the government spokesman could not even confirm what were found in the building, an indication that investigation had not been concluded. Precious evidence may have been destroyed in the rush to sensationalise a supposedly serious crime. If the owners of the presumed hotel cannot be found, Nigerians may never know the full scale of the ‘crime’ allegedly committed in that demolished building, whether just kidnapping for ransom or ritual killings, or worse.       

  • Tinubu’s work ethics and marathon governance sessions

    Tinubu’s work ethics and marathon governance sessions

    Governance is no easy task, and President Bola Ahmed Tinubu made that abundantly clear in the just-concluded week, particularly on Monday and Tuesday, when he presided over two consecutive marathon sessions of the Federal Executive Council (FEC). It was a grueling, high-intensity start to the week—one that underscored his commitment to running a government that is both active and responsive.

    With 101 memoranda considered over the two days—34 on Monday and 67 on Tuesday—Tinubu’s leadership style was on full display. This was no mere ceremonial gathering. It was a deep dive into national governance, covering economic policies, infrastructure projects, fiscal decisions, and social welfare programs. Sitting through such an extensive deliberation requires not just physical endurance, but a keen mind and an unwavering focus on Nigeria’s developmental priorities.

    Even before the weighty discussions of the FEC meetings began, Monday opened with a crucial swearing-in ceremony. Thirty-one key appointees took their oaths of office in a move that once again accentuated Tinubu’s determination to strengthen the nation’s governance and administrative structure.

    The ceremony saw the induction of, eight new permanent secretaries, who will play vital roles in driving policy implementation within the federal civil service; twenty-one commissioners of the Revenue Mobilization, Allocation and Fiscal Commission (RMAFC), tasked with ensuring equitable revenue distribution across all tiers of government; a new member of the Federal Character Commission (FCC), an institution central to Nigeria’s principles of inclusivity and fairness in public sector appointments; one appointee for the National Population Commission (NPC), a key player in demographic planning and national data management.

    With these individuals formally assuming their responsibilities, Tinubu wasted no time in getting down to the business of governance.

    By the time the first session of the FEC meeting kicked off, the President was already deeply engaged. Over the course of two intense days, the council deliberated on 101 crucial policy matters, spanning sectors such as infrastructure, economy, security, social welfare, and governance reforms.

    The sheer volume of memoranda considered speaks to the pace at which Tinubu is driving his administration. At a time when Nigerians are eager for results, his approach is clear: every issue matters, every policy must be examined, and every decision must be taken with Nigeria’s future in mind.

    Read Also:Tinubu celebrates insurance icon, Babington-Ashaye at 60

    For a leader to preside over back-to-back FEC sessions with over 100 policy documents on the table is no small feat. It is a clear indication of Tinubu’s hands-on approach to governance. While some might delegate such extensive work to their ministers and advisers, Tinubu has chosen to be an active participant, directly engaging in policy discussions and decision-making.

    This is a leadership style rooted in diligence, discipline, and an understanding that Nigeria’s challenges require full executive attention. The message is unmistakable: Tinubu is not just presiding over government—he is working, tirelessly, to ensure that governance translates into real impact for the people.

    By the time the second day of FEC deliberations ended, it was clear that Tinubu had set a precedent for intensive governance. The pace at which policies are being reviewed and approved signals that his administration is not interested in bureaucratic delays. Decisions are being made, plans are being put into motion, and the wheels of governance are turning at full speed.

    As the administration moves forward, the expectation is that this momentum will continue. The President has demonstrated that he is willing to put in the long hours, make the tough calls, and keep his eyes firmly on the goal: delivering good governance to the Nigerian people.

    In an era where Nigerians demand results, Tinubu is showing that leadership is not about sitting at the top, but about rolling up one’s sleeves and putting in the work. The past week has made one thing clear—Nigeria has a President who is fully engaged, fully committed, and fully focused on the job at hand.

    … And Now A University for Ogoni

    By the way, Monday saw another thoughtful, human and rather thoughtful act from the President, in recognition of the Ogoni cause, coming just almost two weeks after he met leaders of the people. He once again demonstrated his commitment to fostering equity, education, and environmental justice with his signing of the bill establishing the Federal University of Environmental Technology in Tai, Rivers State. More than just another addition to Nigeria’s growing list of tertiary institutions, this university is a symbol of recognition—an acknowledgment of the struggles, sacrifices, and resilience of the Ogoni people.

    For decades, Ogoniland has been synonymous with environmental advocacy. From the days of the late Ken Saro-Wiwa to the continued calls for remediation and justice, the people of Ogoni have been unwavering in their pursuit of a better future. President Tinubu’s decision to bring a specialized institution of learning to their doorstep is, therefore, much more than an educational gesture; it is a strategic step toward righting historical wrongs and empowering a community that has given so much to Nigeria’s development.

    At the signing ceremony in his office at the State House, the President made it clear that this initiative goes beyond academia. “Today marks a significant milestone in our national journey towards environmental justice, education, and sustainable development”, he declared. These words resonate deeply in a region that has long borne the brunt of industrial activities but has often been left out of the benefits that should accompany them.

    This university is poised to become a centre of excellence where young Nigerians, especially those from the Niger Delta, will acquire the knowledge and skills needed to address contemporary environmental challenges. It will serve as a training ground for clean energy solutions, sustainability research, and economic innovation—all of which are critical to Nigeria’s long-term prosperity.

    For the people of Ogoni, the significance of this institution extends far beyond its academic mandate. It stands as a testament to their resilience, a validation of their decades-long call for environmental restoration and sustainable development. Tinubu himself acknowledged this when he commended their “steadfast advocacy for justice and building the confidence of our people in a peaceful manner”.

    This move is a reflection of President Tinubu’s broader vision for national development—one that prioritizes education, inclusivity, and regional empowerment. His administration understands that sustainable progress cannot be achieved if certain communities remain marginalized. By establishing this university in Ogoniland, Tinubu is sending a strong message: the contributions and concerns of all Nigerians matter.

    Moreover, the President’s collaborative approach in bringing this vision to life is worth noting. He expressed gratitude to the National Assembly for ensuring the bill’s passage, emphasizing that the realization of such transformative projects requires collective effort. This spirit of partnership is essential, as the university will need the support of traditional institutions, academia, the private sector, and young people to thrive.

    Now that the foundation has been laid, the real work begins. Establishing the Federal University of Environmental Technology in Tai is just the first step. The next challenge lies in ensuring that it lives up to its promise—attracting the best minds, developing world-class curricula, and becoming a true hub for environmental and technological innovation.

    As stakeholders rally around this institution, there is an opportunity for further investments in Ogoniland. The university could become a catalyst for broader infrastructural development, from improved road networks to increased private sector participation in research and sustainable industries.

    In a country where some regions have long felt neglected, President Tinubu’s move to establish this university in Ogoni is a clear indication that his administration values inclusivity. It is not just about education; it is about empowerment, restoration, and long-term development.

    The Ogoni people, through their sacrifices and ideals, have shaped conversations on environmental justice—not just in Nigeria, but globally. It is only fitting that their land now hosts an institution dedicated to the same cause.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Read Also: Obasanjo back on familiar terrain

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • Okanlomo Omoluabi John Olukayode Fayemi at 60

    Okanlomo Omoluabi John Olukayode Fayemi at 60

    Love or hate him, as some do with the very sinew of their entire being, but which will, in the end, do nothing to detract anything from the  sterling attributes Yorubas have for centuries, attached to those two idiosyncratic epithets, namely, Okanlomo and Omoluabi used to describe Dr Fayemi in the caption.

    More interesting is the fact that he  earned them, having lived every facet of his multi- faceted life, whether as an academic, a public servant, public intellectual, politician or even as citizen, right up to the bill, emerging in the process, a glowing pride of our Alma Mata – the 89 year old Christ School, Ado – Ekiti, aka THE SCHOOL.

    Writing about a luminary like Kayode Fayemi can be something of a jigsaw especially for one, like me, who wrote  several articles evaluating his performance as governor of Ekiti and more.

    Given the byzantine web then of trying to select a particular article on this occasion, I would rather, choose to quote from my forthcoming book, a portion of the chapter which is dedicated to Dr Fayemi.

    I believe that the bit space constraint will permit will still give the reader a good grasp of the essential Kayode Fayemi.

    The chapter is titled:The Fayemi Phenomenon and The End of a Political Sabbatical.

    It reads as follows:

    “The sheer carnage of the Ondo state political crises of 1983,  my near escape, but more importantly,  the fact that my entire family – my wife , three young children  and I, could  very well have been wiped out  in those horrendous events, but for God, were more than enough to send me into a political sabbatical of over 25 years. This position was further accentuated by  the military coup that would  last from ’84 till ’99, my wife’s abiding dislike for  politics and the fact that it coincided with a time my children were going through  secondary schools and universities, both here in Nigeria, and abroad. This last meant that I had to take up an employment – as my business had been very badly disrupted by the Ondo state political convulsion.

    I did that with the Caprisonne Group,  a German-Nigerian company for a fairly long period before I went back to  business.

    The period also saw me  writing a column for a newspaper in a manner quite different from my, on  and off, articles of old in both The Sketch and The Tribune on Sunday. The result is that today, as you read this, I have written consistently, without fail even for a single week, for a period of  nearly twenty years, first for the Comet newspaper – for which I wrote for two years – and its successor, The Nation, for the remaining years.

    My articles which centred mainly on current political events took a dramatic turn when the  then incumbent Nigerian President, Olusegun Obasanjo, a retired general  who had been a one-time military Head of state, had been  jailed for a phantom coup and was rail-loaded into office again by a Northern  military cabal as  civilian President, began to treat Nigeria like his fiefdom.

    He literally ‘abrogated the Nigerian electorate’ through the shambolic national elections conducted under his watch both in 2003 and 2007. Indeed, towards the end of his two-terms, in 2007, he began at first cladestinely, but later much more flagrantly, by compromising members of the National Assembly, a spirited effort at elongating his tenure, if possible, to a life presidency in what is popularly known as The Third Term Project.

    Most disgusting to me personally, however, was how Obasanjo elected to treat Ekiti state and its people. He had started off in the Fayose administration to trample over all we stood for in Ekiti and when it pleased him, in a move designed to rig the next election ahead of time, he had schemed the impeachment of Governor Ayo Fayose, a man he had visited severally, and had many times called his son.  He cleverly schemed the governor’s ouster via a messy impeachment which turned out inchoate according to the highest court of the land. That was how Fayose twice humiliated him. Nonetheless, in Fayose’s place, he coyly brought in his Ogun state kinsman, Brig-General Tunji Olurin, a gentleman, but whose primary assignment, it seemed in retrospect, was to ensure that the Peoples Democratic Party (PDP) ‘won’ the  2007 gubernatorial  election in the state, as all that Obasanjo ever truly  cared for, in reality, was to imagine himself competing with Awo’s legacy in Yoruba land.

    That was the primary reason for the brutal rigging of the 2007 elections everywhere in the Southwest, all of which were subsequently overturned through the unprecedented, yeoman’s efforts of Ashiwaju Bola Ahmed Tinubu – AKANBI ENIA- particularly in his involvement, in the different prosecution teams, of Adrian  Forty, an English Forensic expert, who exposed PDP election riggers – all of them – as no better than mere rookies.

    Obasanjo’s treatment of Ekitis got so indecent that there were some 2- or 3-day governors; and at the elections in 2007, his errand boys, friends, the INEC and the security services all combined to rob Dr Kayode Fayemi, the candidate of the Action Congress of victory at a time Ekiti people were already jubilantly dancing on the streets.

    All these would combine to dictate a completely new trend for my articles. And I was going to be in no way sparing of a man who treated us Ekiti’s so wretchedly.

    This was the juncture at which my paths crossed Dr Kayode Fayemi’s, even though I had known him by reputation much earlier.

    Of course, there was no way I could  have missed his exploits with Radio Kudirat.

    I came head on into the Fayemi campaigns during the rerun election (2009) though I had all along been very supportive of his brilliant campaign through my weekly articles in The Nation on Sunday.  Though I came into the campaign late, I have never accorded a greater devotion to any political cause. I thought nothing of the harm, nor reckoned with all the bestialities the opposition was known to be quite capable of, especially in the state.

    I saw in Dr Fayemi the decisive political leader I have looked for in vain after Chief Obafemi Awolowo.

    I saw in him a brilliant young man who had taken upon himself, the huge responsibility of  wanting  to morally lead a politically bastardised society into the mores of  true democracy and good governance as well as one who was  determined to carry on, whatever the odds; a marathon runner, indeed.

    And daunting odds mandate – thieves sure threw his way!

    The more I read of him, the more convinced I was about his genuineness. 

    I would finally meet him at the fund raiser hosted by his Christ’s School mates which held at the Events Centre, Ogba, Lagos at which Dr Eniola Ajayi, was Chairperson.  I remember sitting next to Professor Akin Oyebode who, Bolaji Aluko, then a U.S-based Professor of Chemical Engineering, had first asked to send him my telephone number with a view, I later learnt, to asking Dr Fayemi to link up with me. Bolaji had apparently been reading my  column. 

    So corrosively anti – PDP and Obasanjo were my articles that the authors of ‘The Long Walk’ – a chronicle of  Dr Fayemi’s titanic struggle with these anti-democratic forces wrote as follows concerning my humble  role in that effort:  ‘Dr. Orebe, columnist, The Nation newspaper, is a  man of vibrant disposition to public commentaries on discipline in private and public life, choosing transparency and good governance as his specialty. His many articles on Ekiti State debacle greatly helped in mobilizing critical public opinion against the fraud that was committed by the rogues in high places against Ekiti people before and after the re-run election, which cost responsible Nigerians their honour and integrity in the international arena’.

    I have referred to that first meeting with Dr Fayemi but  I  left out something I went away with from the event. In his speech on the occasion, the late Sir Remi Omotosho,  a consummate board room guru who  had served not only as the Personnel Director of Lever Brothers, a multi-national, but had also been the Group Managing Director of the O’dua Group, Ibadan and who must have  seen a thousand and one top grade curriculum vita, said: “On seeing the bio data of Dr Kayode Fayemi what first  came to my mind was  that were Ekiti not in dire need of the services of this young man, Nigeria should be recommending him for the position of the next Secretary-General of the United Nations”.  Remi did not make those remarks lightly.

    Dr Fayemi belongs in the top drawer. A thoroughly reflective individual, his education, erudition and accomplishments completely thump his under 50 years. I quote, once again, from the authors of the Long Walk. Writing on Dr Fayemi, they wrote:  ‘Signs that he would be an activist and a leader had manifested as early as the mid-80s when he was the Chairman of Eni-Njoku Hall, University of Lagos, where he earned his first degree in History. A charismatic personality, Fayemi easily understands people at first sight. He radiates a  pleasant aura which endears him to people. A good listener, he solves even intricate problems with the suave calmness of a combat soldier and he is very unassuming. This explains why the atmosphere was always electrified each time he was in Ekiti before, during and after the 2007 elections  He has always been a dogged fighter and underlying his gentle mien is the courage and strength of a lion. 

    Fayemi attended Christ School, Ado-Ekiti and received degrees in History, Politics and International Relations from the Universities of Lagos and Ife in Nigeria and obtained a Ph.D. in War Studies from the prestigious King’s college, University of London – where he is now a Visiting Professor, specializing in Civil Military Relations.   As a prominent member of the Nigerian opposition in exile, he was actively involved in the establishment of Radio Freedom, Radio Democracy International & Radio Kudirat, and played a key role in the opposition’s diplomatic engagements during the infamous military rule. He was the Technical Adviser to the Human Right Violations Investigation Commission (Oputa Panel) which investigated past abuses in Nigeria. 

    We would soon become quite close, especially as the campaign for the rerun election gathered momentum, and at a private fund raiser, over dinner for five  of us, hosted by the inimitable, absolutely unforgettable Dr Tosin Ajayi of blessed memory, at a Chinese Restaurant on Bank Anthony Way, Ikeja, Lagos I asked him: We know what these people are capable of doing and you know that Obasanjo continues to play God. Suppose they rig the election again? To which he promptly answered: Oga, I am a long-distance runner and to the tribunal I would head gain’.

    How uncannily we both proved!

    I soon became very involved and when on his campaign visit to my Irepodun wing of our Irepodun/Ifelodun  Local Government  Area  my people at Are-Ekiti saw me raise his hand on the podium  and declared him  the reason I was back in politics for the first time since ’83, my people rose like one man to give the candidate a tumultuous welcome and support.

    The elections came again, and as we had anticipated, the thieving  PDP, with the connivance of the powers that be, once again rigged it shamelessly.  And to the tribunal Fayemi again  headed but, again, surprisingly lost.

    All thanks to the Almighty God these elements were finally routed and put to shame at the Court of Appeal, Ilorin on 15 October, 2010, when the Appeal court ruled in favour of Dr Fayemi declaring him winner of both the 2007 election as well as the rerun.

    With that pronouncement ended the rule of man, as designed by Olusegun Obasanjo for Ekiti.

    My first official involvement with the new Fayemi government was in respect of the governor’s Education committee – The Education Task Force and Visitation Panel. The governor had invited me  to  his Isan country home on Christmas Day, 2010 and  during our discussion, he informed me of his intention to have an Education Stakeholders conference to take a holistic look at the  challenges he had observed since resuming office. It was my opinion that what he needed was a committee of experts whose recommendations would then form the working papers for the Stakeholders’ conference. He agreed with this view and we played around some names of probable members many of who later served on the committee.

    The Membership of the Visitation Panel to assess and appraise the state of Education in Ekiti State was as follows:  Chief (Dr) J. G. O. Adegbite (Chairman), Prof  Funke Egunjobi, Prof  L. B. Kolawole, Elder Fasanmade, Mr. Idowu Aderibigbe, Dr Femi Orebe, Prof Dupe Adelabu, Prof Tale Omole, Prof D. S. Daramola, Mr. Olu Ipinlaye, Prof Susan Ajibade, Alhaji Afolabi Ogunlayi, Alhaja Monisola Badmos, Prof Bolaji Aluko,  (Consultant) and Mr. Jide Akinleye (Secretary)

    Many of us subsequently served on the Stakeholders committee and I had the great honour of chairing the communiqué committee at the meeting proper at which Papa,  Professor Sam Aluko and Mama Joyce Aluko spent the entire duration with us.

    Read Also: Fayemi advocates electoral reform to address winner-takes-all politics

    Talking about the Fayemi phenomenon, I have never chosen a worthier political cause. It has been for me, the denouement of a long search for a politician with integrity, with a timeless devotion to cause, or causes, to which he believes. Twice, I have heard Dr Fayemi talk about how ephemeral he considers fleeting political office, even that of the governor of a state, in respect of which many will kill and, have indeed, killed. For him, what matters is how effectively you impact on society and for him, his 8-Point Agenda was  the driving force of his government.

    Below is the 8-Point Agenda:

    1) Governance – To enhance democratic governance and accountability at all levels

    2) Modernizing Agriculture – To make Agriculture a viable source of revenue and sustainable livelihood by ensuring suitable employment, food security, provision of industrial raw materials and poverty alleviation.

    3) Education & development of human capital – To improve access to and quality of education in the ‘fountain of knowledge’ towards the creation and consolidation of a knowledge economy.

    4) Health care services – Prevention will be the key goal of Ekiti Health Service under our watch and we will seek to ensure the provision of holistic and comprehensive health care services and facilities for the people of Ekiti.

    5) Industrial development – To expand Ekiti’s industrial base as a mechanism for increasing internal revenue and providing sustainable employment.

    6)Tourism & environmental sustainability – To make Ekiti an attractive and competitive tourism choice in West Africa.

    7)Gender equality & women empowerment – Promoting gender equality and empowering women by maximizing the potential of half of the population of Ekiti.

    8) Infrastructural development – To establish optimum communities that will improve the quality of life of citizens and attract maximum investments – with provision of electricity, well maintained roads network, potable drinking water, affordable shelter and security.

     On this joyous occasion, I am going to leave to my younger Aburo’s who are far gifted writers than I, and who also have the extra advantage of working directly with the governor – Wole Olujobi, Segun Dipe among others, to give details of Dr Fayemi’s meritorious achievements during his two terms during which not a single community, hamlet, village, town or city was left unimpacted.

    That freedom will give me the opportunity to dwell, at some length, on what in my view represents Governor Kayode Fayemi’s greatest achievement in Ekiti.

    His name of that achievement is His Excellency,Biodun Abayomi Oyebanji popularly called BAO,  by Ekiti’s home and abroad,  and I don’t mean this in the glib way people say that without a viable successor, a governor cannot be deemed successful.

    Without a precedent in any state of Nigeria, Fayemi’s installation of BAO as his successor, of course, through due process, though as usual, contentious was the very meaning of scoring a bulls eye. I won’t waste time on this but would suggest that whoever doubts that Fayemi was scrupulously neutral in the choice of his successor should read my indepth article on the subject titled- BAO: The Apple Does Not Fall Far From Tree, of 22 October, 2023.

    Ekiti politics of that era, including even that of Fayemi, was a bedlam; what I once described on these pages as: “bo ba o pa, bo ba o bu lese”-meaning just harm the opposition.

    I should know because I not only personally mediated quarells, there are still, as you read this, some party leaders of that era, who still do not greet each other, except, of course, BAO has worked his magic.

    I shall be lying if I say I know how BAO did it all – resolved all disputes across party lines, and restored peace in Ekiti politics so much that all our past governors, on all political party platforms, are now ‘ad idem” on literally all matters.

    But this I know, and here I shall be quoting from my aforementioned article of 22 October, ’23 wherein I wrote as follows, first about BAO: “As a writer, and close to government, even though not a government official, I have seen BAO at work, have keenly observed this quiet, and easy going  ‘complete Ekiti bureaucrat’, who not only studied mostly here within Ekiti, but have served, meritoriously, in various sections of the state government over a long time, and is attested to by those who should know, as a loyal and  competent gentleman who knows both the Ekiti people and the terrain very well”.

    Despite the near, all pervading bedlam in Ekiti politics, BAO was particularly lucky. He worked with, and under two, of our very best.

    I wrote further:”Even though it goes without saying that Oyebanji is well bred, that is, from home, his almost unparalleled respect for people, young and old, must have a lot to do with his long tutelage under the Omoluabi governor, Otunba Niyi Adebayo, whose Chief of Staff he was, just as governor Fayemi’s – whose SSG he was -natural, decent and quiet mien, must have  positively robbed off  on him.

    He must have many times, while not yet governor, wondered as to how the attitude to office, by the two were so unlike what he observed under other governors.

    This I suspect can only be the springboard from which Oyebanji’s approach to governance owes its origins

    All put together, it is a win – win for the long suffering people of Ekiti.

    Happy birthday Governor Fayemi.

    Many happy returns and super congratulations to our darling Erelu, your jewel of inestimable value.

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

    The rise, rise and rise of capitalism (VI)

    Having gone right round the world in the course of this series, I think it is time to return to England. After all, that is where capitalism set up shop in the middle of the eighteenth century and planted the seeds of capitalism.

    Right until the Peasants Revolt in 1381 England was a purely agrarian nation with virtually all the workers toiling on estates belonging to their lords and masters. The immediate effect of the Black Death which killed roughly half of the population was on labour relations as the number of available workers, skilled and unskilled fell drastically causing a shortage of all forms of labour. Surprisingly, this did not lead to an enhancement of wages as could be expected. The employers of labour continued to pay low wage and the workers or peasants as they were called revolted against the king and his nobles who on top of everything insisted on raising taxes to collect the funds necessary to fight against the French. Although the young king acquiesced to the demands of the peasants at first, some of his Nobles who were loath to give up any of their privileges prevailed upon the king to repudiate the agreement. The peasants returned to the fray but this time, they were subdued by superior forces and with their leader wounded and later dragged away from his hospital bed and beheaded on the orders of the Mayor of London, they were stumped. This dastardly murder brought an immediate end to the rebellion. And so, the rebellion did not bring about any significant changes to the very poor living conditions of the peasants. They continued to work in the fields for little pay and even less hope for a better life on the horizon. Although Thomas Hobbes described life in the absence of government control as being solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, these descriptions could be used to describe life in the Middle ages in England.  Ironically, it was at this time that the light of the Renaissance period began to flicker weakly at first but went on to do so quite brightly as  productive learning began to take root.

    As with virtually everything in Europe, the learning that led to the Renaissance came from the East and it is not a coincidence that it entered Europe through where we now call Italy. There was no Italian state as we know it and that region at the time was made of a series of city states, the most influential and powerful of them being Venice. The seeds of the Renaissance in Europe were laid when East and West met on the battle fields of Palestine when Christian crusaders were persuaded by Pope Urban through the offer of the remission of their sins to go to the Holy land. The injunction was clear; once there, they were enjoined to kill  go and kill as many as they could in the name of Christ and all your sins are forgiven and your place in heaven is secure. Echoes of modern day suicide bombers who are persuaded to take out as many innocent people as possible.  The aim of the crusaders was to kill as many Muslims as possible and in doing so, seize Jerusalem for Christendom. That they did not kill all the Muslims in Palestine was not for want of trying. At least they killed enough of them to lead to the capture of Jerusalem. They ruled that city which is holy to Christians, Muslims and Jews then and now for all of eighty-eight years before the city was wrested from them by a Muslim army under the leadership of the exalted Saladin known to history for his outstanding military skills and his chivalry. Following  the efforts of Saladin, Jerusalem remained in Muslim hands until British forces wrested it from the Ottomans in the closing stages of the First World War thus bringing the crusades to a close or more appropriately, open another phase of fighting in the holy land. The conquerors this time around are not Christian crusaders but Jewish Zionists who are laying claim to Palestine on the strength of some passages in the Bible. The situation in Palestine remains fluid, explosive and terribly dangerous. It is anybody’s guess as to how this situation will pan out. It is perhaps pertinent to point out that the crusades left its mark on England when there was a falling out between  the English crusaders and the king of France who kidnapped and imprisoned the English king Richard also called Lionheart. The royal kidnapper then demanded such a large ransom that England was practically bankrupted in paying it and gave rise to the expression, a king’s ransom. To pay a king’s ransom is to pay out an inordinately large sum of money for anything.

    What is immediately associated with the crusades is mayhem of gigantic proportions. On the other hand however, the crusaders came back home bearing items of knowledge in several crucial areas which shaped them and their societies profoundly for a thousand years. Without the experiences acquired in the East, it is unlikely that there would have been a Renaissance, that bust of knowledge creation which created modern Europe. The Europe which went out to inflict crushing damage on the rest of the world, especially Africa. We still have to live with the effects of that damage.

    The crusades were a dismal failure from the point of view of military adventurism but they opened the eyes of the Europeans to what was a available in the rest of the world and changed how they lived profoundly. They discovered spices which made their food, at least palatable, cotton which made it possible for them to make comfortable and yet, fashionable clothes. They could even begin the fashion of drinking coffee after picking up the habit during their foray to the East. It has to be said that these niceties were restricted to the Nobles as the peasants were still living a hand to mouth existence. Perhaps the greatest shift in the way the peasants lived was the movement from the countryside into the quick growing cities, the population of which grew phenomenally throughout the middle ages. To be sure, the cities were overcrowded and brimming with pestilence and vice, not to talk of hunger and poverty. For all that however, they were also centres of creativity with craftsmen in every conceivable trade setting up shop and struggling to make a living in the midst of numerous challenges including the harshest laws which were administered implacably. There were more than two hundred capital offences on the statute books ranging from sodomy to the theft of trivial items such as pocket handkerchiefs. Justice was not just done but in many cases, was seen to be done as executions were carried out in public with the rich paying for ring side seats whilst thousand were milling around trying to get a good view. Ironically, pickpockets had a field day at these executions making the deterrent factor of these executions a sick joke. From the beginning of the eighteenth century the option of being transported to Australia became available and it was used liberally in an attempt to provide broad range of deterrents to the common people who lived at bare subsistence level. The situation was that with all the loot which was flooding into England at the time, none of it was filtering down to the common people who had no form of social security except the workhouse within which conditions were very bad to appalling and some people were ready to die rather than to be at the mercy of the merciless parish authorities who saw poverty as a sign of moral depravity. For the poor in England of that period therefore, life was quite nasty, brutish and frequently short.

    For people who had some financially negotiable skills however, it was quite possible for them to put away an impressive stash of money. A literary example of one such person was Silas Marner in the eponymous novel by George Elliot. Silas was a skilled weaver who produced high quality materials which were  sought after by a broad spectrum of customers who were willing to pay handsomely for his products in sharp contrast to the general mass of people who had no skills whatsoever and had nothing but their labour which could not provide sustenance to the worker and a family of a couple of children. To all intents and purposes, they were only  marginally better than slaves in their condition. They lived in the richest nation on earth but could hardly stitch body and soul together. The extant conditions under which the workers toiled were intolerable.  These conditions were perfect for the earliest capitalists who needed workers to go down the mines bringing out the coal which was needed to fire the machines on which their trade goods were produced and sent to all parts of the world. They set workers to work under dangerous conditions in factories within which conditions were atrociously poor. With a worldwide empire at their beck and call British capitalists were making money hand over fist as they had access to raw materials from the colonies and had a ready market for their cheaply manufactured goods.

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

    By the time that Marx and Engels were warning of the spectre of communism haunting Europe, it had become clear to the workers that they needed to free themselves from the yoke which had been clamped on them by their employers. By that time also, local capitalists were springing up in other European countries and were replicating conditions in England. Almost a hundred years after the Luddites went about destroying the mechanised looms which were to force them under the thumbs of the capitalists, the workers came together to form unions which they hoped were going to deliver them from the capitalists.

    In the early days of union struggle, the workers were fighting for the establishment of the most  basic conditions under which workers could work. They were fighting for wages from which it was possible to reproduce themselves in a dignified manner. Capitalism was rampant as it threatened to squeeze the workers to death as they produced unimaginable wealth to the capitalists a few of whom were called robbed barons in the United States. In the closing years of the nineteenth century capitalism was king of everything within its ken.

  • Tread softly, Ajaero

    Tread softly, Ajaero

    My initial reaction to the (suspended) protest by the Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC) against the 50 per cent hike in telecoms tariff that should have taken effect on February 1 was to lambast the congress for overreaching itself. Why must Labour think it can jump into just any situation even when the issue is not strictly about workers’ welfare?

    I however, soft-pedalled when I remembered how the Global System for Mobile (GSM) communication service providers exploited Nigerians when they began operation in Nigeria in August 2001. Perhaps the highpoint of that exploitation was their initial refusal to offer per second billing on their menu. They gave us the impression that it was impossible, even though that was available elsewhere.

    But the entry of Globacom in 2003 changed the narrative. Glo launched itself into the Nigerian market with per second billing and others had no choice but to follow.

    It was this reminiscence that made me soft-pedal on the said protest. But then, the position of the Trade Union Congress (TUC) is more like it. It still pointed at the lacuna in the NLC’s stance.

     We would return to that shortly.

    The Nigerian Communications Commission (NCC), the telecoms sector’s regulator, had on January 20 approved a 50 per cent hike in tariffs for the telecommunications firms, as against the 100 per cent that the companies had been clamouring for. NCC cited rising operational costs driven by inflation, foreign exchange fluctuations, and higher energy expenses to justify its approval. Unassailable points.

    But the NLC rejected the 50 per cent hike and in its stead pushed forward a five per cent increase. But it never told us how it arrived at the five per cent. It merely said the hike was insensitive and unjustifiable, adding that it would impose an extra burden on Nigerian consumers. Huh!

    Joe Ajaero, the union’s president, said

    “After extensive discussions…NAC-in-session totally rejects the 50 per cent telecom tariff hike, which it considers too harsh for citizens. It, therefore, strongly condemns the Nigerian Communications Commission’s decision to approve the increase.”

    He added: “This decision is insensitive, unjustifiable, and a direct attack on Nigerian workers and the general populace, who are already suffering under worsening economic hardship caused by government policies beyond their control.”

    The congress therefore asked Nigerians to prepare for mass protests against the hike. It also called for a boycott of the telcos’ services.

    But the telecom fìrms stood their ground and insisted on the approved 50 per cent. As a matter of fact, they ruled out negotiations with organised labour. I saw this coming; that a time would come when some organisations would begin to call the NLC’s bluff. More of this would come for as long as the congress thinks banging the table is solution to all problems. That belonged in the past. These days, ideas rule the world.

    The Chairman of the Association of Licensed Telecommunications Operators of Nigeria (ALTON), Gbenga Adebayo, explained the telcos’ position: “This increase is a lifeline that enables us to survive. Anything lower would be like giving someone who needs 100 litres of oxygen only a fraction—barely enough to keep them alive but insufficient for long-term survival.”

    The stage was thus set for a showdown.

    Mercifully, however, the Federal Government intervened and the protest was suspended.

    For me, the NLC’s action was misdirected aggression. The telcos’ are operating in the same economic milieu that Labour is complaining about and are therefore not immune to its vagaries. Unless the congress wants us to return to the era of queuing up at designated centres to talk to our people wherever they may be on the surface of the earth, the congress has to tread cautiously on this matter.

    Those of us who were around in the days of the almighty Nigerian Telecommunications Ltd. (NITEL) when the entire country was served by about 450,000 telephone lines would never want that. Not even in our dream. Only our children who were born after the introduction of GSM in the country can say whatever they like on the said tariff hike because they do not know where we are coming from.

    For the benefit of our youths, some of whom are now carrying some of the very expensive telephones even as students, there was a time in this country when a minister of the federal republic told us that telephone was not for the poor! It was that bad. But the minister was not wrong; if about 180 million people then had to share 450,000 telephone lines, we did not need anyone to tell us that that was not an essential commodity that every Tom, Dick and Harry should have access to!

    Read Also:Japa syndrome: Fleeing Nigeria is not the solution – Ajaero

    Today, it is convenient for us to be saying ‘we no go gree’ because telcom firms said they want to review upwards their tariffs. We can now conveniently stay in the comfort of our rooms and talk to Papa and Mama in the village. Today, we can send money to them and they will receive it within minutes. Today, we can talk to our people who have ‘Japa’ to the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, etc., right from wherever we are. Not only that; we can even do video chat, send text messages, chat on various electronic platforms and what have you.

    It has not always been like this. It was the advent of GSM that revolutionised the way we used to do virtually all things – read, relax, work, talk, etc. It has become part of our lives that one feels incomplete if his or her phone is misplaced or stolen. Such a person is like fish out of water.  

    It is not surprising that the GSM Association (commonly referred to as ‘the GSMA’, originally Groupe Spécial Mobile), has welcomed the upward tariff review. And understandably so. GSMA is a non-profit industry organisation that represents the interests of mobile network operators worldwide.

    Workers in the telecoms sector too are happy with the hike. Again, understandably so. Unfortunately, the NLC did not even seek their opinion before threatening fire and brimstone. The workers who spoke through their umbrella union, the Private Telecommunications and Communications Senior Staff Association of Nigeria (PTECSSAN) rejected the planned nationwide protest by the NLC. The association told the NLC that the tariff hike, though painful, was necessary to prevent the imminent collapse of the sector, with its far-reaching consequences for the economy.

    PTECSSAN, in apparent solidarity with their employers highlighted the severe challenges facing the sector, including skyrocketing operational costs occasioned by the removal of fuel subsidy, rising prices of diesel (Automated Gas Oil), and increased electricity tariffs.

    The union also mentioned the issue of foreign exchange that the sector sorely needs to import equipment, but which the depreciation of the naira has made increasingly expensive.

    PTECSSAN, of course did not forget to say that while public sector and other private sector workers have benefited from salary increases due to the new minimum wage law, telecoms workers have been left behind simply because their employers could not afford to pay from the inadequate revenue they are generating.

    In conclusion, the association said: “If a situation like this persists, what employers resort to is the termination of employment of workers. We are sure that you and the congress leadership will not be happy to see this happen, as

    we will not”.

    As things stand, the points have been well made. If a sector has retained a particular tariff regime for 12 years, it is more than ripe for another review, given

    the vicissitudes the economy has undergone in recent years that have dramatically altered the economic landscape and so significantly altered the business climate too. Prices have gone up across board since costs too have shot up astronomically.

    It is against this backdrop that the NLC should attend the meetings of the 10-man committee set up by the government and the congress on the issue with an open mind. What is on ground is a purely business matter; not an emotive one. Any attempt to go with a fixated mindset based on emotive arguments or rule of thumb (?) will be counter-productive.

    It was this commonsensical approach to the issue that made the National Civil Society Council of Nigeria (NCSCN) (which says it represents over 600 affiliate organisations) that had initially planned to occupy the headquarters of the NCC and the National Assembly, to also suspend its protest, having been shown the parameters used in arriving at the 50 per cent hike.

    But I wonder why TUC was not involved in the arrangement because it is also a major stakeholder in the matter. As a matter of fact, its position seems to me more unassailable than that of the NLC. Unlike the emotive argument of the congress, TUC dissected the problem well, pointing out the issues that others have identified as reasons necessitating the tariff hike, particularly the foreign exchange component.

    I am not opposed to further negotiations and possibly a further reduction in the tariff. But it is pertinent to let the NLC realise that it cannot be issuing threats all of the time, otherwise the threats would lose their potency. The fact of the matter is that telecommunications is not one of the sectors that the government is subsidising. The service providers are

    in business to make profit. They are therefore not bound by threats of boycott or protest by the congress or whoever. The NLC should not be behaving like policemen who intervene in every matter, including helping their friends or relations to recover loans or stolen property, which is not their core responsibility.

    People have a choice to use or not to use telephone, or at least regulate their use of it if it becomes expensive. As we say, no matter how tiny the hand of the rat is; it is that same hand that it uses to scratch its ear (bi owo eku ti mo lo se nfi yun eti). How much people enjoy the white man depends on their pockets.

    If the telcos say they cannot go below what the NCC has approved if they must maintain quality service, so be it. Let subscribers regulate their use of phones. Nigerians should not forward march to the better-forgotten past.

    We all know how frustrating it is to make calls that drop or send messages that don’t get delivered. We know what it means to be in a hurry online only for network not to cooperate because service providers are not getting commensurate charges to maintain their facilities.

     NLC cannot arrogate to itself the duty of a price control agency because that is what it is attempting to do in this case. Unless NLC provides concrete evidence that the telcos had been overcharging Nigerians, its reaction to this tariff hike is analogous to blaming waiters in restaurants for obesity.