The Nation Newspaper

Category: Thursday

  • Where are they now?

    Where are they now?

    We knew we were going to miss them, but nobody thought it would be this early. We miss their flamboyance, garrulity and exuberance.  I speak of no other than some of the men who until recently were in charge at various levels of the country’s affairs.

    But this is not to say that they have all vanished from the scene. No.  Take, for instance, the former Zamfara State Governor, the distinguished Senator Ahmed Sani Yerima. Nothing was heard of him for a long time, until he moved the motion to nominate former Kwara State Governor Bukola Saraki for Senate president.

    His seemingly long hibernation had given room to various speculations, with some analysts claiming authoritatively that the politician was away in some overseas institution to study how to reinvigorate the waning sharia  fire he sparked off with remarkable festivity.

    Many would recall the picture of the thief, Jangedi whose arm was sawn off for stealing a cow. Asked how he felt after he had lost an arm, Jangedi replied that he was excited because sharia had at last become a reality – thanks to Yerima’s dedication, which some analysts described as fanaticism.

    Others, without facts, insisted that Yerima had gone on a long overdue honeymoon after his highly contentious marriage to a minor, who activists described as a 13-year-old daughter of an Egyptian taxi-cab driver. Yerima, not one to run away from a fight, you will recall, defended his right. He told the army of child rights campaigners to prove that his bride was indeed a minor. “If you say we’re are wrong, tell us the truth,” the activists demanded of the senator. Instead of replying the innocuous question, Yerima mounted a legal battle for a perpetual injunction to halt what he described as a blatant abuse of his rights. Smart guy. Ever since, all has been quiet. Nobody has gone to get the injunction lifted and the senator has been enjoying without hindrances all the rights and privileges of a new groom and, needless to say, performing all the duties that go with such perquisites.

    Ali Modu Sherriff was indisputably the godfather of Borno politics. At the height of the Boko Haram insurgency, the push for him to be questioned was relentless. But, the authorities could not summon the courage to take him in for questioning. Instead, they pampered the former governor like a new baby. The Maiduguri airport that was shut down after Boko Haram insurgents violated it was often opened for Sheriff’s flights to land. As soon as he left, the airport would be shut again. Governor Kashim Shettima was never that lucky. He drove all the way to Abuja and back whenever he had to visit the capital city. Such was the royal pleasure Sheriff enjoyed in the Goodluck Jonathan administration.

    So privileged was Sheriff that he sat at a meeting between former President Jonathan and Chadian President Idris Derby in N’djamena. The bilateral talks centred on how to stop Boko Haram’s bloody campaign.

    Some dubious youths posing as mediators between the government and the fanatical sect were said to have got millions of dollars for their ‘fruitless’ exertion. By the way, where are the suspects the Department of State Service (DSS) arrested?  My apology for the digression.

    Sheriff’s presence at the meeting aforementioned became a subject of political and scholastic disputations. Why was he at the talks? Does he know, as being speculated, something about Boko Haram? Is the government hiding something from the public? The questions were many. To date, they remain unanswered. Now, Sheriff, who lost his firm grip on Borno politics, has been quiet. He is said to have gone back to his first love – ‘trading’ in  dry fish and other commodities ferried across the borders in long trucks.

    Jelili Adeshiyan (remember him?) was Jonathan’s robustious Police Affairs minister. He once granted an interview in which he denied hitting former Osun State Governor Isiaka Adeleke during a row among Peoples Democratic Party(PDP) stalwarts. His upper cut, he swore, would have landed Serubawon (scare them stiff) in the hospital. In fact, he vowed that after leaving office as minister, he would hunt for Adeleke and beat him up.

    Adeshiyan is yet to fulfil his vow, perhaps because Adeleke has been away in Abuja, ensconced in the Senate where only members are allowed to, occasionally, test their pugilistic skills.

    The former minister, a source said, has since returned to Osun from where he leapt from obscurity to the national stage, turning the police into an electoral tool of the PDP to be deployed into service in Ekiti and Osun.

    Chief E.K. Clark, the Ijaw leader, was a vociferous supporter of former President Jonathan. He was a regular caller at the Presidential Villa. He travelled far and wide to campaign for a fresh term for Jonathan whose praise he sang to high heavens. After Jonathan lost the election, the old man retreated to his Abuja abode. In no time, reporters found him and asked him to comment on that election. Clark retorted: “You want me to die because Jonathan lost the election? I won’t die.”

    The chief, who has since congratulated President Muhammadu Buhari, urging Nigerians to co-operate with him, has found a new vocation in his Edwin Clark University, Kiagbodo, Delta State, which he decided on his 85th birthday to set up as his legacy. By the way, Clark used to be a teacher who became a headmaster. Now, there is little time for Ijaw activism.

    My friend Reuben Abati and I spoke on the phone a fortnight ago. He was upbeat . “I’m jobless o,” he said excitedly, adding; “ Put it in your paper. Reuben Abati, Phd, MA, LLB, Oxford – trained; looking for a job. What kind of country is this?”

    Abati was really busy as presidential spokesman. Since he left- lost – the job, those condolences after Boko Haram killings have been coming in trickles. It was so tough that I once suggested on this page that a minister should be named for that purpose to free Abati from such mundane matters.

    So there you have it – Abati is up for hire.

    Former Benue State Governor Gabriel Suswam dropped his bid for a Senate seat after being trounced by Barnabas Gemade of  the All Progressives Congress (APC) and went overseas for what he said was a long overdue health check and vacation. From the blues came the news that the police had arrested His Excellency for alleged wife battery and that he was being detained by the UK police.

    Many, who never cared to confirm the report, began to give it their own perspectives. Some said the former governor was suffering from some Post-electoral Defeat Psychosis (PeDP) that induced a strange  and unrestrained aggression in his behaviour. Others simply said it was all a kind of depression that would soon subside.

    Thankfully, Suswam issued a press release debunking the allegations as “full of mischief and aimed at slandering me and my dear wife”. The former governor remains in the UK– with  his wife.

    Former Oil Minister Diezani Alison-Madueke has not been seen in public since Jonathan lost the election. Not even the flood of allegations of multi-billion naira – sorry, a slip there – multi-billion dollar – frauds in the sector would attract madam’s comment.

    But there have been speculations on her health. Some reports said Mrs Alison-Madueke had been hospitalised in London for some serious but undisclosed ailment. Others said she had been taking a well-deserved holiday. But many have been asking: When did the former minister fall ill? If the Jonathan administration left the stage on May 29 and she was around shortly before then – unconfirmed reports said she was among those urging Jonathan not to throw in the towel – when did she fall ill? What is the nature of the illness?  Is it all a facade to avoid being called to account for her turbulent tenure at the oil ministry? We really can’t tell.

    All has been quiet in the Northern Governors’ Forum since former Niger State Governor Babangida Aliyu quit its chairmanship. He was up in arms with Jonathan for contemplating a second term. He said the former president actually signed an agreement that he would spend one term. Pressed to show the paper, Aliyu said it was with a Southsouth governor.  Now that it is all over, will Talba Minna show the paper – at least for the record?

    His successor, Alhaji Abubakar Sani Bello, has been asking Aliyu, who cherished his adopted populist title of Chief Servant, to return the N2.9b he allegedly collected from the treasury and shared among top government officials on the eve of his departure.

    The ex-governor’s spokesman has described the allegation as false, even as Bello insists the money, which was said to have been obtained as a loan, must be returned to the treasury. Aliyu is said to be away in London for a well-earned rest.

    There are many other public figures whose whereabouts are of public interest.

    Dr Akinwunmi Adesina, the  former Agriculture minister, is now African Development Bank (AFDB) president. A little bird  tells me he plans to yield to the clamour by many countries for the miracle of the cassava bread that has made breakfast such a remarkable culinary delight in Nigeria.

    They deserve to be remembered quite often. Don’t they?

  • The oil subsidy scam

    Former Governor Rotimi Amaechi recently said one of the reasons that caused a friction between him and former President Ebele Jonathan was his opposition to subsidy to petrol importers that ballooned from N300 billion a year  to N1.9 trillion. Amaechi was acting on behalf of the governors of the country then  as leader of the informal association of governors  forum. Dr. Jonathan by this time had been pocketed by the cabal of corrupt petrol traders who were also funding generously the PDP and enriching those in the corridor of power . The then president apparently realized at a point that there was something odd in a country spending more money on petrol subsidy than on development and wanted to do something about it. This led him to increase the pump price of petrol but did not have the backbone to resist public outcry  and quickly reduced what he had been advised as the true price of gasoline. The hostility of the public arose from their perception of the rampant corruption in the country. People felt they were not prepared to make sacrifice while the number of private jets was increasing daily. The president himself celebrated this as an index of prosperity  in the land where Nigeria’s rebased GDP gave us the appearance of a rich country and rich people. His so-called coordinating minister of the economy was everywhere alluding to this manufactured achievement of economic prosperity to the discomfiture of the ordinary citizen. Stories were told of washermen, carpenters, garbage collectors being asked to fill forms that they were petrol importers and being subsequently paid billions of naira as subsidy. Young children of party bigwigs became billionaires overnight.

    This jamboree went  on for years until the country nearly went bankrupt following low price of crude oil in the world market forcing the corrupt government to shine some light on the oil imports sector. It found many  people culpable and made some noise and took some people to court including party top dogs or their children but it was all motion without movement for no one has been convicted  neither has money been recovered. To make matters worse, some of the people involved also ruined some of the country’s banks  while the huge foreign reserves Obasanjo left was drawn down on  subsiding this corrupt fuel importation. This  is how we got to this juncture of broken down four refineries and huge importation of refined fuel  which is an embarrassing situation for an oil producing country. The subsidy guzzlers were not interested in functioning refineries. They also never thought of selling the refineries  as part of their market driven economic reforms. Obasanjo had gotten private  operators interested in buying some of the run down refineries but they preferred the so-called annual  turn around contracts award  for the refineries. As usual these contracts went to party hacks who knew nothing about refineries. Instead of calling on those who built the refineries to rehabilitate them they gave the contracts to traders who simply pocketed the huge amounts given them while making some donations to the ruling party. They did this annually with impunity damning the people especially those with conscience to protest or go to hell.

    Now change has hopefully come and we hope and pray that things will change for the better. President Buhari has cautiously said he will not rush to take a decision on oil subsidy. He said he will study the situation first. But it is clear from the several studies done and advice by experts and friendly countries and development partners that that the oil subsidy and the oil sector generally constitute the bedrocks of corruption in Nigeria. We cannot be talking of fighting corruption while dilly-dallying on the oil subsidy issue. If the president does not strike while the iron is hot, subsidy beneficiaries with their enormous resources will mobilize to ensure the failure of its removal. Surprise is a well known military strategy and this president with his huge goodwill  should make up his mind quickly. Besides in the last two months, most Nigerians have been buying fuel at deregulated prices ranging from 100 to 130 naira a litre. If this is the price to pay to release money going into subsidy for development we should be prepared to pay it. Imagine what two or three trillion naira that was being spent for subsidy by the Jonathan government  can do for the development of this country. Delaying a decision on this issue may haunt us in the years to come especially if this government allows the oil oligarchs to mobilize against subsidy removal. The right policy is deregulation. Let the market determine the right and correct price of gasoline and let all who feel they can make profit engage in fuel importation and sell all the refineries at give away price to oil companies engaged in oil production in Nigeria or if they are not willing to buy  them, sell them to those who can run them but certainly not party people and preferably to foreign investors and I repeat at a give-away price of even a dollar provided the buyers promise to put them back into oil refining.

  • Badeh’s swan song

    It was just a matter of time before they were sacked. The public had expected that they would be shown the way out immediately after President Muhammadu Buhari assumed office on May 29. But the president chose to bide his time and for this Nigerians tagged him Baba go slow. It is good to know what one is doing. If the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS), Air Chief Marshal Alex Sabundu  Badeh, and others had been sacked before July 13, we may have missed out in the theatrical tantrums now being thrown up by Badeh.

    The president has shown that he knows what he is doing. While we were accusing him of being too slow, he would have been having a good laugh at us because only he knows what he wants to do – remember “I am for nobody and I am for everybody”.  He warned us in his inauguration speech with that statement, but we chose to make light of what he said.

    It was a long wait as we waited on him to fire the Defence and Service chiefs. It is the practice for a new leader to  pick those he will work with to ensure their loyalty to him. A leader who does not make a wise choice in this regard will suffer the consequences of his action. Besides, Buhari knows the military inside out having served in the institution and rising to become its Commander-in-Chief in 1983.

    That was buhari’s first coming as head of state and for 18 months before his ouster by his army chief, then Maj Gen Ibrahim Babanginda, Nigerians saw what he could do. His 18-month tenure as military  head of state was his defining moment and it marked the beginning of his lasting romance with the people. As head of state, he provided purposeful leadership even though he was dictatorial. What I still don’t understand is why will a former military leader command such large political followership some 30 years after leaving office.

    What this says is whether a military or civilian leader, the people are less concerned as long as their expectations are met. Beyond being tired of the immediate past government, Buhari’s clean record also accounted majorly for the people’s choice of the All Progressives Congress (APC) in the last elections. So, they were expecting him to move at the speed of light just as he did as military leader. He has chosen to be slow and steady.

    It’s been about a month since he fired Badeh, the Service chiefs – Lt Gen Kenneth Mininah (army),  Admiral Usman Jibrin (navy), Air Vice Marshal SolBadeh does not cut the image of the straight ram rod soldier that we know of. You cannot see hm in mufti and ever think that he is a soldier, but he ended up being our CDS, courtesy of former Presdent Goodluck Jonathan. We cannot blame Jonathan for making him CDS, we should blame Badeh for not rising to his office. Following his appointment in January 2014, he vowed that by April, Boko Haram would have been history. He did not deliver on his promise until he left office.

    When he was making that promise did he  not take stock of his weapons? Or did he speak without knowing what he had in his armoury? You do not fight a war with mouth, you do so with arms and ammunition. Now he is telling us that he vowed to rout Boko Haram with bare hands. Is that a serious CDS? Badeh was a disaster of a CDS. He was just talk, talk and talk; no action. I am not surprised that he still does that in retirement. The man simply enjoys listening to his voice. The problem is that he does not know when to stop.

    This is why today he is indicting himself with his own mouth. That shows you how brilliant an officer he is. Is it not the same Badeh who is today lamenting the state of the military that was praising Jonathan for equipping the military? Where are the equipment today? If the military had no equipment, as he said, with what did he want his troops to fight Boko Haram?  We now know why some soldiers refused to face the insurgents.  Do you fight a well equipped group like Boko Haram with your hands? Why was Borno State Governor Kashim Shettima crucified by Badeh and other officers when he said Boko Haram is better equipped than the military?

    Has Badeh not today confirmed Shettima’s statement? Why didn’t he speak up then? Why is he doing so now? Is it because he was fired? Did he expect that he would be CDS for life? Our leaders don’t have the fear of God. If they do, some of them will not behave the way they do as if there is no tomorrow. Badeh who yesterday was court martialling some officers and soldiers for fleeing from fighting Boko Haram  is today unwittingly justifying those men’s action with his statement. What allocutus (mitigation of sentence plea) could be better than this? Even going by what he said should the men have been tried in the first place?

    Badeh was CDS of a kind? When the Chibok school girls were abducted in April last year, he felt unconcerned. When his Vintim hometown in Adamawa State was overrun by Boko Haram, he saw nothing bad in that. To him, it could have, as well, been an attack on the village of any other Nigerian. The insurgents’ action was lost on him – that the attack was a message to Nigerians that even their highest security chief can be got. Yet, Badeh treated the matter lightly. His offhanded dismissal of the attack gave Boko Haram the fillip to overrun many places in the Northeast then and hoist its flag in these ‘conquered’ territories.

    If that is not an offence, I wonder what is. Shouldn’t Badeh be court martialled for this and related issues?

  • Nigeria’s fundamental problem

    I cannot help returning repeatedly to the fundamental problem of Nigeria. The reason is that without finding a reasonably broadly acceptable solution to it, we are not likely ever to make Nigeria a stable country. This fundamental problem is not peculiar to Nigeria; it is common to virtually all Black African countries. And it is because no Black African country has found a broadly acceptable solution to it that virtually all Black African countries are forever going through turmoil and conflicts. And the reason no African country has found a solution to it is that African leaders, in general, do not accept fact as fact concerning this problem and deal with it as reasonable humans.

    This fundamental problem is that Black Africa is peculiarly a land of mostly very small nationalities. Even at today’s population levels (after a century of rapid population growths), almost all of the sub-continent of Black Africa is still home to very small nationalities.  Its largest nationalities are the three that live in the West Africa sub-region, namely the three giants of Nigeria (Yoruba, Hausa-Fulani and Igbo, each of which is estimated at about between 35 and 50 million).

    After these three, the few that are next in population size are much smaller, ranging roughly between 11 million and 18 million. These include the Nguni of the Union of South Africa (consisting of many small loosely related linguistic groups), the Ijaw of the Nigerian Niger Delta (also consisting of many small loosely related linguistic groups), the Bakongo of the Congo basin (now split between Congo Kinshasa, Angola, Central African Republic and Congo Brazzaville), the Akhan  (in the Republic of Ghana) , the Fula spread thinly over much of the West African Sudan and Sahel,  the Shona of Zimbabwe, the Somali of the Horn of Africa, and the Amhara and Oromo of Ethiopia.

    The next ones below these are also few and much smaller.  Each of them is estimated at between five and nine million in population.  They include the Sotho of the Union of South Africa, the Kikuyu of Kenya, the Ewe of Ghana, the Kanuri and related peoples, as well as the Edo and related peoples, of Nigeria.

    The rest of the sub-continent is shared among thousands of very small nationalities. Some have populations in the range of a couple of millions. Of the overwhelming majority, each has much less than that – many having populations of only a few tens of thousands.

    With this minute ethno-linguistic fragmentation of the Black African sub-continent, every Black African country of our times, including the two (Liberia and Ethiopia) that are not creations of modern European colonialism, comprises tens of nationalities. Nigeria, the largest in population, with some 170 million people, has over 300 nationalities – of which the three largest share about 130 million.  Clearly over 100 of Nigerian nationalities have populations of only a few hundred thousand or less each. Nigeria’s immediate western neighbor, the small Republic of Benin with a population of about eight million, is home to about 40 nationalities – a condition about typical of most Black African countries.  Tanzania, with a population of about 38 million people, has about 120 ethnic groups.

    Therefore, no matter what form Black Africa’s entry into the world of the 20th century  would have taken, this fundamental problem would have been indeed a difficult reality to handle – since most countries would have needed to contain many nationalities. But, in fact, and unfortunately, Black Africa’s entry into the world of the 20th century actually took perhaps the worst form imaginable in the circumstance. It took the form of conquest, control and direction by European imperialists who had no respect whatsoever for Black African peoples. In the process, the European imperialists compounded and confounded Black Africa’s fundamental problem.They twisted and mangled this problem so much that it became a hideous monster, which, after independence in Africa, has been generating a massive and tenacious nightmare for all countries, and all peoples, of Black Africa. Approaching African peoples with deep disrespect, the European creators of our modern countries simply trampled down our various nationalities, cut boundaries through the homelands of countless nationalities, and created new countries in such ways as to make room for little or no likelihood of cohesion or stability immediately or in any future.

    To convey some picture of the sordid disrespect with which Europeans created our countries, I hereby quote two passages from those who created our countries. In 1884-5, representatives of leading European countries met in Berlin in Germany to share Africa among them. One of those representatives wrote later: “We have been engaged in drawing lines on maps where no white man’s foot has ever trod; we have been giving away mountains and rivers and lakes to each other, only hindered by the small impediment that we have never known where the rivers and lakes and mountains were”. One British official who took part in creating the boundaries of Nigeria wrote later:”In those days, we just took a blue pencil and ruler, and we put it down at Old Calabar, and drew that blue line to Yola. I recollect thinking when I was sitting having an audience with the Emir (of Yola) surrounded by his tribe, that it was a very good thing that he did not know that I, with a blue pencil, had drawn a line through his territory”.

    That is the ignorant, disrespectful and shoddy manner in which our country, Nigeria, was created – and in which all other countries of Black Africa were created. That is the ignorant and disrespectful manner in which the internal boundaries of our Nigeria were created. When we feel like making noises about our Nigeria or about our North, or whatever, we needto remind ourselves of these sorry pictures. Starkly put, our country and its colonial internal boundaries are one package of ignorant and presumptuous errors. They are a package of wounds that still pain many of our nationalities.

    This does not mean, of course, that Nigeria is impossible to keep together and to build into a successful country. What it does mean, however, is that those who manage the affairs of Nigeria must keep consciously aware of the fundamental realities of the country we call Nigeria. It means that we must consciously nurture a culture of respect of every nationality, large or small. It means that we must be committed to a true federation, and to a federal structure and order based on respect for our nationalities. With these, we can make success of Nigeria; without them, we cannot.

    This is the wisdom that Elliot P. Skinner imparted when he wrote, “African countries will continue to be racked by conflicts unless leaders agree about how to govern their multi-faceted nation-states and how to distribute their economic resources equitably. Without compromise that would ensure “ethnic justice”, neither so-called “liberal democracy” nor any other species of government will succeed in Africa”.

    In short, no matter what else we do, we must provide a broadly acceptable solution to the fundamental problems of our ethnic national diversity – a solution acceptable to our various nationalities – before we can make a success of Nigeria. Asking us Nigerians to think of ourselves as Nigerians only and cease thinking of ourselves as Yoruba, Ijaw, Hausa, Ibibio, Igbo, Kanuri, etc, is no more than a piece of ridiculous childishness. We are what we are. Wisdom demands that we should make our country harmonize with that.

  • Saraki’s Senate as offshoot of Mark’s

    The morning shows the day. I suppose by now it is an open secret that the current Saraki/Ekweremadu’s 8th Senate is an offshoot of Mark/Ekwerenmadus’s 7th Senate, adjudged by many including the highly respected Economist of London as ‘the most expensive senate in the world’ which concentrated attention on the welfare of its members while the executive ran the nation and its economy aground.  We need no further confirmation than Ekweremadu’s sickening revelation that the June 9 treachery and opportunism were packaged by leading members of PDP and executed right inside the sitting room of David Mark. Next was the confession of the Senate President that he hid inside a small car from 6 am till 10 am when he walked into the Upper chamber where 49 PDP and about seven APC senators adopted him senate president while 51 of his APC colleagues were at another venue for a meeting with the president . This was an improvement on an old PDP strategy adopted for the botched attempt at impeaching Tambuwal who was prevented from entering the National Assembly along with his colleagues who had to scale the gate to prevent the already seated PDP lawmakers from executing their plan. And lastly the series of bizarre developments in the upper house last week has further confirmed where Saraki’s loyalty resides and the gods he worships.

    The senate president who had earlier denied his party the right to choose its leaders in the upper house in accordance with its 16 years old convention, did not only allow PDP to nominate its minority leader, he bent the rules that precluded green horn senators from holding such positions in order to accommodate former Akwa Ibom governor, now Senator Godswill Akpabio, his pillar of support in his war against his party. And as if to spite President Buhari who had after their party’s meeting directed that party supremacy should be respected, a number of APC senators, probably in anticipation of lucrative committee chairmanship positions, joined their PDP counterparts to pass a vote of confidence on Saraki and Ekweremadu and their actions to date. The motion was moved by a PDP member on the floor of the chambers. And finally, long after the senate president’s wife who was drilled by EFCC over some alleged contracts deals had “reaffirmed her willingness to assist the EFCC and expects that the spirit of this enquiry will follow the global standards and principles of open democracy, transparency and impartially”, Saraki’s senate decided that their most pressing duty was a motion warning EFCC to desist from harassing the wives of senators. And if unknown to us, the ‘Saraki like mind senators’ have agreed to embark on a crusade to defend the people against EFCC harassment, they will still not escape public resentment for failing to pass a resolution or accompany ex governors  and others that have kept dates with the organization in recent weeks.

    From these bizarre events, it is now apparent that despite blackmail by Saraki and Ekweremadu’s powerful supporters and their media, the fears of the majority of the members of APC oligarchy about Saraki’s capacity to successfully anchor the change Nigerian voted for on March 28 have not been misplaced.  And Nigerians who massively voted for change can now make a distinction between Saraki and his PDP supporters who want to continue business as usual and President Buhari, a man of honour and integrity;   Tinubu, a political genius and a Yoruba leader trusted by his people, Oyegun, a perfect gentleman; Audu Ogbe, a man of principle who remains the only past PDP chairman not enmeshed in financial scandal;  Amaechi, a leader who will always call a spade by its proper name,  and Tony Momoh, a man who will stand by what he believes in. Nigerians have faith in these great Nigerians.

    It is for this reason they must not be afraid to change the course of our history by confronting the twin evils of treachery and opportunism that have bedevilled our nation since 1962 when an illegal state of emergency was declared in the West and Dr. Majekodunmi, Tafawa Balewa’s friend and personal physician was appointed as administrator of the West to upstage Alhaji Soroye Adegbenro, the legally appointed premier. The argument then was that Yoruba should allow peace to reign since Majekodunmi was also another Egba man. The 1965 violence and ‘operation wet e’ had its root in 1962.

    In 1966, a military coup wiped out the warring politicians and the most senior military officers. The purge was sectional in conception and execution. Ironsi who inexplicably escaped the military purge suppressed the military insurgency but insisted on being made head of state as a precondition for his protection of the surviving ministers. The nation tolerated the opportunism. Ironsi carried on business as usual turning a blind eye at those who carried out sectional killings of military and political leaders. The pogroms of July 1966 stemmed from January 1966 opportunism.

    As it was in 1962 and 1966, so it was in 1993 when Babangida annulled the most credible election in our nation’s history won by MKO Abiola.  Babangida reached out for an Ernest Shonekan, another Egba, and man to upstage MKO Abiola. Those holding our nation to ransom then as today saw nothing wrong with Shonekan’s opportunism. But in less than six months, the court dismantled Babangida illegal contraption paving the way for the emergence of Abacha.  Abacha’s five years brutal war against Nigerians stemmed from 1993 Shonekan’s opportunism

    This is the time to break the vicious cycle of the twin evils of treachery and opportunism that have bedevilled our federation since independence. Buhari and APC can do without those opportunistic senators who have opted to join PDP to continue business as usual. It is obvious these traders care less about Nigerians.

    One of other reason APC has nothing to fear is because there is not going to be much to share since with Buhari  stealing government funds will be regarded as corruption.  What brought those who have turned the upper house into a trading ground will ultimately put them asunder. It was the crisis over sharing among PDP members during the fraudulent privatization programme that sparked off accusation and counter-accusation of who was more corrupt between President Obasanjo, and Vice President Atiku Abubakar.  Saraki himself was the whistle blower over the fuel subsidy scam. It was PDP that in turn informed Nigerians that Joy Oil, the company in which Saraki allegedly had interest also benefitted from the fuel subsidy fraud. And finally it was Kwara PDP leadership that claimed responsibility for writing the petition that led to Mrs. Toyin Saraki’s current travails. And while commending “the EFCC for its resourcefulness and painstakingness’, PDP Kwara also congratulated itself saying “We are particularly delighted that our painstaking efforts at chronicling the monumental heist that defined the eight years, almost uneventful rule of former Governor Bukola Saraki in Kwara, has not gone unnoticed.” The weeks ahead hold surprises for those who have held the nation down for so long. All the nation needs from President Buhari and his APC is leadership.

  • Beasts of no gender

    To be a ‘modern’ feminist, if not a defect, is at least a fetish; like porn. The ‘modern’ feminist is that woman who dulls down to an artificially created set of sexual-political sensibilities, in order to satisfy her emotional lust for being perpetually ‘oppressed.’

    Like porn addicts, paedophiles, rapists and racists, such woman is an emotion junkie – infinitely handicapped yet propelled by her lust for unearned benefits. And when she seems truly deserving of sought benefits, gluttony and wile pervert her claims until her agitation attains the tenor of a ruckus, much like the ghastly cries of feral cats jostling for the largest chunk of carrion flesh.

    To do pioneer American feminists justice, many of them have publicly repudiated the ideas they once held: Betty Friedan now talks of the importance of the family. Judy Goldsmith (former president of NOW) deplores the feminization of poverty due to easy divorce laws, and Susan Brownmiller, author of Against Our Will: Men, Women and Rape, laments the effects of sexual liberation and the feminist adoption of the lesbian cause: “We tried to make people proud of who they were” says Brownmiller, “…but then the sadomasochists came out of the closet and became proud of themselves.”

    Unfortunately, Nigerian feminists, always five leap years behind the American sisterhood, have not seen the light yet and attempt to pervert State and Federal policies even as they lay to waste, the traditional family. Feminists, without doubt, should not enjoy the natural ‘privilege’ of having children. They are taking care of that anyway – as you read; the “Free the Nigerian Woman” movement is working assiduously to achieve total liberation from patriarchal fetters for the Nigerian woman and girl-child.

    However, like their foreign feminist heroes, the feminism they propagate presupposes and necessitates male blame. It espouses man-hating as an intrinsic part of its modus operandi thus institutionalizing misandry as a central tenet of its crusade. Although, many a Nigerian feminist will contend that “the feminism we espouse does not require man-hating, we simply choose to liberate the Nigerian woman from servitude and patriarchal dominion…”; reality tells differently. Feminism cannot exist without man-hating and that is the cold-hard truth.

    Blaming socialization for women’s predicament constitutes the worst of feminist claptrap.

    The socialization-learned roles-sex stereotyping feminist argument to excuse feminists’ claim to  perpetual victimhood has no basis in fact. If social forces and upbringing have such a profound effect and influence on women’s choices then they must also have a profound effect and influence on men’s choices – if considered within the feminist parameters that both male and female gender are created as equals. This means that nobody, anywhere, under any circumstances, is capable of making a ‘free choice.’

    The concept is arrant nonsense; if it had any validity then none of us could be held morally or personally responsible for the consequences of our actions. Picture a society that operates by this belief system: thousands of men locked up in prisons could use the same defense for shooting, robbing, raping, drug dealing and so on. Why not argue for example, that the culture of masculinity, a background of poverty, and a materialistic and religiously intolerant family  makes them behave in anti-social ways? Individual men are held responsible for their decisions and actions, so how can feminists legitimately claim that women should be exempt from personal responsibility?

    Misandry and demonization of men, has devalued men’s worth to the extent that it has made society blasé about the disposability of men and the boy-child. This is responsible, for example, for the shocking bias in the lack of attention to men and boys’ health in general while the mass media and health advocacy groups perpetually obsess about women’s health and the girl-child’s.

    The idiocy of this mindset is that while girls are badgered with crucial health information even before puberty, boys, with whom they engage in random acts of sexual misdemeanor and experimentation are virtually ignored.

    The cultural and institutional misandry perpetuated by the feminist aggravates the destruction of the family system and denies the boy-child the comfort of an external role model especially when he has to seek outside his family for his role models.

    This is one reason boys are perpetually in trouble; due to the lack of positive male role models in their lives, they would get what they could from TV, violent films and video games. All they need is someone whose exemplary footsteps they could follow but the society provides them only men they could dumb down to.

    A recent analysis of 2, 000 mass media portrayals of men and male identities, found that men were depicted mostly as villains, aggressors, perverts, and philanderers. From this stock-pile of anti-heroes, the boy-child is expected to navigate for a good male identity. Promoting the image of men as juvenile, mean and stupid is cynical and exploitative; which makes the tide of inverse sexism that has swamped out television screens for instance, even more appalling.

    In modern Nigeria, boys and young men have a dire lack of good role models; especially if they are raised in a single-parent home, as one in eight children now are. The situation is worsened by the lack of positive role models in government, and the perpetuation of overwhelmingly negative images of men by the media and feminist scholarly research. Ultimately such portrayals lead to negative social costs for society in areas such as male health, rising suicide rates and family disintegration.

    Women need to be thought of as ‘victims.’ Without the banner of victimhood to rally around, feminist coffers would run dry, career feminists would be unemployed and mortgages would go unpaid. Hence thousands of professional feminists can’t just declare victory and go home, because without the feminist movement they would have no homes to go to; they would have no jobs, no families and no job prospects. And neither would they have a platform from which to pound their ideological drum.

    The irony of feminism’s ‘forever feminism’ is that the sense of perpetual victimhood precludes the concept that the members of the victimized group, women, could actually rise above their assigned position in society and meet that society, and be part of that society, on equal terms. To do that would mean taking personal responsibility for their choices and the condition of their own lives. Instead, feminism has designed an ideological crutch to serve as the average woman impediment to self-actualization.

    Feminism has gained a monopoly on the subject of gender studies.  Men don’t have a gender identity anymore, only women have a gender identity and an intrinsic value to society and this sentiment is perpetuated by carefully articulated propaganda and research.  The concept of authoritative, strong, independent, passionate and intelligent manhood is persistently repudiated except it exists to serve the feminist cause. So when a young boy reaches the age where it’s appropriate for him to be initiated into manhood, we find the whole idea of “reaching manhood” laughable.

    On the flipside, a new womanhood is fast evolving. Stripped of its swathe of fortune and status symbols, it reveals a kind of corpse in future argument with itself, a dead voice hollering and bearing witness to its own achievement, passionate in self-love and incest with its past.

  • In gay they trust

    AMERICA is a country of contradictions. It is a country that you cannot really place when it comes to certain issues. The United States (U.S) means well for the world, speaking in terms of peace and defence of human rights. These are issue that are dear to this global cop. It watches over the world to ensure that countries follow the straight path, while it does not always take that path. When it pleases America, it throws the rule book away and bares its fangs to show its might.

    America is the global cop because it answers to no other country; it plays by its own rules, whether the world likes it or not. When America wants to show that it is America, it does the unthinkable, leaving the world wondering what the Yankees are up to. It does not do that because it wants to dare the world; it does it because it believes that it is all for the expansion of the people’s right to exercise their God given freedom to be what they want to be.

    But truth be told, it crosses the limit of human freedom in its quest to expand the people’s freedom to belong; to do whatever catches their fancy, no matter how weird or immoral. America does not condone immorality. It holds the marriage institution sacrosanct. This is why it does not look kindly at its philandering leaders. They are made to stew in their own juice – a philanderer can never last in American politics. He is sooner shown the way out of office before he knows it.

    If America is so concerned about family life, does it not follow that it will uphold the God ordained way of building a family, which is  through marriage between man and woman? There are no two ways to building a family and there will never be. God, according to scripture knew us before He created us. He knew our needs; he knew that man cannot exist without a woman and vice versa. So, He created woman to complement man. And the amazing thing is that He created woman from the rib of man.  ”He who finds a wife finds a good thing”, says the Bible. A wife as we all know is a woman. A man, no matter how much he disguises himself as a woman as former Bayelsa State Governor Diepreye Alamieyeseigha did in order to escape from London about 10 years ago, cannot assume that role.

    If this is the case, can a man morally, socially and legally speaking marry a man? God frowns at the act and so it is a taboo for a man to take a man as wife. We cannot rewrite the law of nature by legislating on an abominable act like this. There is no law that can confer legality on an act for which  the Creator destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah. It was for this indecent act that He  wiped out a generation. If today humanity cannot learn from that then it will never learn from anything.

    Man cannot under the guise of civilisation go against God’s will. Any one that does that will end up destroying himself – and with his own hands too. Why will a man marry man? Is it for the want of women? Women abound everywhere. All a man needs do is to search well and he will get the flesh of his flesh. This is the path laid down by the almighty for man. If man decides to deviate from that path then he should be ready to pay the price. The U.S. has chosen the way it wishes to go on this matter. Its Supreme Court has approved what the world now refers to as same sex marriage.

    What the U.S. judges, in their wisdom, have done is to overrule God’s decision that a man cannot marry a man. Now in the U.S a man can marry a man and a woman can marry a woman if the parties so wish. Homosexuality is everywhere in the world, but those who practice it do so in hiding. In many parts of the world, gays and lesbians do not come out in public to profess their homosexuality because it is a thing of shame. Families with homosexuals keep the secret to themselves. They hide it from outsiders because it is not something to be proud of that either our son or daughter is an homosexual.

    The U.S can do whatever it likes with itself on this and other issues. If it feels that homosexuality is something to be proud of, that is its choice. But is there no contradiction in what it is doing considering that it refers to itself as God’s own country? Its motto is : ”In God we trust”. Can the U.S trust in God and be doing what is contrary to the will of God? That is food for thought for America. We are concerned here that it tried to sell the same sex marriage deal to President Muhammadu Buhari during his visit there a few days ago.

    As powerful as the U.S is there is a limit to how it can impose its will on other countries on certain matters. On the same sex marriage issue, the U.S knows too well that there is nothing it can do if other countries do not wish to go that way. In Nigeria, it is a sin for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry a woman. Our civilisation has not reached that stage. We are a civilised people but there are certain things which our civilisation cannot undo and same sex marriage is one of such things. This is why homosexuals ply their trade under cover here. That homosexual has not been born that will come out in public and parade himself as such.

    If he does that his family tree
    will be traced in order to as
    certain if madness runs there. People will simply look at such person as mad and dismiss him with a wave of the hand. The question that has been agitating my mind is are homosexuals born or do they become homosexuals by choice? Whatever it may be, it is a ‘detestable” practice as the Bible says. So, every sane man must refrain from it the same way as our president declared to his American counterpart, President Barrack Obama, that there is no room for the legalisation of same sex marriage here. Why will Nigeria legalise the practice when the Bible warns :

    ”Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable. Do not defile yourselves in this way, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. For all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. And if  you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited the nations that were before you”.  With this biblical injunction, need we say more on this matter? America should live with the choice it has made and let us live with our own choice too.

  • Buhari’s visit to Washington

    Buhari’s visit to Washington

    Last week, President Muhammadu Buhari concluded a four-day official visit to Washington at the invitation of President Barack Obama. The official visit, the first in recent years by a Nigerian leader, was hailed by the Nigerian media as a huge success. The day after the visit, the World Bank (IFC) announced a soft loan of US2.1billion to Nigeria for the reconstruction of the war ravaged Northeast of Nigeria. The timing of the WB loan was politically-significant, as it was probably already in the pipeline before the president’s visit to Washington. The high point of the visit was the private discussion between the two leaders, which focused on global terrorism (Boko Haram) and the widespread public corruption in Nigeria, over which there is much global concern. President Buhari also addressed the US business community in Washington, as well as some of the over 300,000 Nigerians in diaspora in the US.

    Expectations here about the possible benefits of the visit are quite high. The Nigerian public is upbeat that President Buhari’s visit to Washington will mark a turning point in bilateral relations between the US and Nigeria. President Obama promised that the US will assist Nigeria recover its stolen money laundered in the US. But in Washington there was probably less euphoria about the possible outcome of the visit. While American diplomats in Nigeria and a lot of American scholars have been profuse in their expression of goodwill and friendship towards Nigeria, it is by no means certain how much of this feeling is shared by the American establishment that has grown weary of Nigeria’s serial failure. President Obama has visited some African countries. but to show his displeasure, he has not yet visited Nigeria, the largest economy in Africa. In recent years, relations between the two countries have been somewhat strained over a variety of issues. US officials have publicly rebuked Nigeria for the alleged human rights abuses by the Nigerian military in the fight against the Boko Haram insurgents. Pleading a Congressional law against countries with a record of human rights abuses, the Obama government has refused arms supplies and sale to Nigeria. From the Nigerian perspective, this has made the prosecution of the war against the insurgency more difficult. Supply of American attack helicopters to Nigeria is vital for the success of the war against the insurgency. The US has withheld this. President Buhari has promised to address this American complaint regarding human rights abuses in Nigeria.

      Of course, the Nigerian military and security forces should be more professional and humane in their military offensive against the BH insurgents, despite the latter’s savagery. There is some evidence that the Nigerian military have often been brutal in dealing with non-combatants in the war, detaining and even shooting some unarmed civilians. This is wrong. It is bound to be counterproductive as it alienates the local civilian population and drives them into the arms of the BH insurgents. However, it is, perhaps, necessary to remind the US about the savage manner its armed forces conducted its war in Vietnam, which stirred the conscience of the world. There has also been international concern over the inhumane manner detainees in the US military base in Guantanamo in Cuba are being treated. Nor is Israel, America’s strategic ally in the Middle East, being denied US arms supplies despite the savagery of the Israeli Defence Forces in its past military operations in Palestine and Lebanon. The Jonathan government responded to these double standards by actually asking the US to withdraw its military training team from Nigeria, a rebuff which the US resented deeply. By the time the Jonathan PDP government was ousted from power in May, military collaboration between the two countries had virtually ceased.

     In addition, persistent and strong condemnation by the Obama US government of widespread and increasing corruption in Nigeria, though justified, was openly resented by the Jonathan PDP government as undermining its moral authority in Nigeria. The US played no role in the defeat of Jonathan in the presidential election, but there can be little or no doubt that it was happy to see that government go. Under Jonathan, relations with the US were so strained that only a new government could repair the damage. The situation presents the Buhari government and the Obama US administration with new opportunities to take the first tentative steps towards normalising relations between their two countries.

      However, there is no point in being starry eyed about bilateral relations between the US and Nigeria. The situation calls for a measure of realism on both sides. Over the years, relations between the two countries have moved like a roller coaster, with periods of cordiality between them, followed quickly by short spells of policy differences and open hostility. On the Nigerian side, the refusal of the US to sell arms to Nigeria during its civil war was considered an unfriendly act by a country that Nigeria considered a friend and ally. In fact, President Nixon had to be restrained by the Harold Wilson British Labour government from recognising the secessionist state. This created a deep mistrust in Nigeria about the attitude of the US towards Nigeria. Then, again in 1975, or thereabouts, after the hurried withdrawal of Portugal from Angola, the Nigerian military leaders were irritated by the diplomatic but ungainly pressure by the US on Nigeria to recognise the Western backed FLNA movement as the new government in Angola, instead of the MPLA, which was backed by the progressive African states. In response, the Nigerian military leader, Murtala Mohammed, warned the US that ‘Africa has come of age’ and should not be dictated to by foreign powers. This rebuff, and the nationalisation of British Petroleum holdings in Nigeria in 1976 by the Obasanjo military regime, angered the US and removed any illusions it may have had that, if necessary, Nigeria would not hesitate to oppose US policy in Africa and act in its own perceived national interest. One American analyst described Nigeria’s response to the post-colonial situation in Africa as ‘muscular’, a remark which shows a misunderstanding of Nigeria’s African policy, particularly on the process of decolonisation in Africa. Very few American policy makers really understand that, in spite of its internal contradictions, Nigeria is fiercely independent, that it does not like being treated as a ‘client state’, and is resentful of any heavy-handed external pressures.

     In addition, the US has not been consistent in its opposition to military rule in Nigeria.  It tended initially to maintain an attitude of benign indifference to military regimes in Nigeria, but it limited military assistance to Nigeria to training its ECOWAS forces in Liberia and Sierra Leone. In 2003, total US military assistance to Nigeria was only US$7m. It was only in recent years, after the excesses of the brutal Abacha military regime in Nigeria, and the return to civil rule, that relations with the US began to improve. The US began to accept that its overarching national interest in Nigeria and, indeed, Africa, is in promoting democracy, and offering support for the development of physical and social infrastructure in Nigeria. It provided annually some $7 million to pro-democracy organisations in Nigeria during the Abacha regime to strengthen the struggle against military rule in Nigeria. America’s hope is that stronger Nigeria-US relations would impact more positively on the growth of democracy, stability, and prosperity in Africa. In this regard, there is a mutuality of interests between the two countries which, in recent years, and from the perspectives of the US, has been brought to the fore by the increasing role and expansion of Chinese influence in Africa. The US is concerned about this development which has the potential of reducing America’s considerable political, strategic, and economic power in Africa. It is in this light that recent renewed US interest in Nigeria and Africa should be viewed.

     As far as bilateral economic relations are concerned, the US, under President Bush, gave Nigeria considerable financial assistance to fight the HIV/AID scourge, including a substantial financial grant in 2003. The US financial contribution made a substantial difference to the success of reducing HIV/AIDS prevalence in Nigeria. There is also the US sponsored African Growth Opportunity Act (AGOA) which is supposed to promote African exports to the US market. In 2000, Nigeria was among the top 10 exporters to US. But this programme has not made much economic impact in Nigeria as, under AGOA, African exporters are still constrained by quantitative and qualitative restrictions. The US has virtually ceased to import oil from Nigeria. It is now a major oil producer and exporter. China and India have replaced the US as the largest oil importers from Nigeria. Nigeria is also one of the largest importers of wheat from the US. President Obama has committed his government to assisting Nigeria and other African countries with solar energy, badly needed, particularly in Northern Nigeria where electricity supply is much lower than the national average. But Nigeria cannot expect from the US any significant financial assistance. ODA flows from the US to Nigeria have averaged annually less than US$100m in the last decade. Before then, it was even lower, averaging less than US$30m. In contrast, ODA from the UK in 2006 was US$1,031m as against the ODA from the US of only US$167. ODA from the EU in the period was US$248m.

    It is important for the two countries to strengthen their bilateral relations in areas where they can both identify a mutuality of interests, such as in security and economic cooperation. But while the US can make a contribution towards securing the much-needed change in Nigeria, it is the responsibility of Nigerian leaders to take the initiative by introducing domestic measures that will propel the country forward and redirect Nigeria’s economic strategy and development in a more progressive way, The US, on its own efforts alone, cannot secure Nigeria. It cannot end corruption here. This is the responsibility of Nigerian leaders.

  • Like Fayose, like Wike

    Like Fayose, like Wike

    Governors Ayodele Fayose of Ekiti and Nyesom Wike of Rivers are two of a kind. They share some parallels. Both are men greatly admired by ex-President Goodluck Jonathan and his wife.  For the former, Jonathan was prepared to risk everything including honour and his presidency. Leaving nothing to chance during Fayose’s gubernatorial battle in June 2014, he deployed his Minister for Police Affairs Jelili Adesiyan, junior Minister of Defence, Musliu Obanikoro and Brigadier General Aliu Momoh  to lead a contingent of 12,000 mobile police men, 15,000 NSCDC personnel, 26 sniffer dogs, two aircraft at a time the nation lacked resources to confront Boko Haram that had seized a sizable portion of our territory and holding about 300 school girls abducted from their dormitories in captivity.  Fayose went on to secure a landslide victory through what is today known as ‘Ekiti-gate’, defeating Fayemi, the high achieving incumbent in all the 16 LGAs of the state. For the latter, in an election marred by violence, supporters of Patience Jonathan, some of whom once described her as ‘messiah’, ensured he won by a wide margin of 1,029,102 votes to Dr  Dakuku Petersides’s measly 124,896 votes to secure a victory now being hotly contested at the election tribunal in Abuja. In return, the duo loves the ex-president and his wife in equal measure. They could follow Jonathan and his wife into battle blind-folded.  For Jonathan’s March 28 failed re-election bid, Fayose fought without grace. He was like the proverbial stubborn fly that follows the corpse to the grave. He was ready to sink with Jonathan. And for Wike, fighting Jonathan’s personal wars was a greater honour than serving the nation. As Minister of Education, while universities and polytechnics went on strike for close to a year, he was able to create time to be in Port Harcourt every weekend mobilizing thugs and ex-militants to, as he put it ‘ensure the president was not disgraced in South-south’. And he delivered on his promise.  Of the 1,584,768 total votes cast, Jonathan secured 1,487.075 to Buhari’s paltry 69,238 in Rivers.

    Both Fayemi and Amaechi set high standards in the delivery of the dividends of democracy.  And since Fayose and Wike who effortlessly secured landslide victories without agenda have very little to offer in terms of clear policy perspective, their common strategy was to start attacking the integrity of their predecessors in office right from the inauguration ground. Fayose first claimed the “N3.3bn new Government House is Fayemi’s show of wickedness to Ekiti people,” He further claimed the facilities in the lodge which he described as “out-of-this-world luxury” were provided for Fayemi, his wife and children. He also alleged “what was spent on their bedrooms, toilets and bathrooms will be in the region of N100m”.

    But in a live interview monitored in Ado-Ekiti the Thursday after his inauguration, Fayose invited all, the Islamic and Christian prophets in Ekiti, for the cleansing of the Government House. At another thanksgiving service held at the Ado Ekiti Central Mosque the following day, he informed the congregation “I am for the masses. I’m not in a hurry to go to the Government House. Those who want to go there can go there and enjoy themselves; how will governor put electricity in his house and the whole town is in darkness?” Fayose was not done. “Shouldn’t such funds expended on the hilltop edifice have been used to resuscitate the moribund textile factory in Ado-Ekiti that was turned to lock-up shops to provide employment for our teeming youths?” He had asked his audience.

     Like Fayose, like Wike. The only difference was while Fayose’s tantrums was about the alleged N3.4billion his predecessor spent in building a new governors lodge, Wike’s antics was about the vandalized Rivers State Governors Lodge. While addressing his congregation during a post inauguration thanksgiving service on Sunday, May 31, he said: “As I speak with you, everything has been vandalized. I will not enter the Government House in the next two or three months. There is no vehicle in Government House, not even one”. He continued “all the bullet-proof doors, furniture, crested carpets, curtains and windows had been stolen by the former administration”. The following day, Wike took some selected journalists and some PDP stalwarts including national chairman, Prince Uche Secondus; former deputy governor of the state, Engr. Tele Ikuru; former Minister of Sports, Dr. Tammy Danagogo the state chairman of PDP, Chief Felix Obuah, among others to the residential quarters, offices and the banquet hall where key furniture, television sets and electrical accessories had been vandalized.  Chief Felix Amaechi Obuah soon followed with a statement which “unequivocally condemns such childish and criminal action of former Governor, Amaechi”.  Then the Rivers State Police Command issued a statement claiming the recovery of three coaster buses, two 306 Peugeot, two hummer buses and one 306 Peugeot’ parked in a unauthorised yard’, which turned out to be mechanic garage.

    Reacting to Wike antics, Amaechi implored the Rivers people to ask Wike whether he was conversant with ‘what was in his former bedroom before now, to conclude that the bedroom was looted?’ or whether he spoke ‘with or review with the Permanent Secretary of Government House, who is the chief accounting officer’. And finally Amaechi wanted the Rivers people to know “that on Friday, May 29, Wike had barred some key officials of Government House, including civil servants from accessing the place. 48 hours later, he started shouting ‘vandalisation and looting’; I left the place intact. If there’s any vandalisation or looting in Government House after I left, Rivers people should ask Wike what happened.” It is Wike’s words against Amaechi’s. One thing that is not in doubt however is the fact that Rivers is home to many thugs and militants who often operate freely. And from the targets of various acts of violence before and during the election, it was clear Wike commands their loyalty.

    In the interim, Wike has secured N30 billion loan in 30 days. Asked to justify a policy of N1b a day by Wike’s administration, one of his top officials told Channel Television reporters something to the effect that, the governor should be praised for achieving so much within a month with the loan.… “This office when we moved in had nothing. Even the central carpet had been taken away…”

    I hope Fayose, who has been chasing Fayemi around the country for allegedly spending N3.4b to build a new government house knows he owes him an apology in the light of his ‘30 days governor N30b loan’ soul mate whose expressed reason for the huge loan is rehabilitation and furnishing vandalized government lodge. But Fayose has more to worry about. By October, he would have spent one year in office, enjoying the luxury including the N50m bed he had claimed Fayemi designed for the comfort of his family. ‘The moribund textile industries’ remain moribund. Ado Ekiti like other Ekiti towns remain in darkness while contrary to his undertaking, he has been sleeping in ‘governors house lit up with electricity.’

     To borrow Fayemi’s apt description of Fayose’s theatrics at the height of his persecution, the antics of Fayemi and Wike have been more of ‘comedy of errors and theatre of the absurd’.

  • Nigeria- Canada relations

    When Nigeria hosted the Commonwealth in 2004, there were series of events lined up culminating in the summit which was graciously declared open by Queen Elizabeth II. One of the events was a lecture on the evolution of the commonwealth by Professor Lalage Bown from the United Kingdom.

    At question time Ambassador Olisemeka, former Permanent Secretary and later Foreign Minister of Nigeria surprised some of us when he said the Commonwealth had no meaning or relevance to him simply because his son could not secure a student visa to go to Canada for university education.

    I studied for my Ph.D. in Canada at Dalhousie university between 1967 and 1970 . I was an Izaak Walton Killam Scholar, the equivalent of the British Rhodes scholarship which was highly sought after in those days. I was very young, having graduated at the age of 24 from the University of Ibadan. The commonwealth ties in those days were very strong to the effect that as a commonwealth citizen I did not need a visa to go to Canada.

    When I finished my studies,  Professor Jack Ogelsby from the University of Western Ontario came to Halifax, Nova Scotia to offer me a job and to file for what is called landed immigrant status for me so that I could legally work in Canada. Life was good in those days! After a year, I left to go to the University of the West Indies in Barbados, another commonwealth institution, after which my mother put pressure on me to return home.

    I came home as a friend of Britain, Canada and the West Indies, places where I had studied and worked. I was particularly fond of Canada. I was one of those who founded what we called the Maple Club of Nigeria bringing together Nigerians who studied in Canada. By stroke of luck or coincidence I was asked to go to Canada to open a Nigerian University Commission office in Ottawa in 1978 when Nigeria embarked on expansion of its universities. Furthermore I voted in the election that brought the mercurial and unconventional Pierre Trudeau to power as a young prime minister of Canada.

    In the late 1980s when I was special adviser to the minister of external affairs, I had occasion to meet Canadian prime ministers and foreign ministers like Jean Chretien and Joe Clark and as chairman of Nigerian-Canada Chamber of Commerce I hosted a few of their ministers when they visited Nigeria. Years later I helped register the Nigerian-Canada Chamber of Commerce and I was foundation chairman.

    My children, two of which were born in Canada in the 1970s, also went to University of Toronto, Dalhousie University and Ryerson University.

    I say all this to show how close my relationships have been with Canada. My personal story mirrors the warm relations that happily existed between Canada and Nigeria. The bitter interlude of the Abacha years when Canada took a principled stand against the brutal dictatorship of military rule did not do irreparable damage to the good diplomatic relations then existing between our two countries. Nigeria has always found Canada a good partner because Canada has no imperialistic tendencies in her relations with other countries and has always supported African aspirations during the struggle for decolonization and against institutionalized racism of the defunct apartheid regime in South Africa. Canada along with Nigeria, Australia, Guyana, Tanzania, Zimbabwe and Zambia constituted a commonwealth ministerial committee on apartheid and I remember the role of Mr Joe Clark the former prime minister who later became foreign minister played in putting economic pressure on South Africa between 1988 and 1991. I participated in these meetings held in Zimbabwe, Australia and Canada.

    Unfortunately for inexplicable reasons, our relations with Canada has apparently become merely tolerable if not hostile from the Canadian side. I say this because it takes approximately 54 days for a Nigerian to get a visa renewed to travel to Canada. Your passport remains with the Canadian visa office during which time you cannot go to any other country making one feel trapped! This has been my experience in these last 50 days and I find it galling that I am confined to my country through the activity of a friendly foreign mission. Yet any Canadian wanting to come to Nigeria gets his or her visa within three or four days. That is the instruction given to all Nigerian missions in countries of potential investors.

    Diplomacy operates on the principle of reciprocity. It seems that the Canadians are not playing by the rules of the game of international relations. In my case, I have a daughter and her family living there and grandchildren that I want to see. What harm can somebody of my age do to a country that has been good to me and my family? I understand that Nigeria is now a country with security concerns regarding the activities of the hoodlums in the north east but certainly a country like Canada can separate wheat from the tares!

    I appeal to the Canadian mission in Nigeria to review its visa regime and our government should step in and appeal to the Canadians to behave as a friendly nation we all know it to be.